History in the Making: Russian Invasion

Stalin's War goes into a lot of detail on the economic/production side of the equation, along with the diplomatic. I will just throw out a few tidbits that speak to points that were raised in the last page or so.

- Only 8-10% of Soviet industrial capacity was evacuated in 1941. Much of it was captured intact by the Germans, in some cases with the assistance of non-Russian Soviets: "(In Kharkov), Local Ukrainians had then exacted revenge on the departing Stalinist officials, who had ordered them to evacuate, by staying behind to disarm mines and explosives.... Many locals also turned over Soviet commissars and partisans to the Germans." (p.335)

- Raw materials were a huge need in the early phase of Lend-Lease: "...Soviet production of iron plunged by two-thirds from 1941 to 1942, steel and aluminum by 50 to 60 percent, and coal by more than half." (p.348) The US poured material into the Soviet Union, in spite of high demand at home: "Still more generous were the allotments fo American chemical, mineral, and metallic inputs for Stalin's war factories. These included monthly deliveries of armor plate (1,000 tons), sheet steel (8,000 tons), steel wire (7,000 tons), steel wire rope (1,200 tons), tool steel (500 tons), aluminum ingots (1,000 tons), duralumin (250 tons), tin (4,000 tons), tuloul (2,000 tons), ferro chrome (200 tons), ferro silicon (300 tons), rolled brass (5,000 tons), and copper tubes (300 tons). The first protocol stipulated that five hundred thousand tons of American goods would be shipped monthly until June 1942." (p.368)

- The shipping routes for Lend-Lease to the Soviet Arctic ports are well-known, but much was shipping to the Pacific port of Vladivostok, but the circumstances surrounding it give some significant insights into Stalin's mindset and ultimate objectives: "Shipping tanks, warplanes, trucks, and guns to Stalin via Vladivostok, after the Vozhd (Stalin) relented and authorized this in January 1942, was no picnic either. There was a rich irony in Stalin's reversal on the Pacific route. Before Pearl Harbor, when the Neutrality Act was in force, the waters around Vladivostok were not a war zone. Lend-lease shipments could have proceeded there without legal complications of danger of engagement by hostile navies. But Stalin ruled this out, demanding that Roosevelt sidestep the Neutrality Act and ship was supplies via the U-boat-infested waters of the North Atlantic and Arctic instead. Now that the United States was at war with Japan - a country scarcely five hundred miles from the Soviet Far East, with its home islands sitting squarely astride the principal sea lanes - the route to Vladivostok was a perilous as could possibly be imagined, an obvious war zone.That Stalin gave his blessing to this route now, after insisting on the more dangerous and legally dubious Arctic option when the Pacific had been safer and legal, suggests either that he actually wanted American capitalists to die at sea while supplying his armies, or that he was playing a wicked joke at Roosevelt's expense. On the other hand, Stalin may have known something about Japan that Roosevelt did not, owing to his April 1941 neutrality pact with Tokyo. It turned out that Japan's Pacific Fleet commanders  - keen to keep Stalin content, and not unhappy that the Americans were undermining their own war effort - took an indulgent view toward convoys heading for Vladivostok in 1942. Nor did anyone in the Japanese admiralty bother to humor Hitler's request that Japanese vessels block shipments of American war material to Stalin. When the Japanese Navy later stopped a few US merchant vessels in Japanese territorial waters, (Harry) Hopkins's lend-lease officials conceived a solution emblematic of Roosevelt's self-effacing relations with Stalin: they transferred title to fifty-seven American merchant vessels used in the Pacific Ocean to Soviet Russia, so that the Japanese would not bother them." (p.394-5)

Obviously, this is just the tip of the iceberg, but offers a sample of the kind of thing McMeekin discusses in his book.

The 3-front question has never been answered to my satisfaction. If Germany had stayed focused on Mainland Western Europe, what's to have kept Adolph and Co from leaving England, Russia and North Africa alone and just digging in and consolidating their gains?   

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

The 3-front question has never been answered to my satisfaction. If Germany had stayed focused on Mainland Western Europe, what's to have kept Adolph and Co from leaving England, Russia and North Africa alone and just digging in and consolidating their gains?   

I believe the answer is the same money pyramid scheme that they had at the start of the war. They did not have enough resources to pay their bills without taking over new places to steal resources from.

In reply to matthewmcl :

Indeed, there are strong arguments that Hitler needed to go east in order to capture the oil needed to keep his economy and war machine running.  Without oil they had nothing.

This is the same reason Japan needed to take a lot of the SEA territory they did.

Quote from an old discussion:

 

>> Really!? Listen Nickolay, kindly obtain an education. The USSR was on the
>> verge of defeat when American lend lease provided the means to fight on.
>> That is well documented despite what some pro-Soviet zealots will spout.
>
>Only in the minds of such people like you, who want to steal piece of
>history and gain more credit that you deserve. Let's go to sources.
>"Hitler's Nemesis" by Walter S. Dunn Jr, only 4 convoys entered Murmansk
>in more in 1942-1943, as this way was effectively blocked by Germans,
>Alaska and Iran, only began to work. OVERWHELMING amount of supply,
>reached Soviets only after battle of Stalingrad. Even WITHOUT ANY LEND
>LEASE Soviet industry out produced Germans by HUGE margin. Book stated
>that Soviets could win the Germans WITHOUT any help from outside, and
>second front.

"Let's go to sources"??!!
Why do you repeatedly ignore Richard Overy? Why do you repeated ignore
the writings of Zhukov?

Once again Yevgeniy chooses to ignore that it has been established beyond
reasonable doubt that the USSR would have folded in 1943 without Lend Lease.

Marshal Zhukov freely admitted this.

I have previously posted portions of "The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military
Efforts, 1941-1945" by BORIS V. SOKOLOV, which clearly states that the USSR
was all but done for without Lend Lease.

Quoting Zhukov:
"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and
economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from
the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that
respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the
war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a
serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the
quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic],
we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable
degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary
for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of
American deliveries."

Moreover, Zhukov underscored that `we entered war while still continuing to be a
backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany. Simonov's
truthful recounting of these meetings with Zhukov, which took place in 1965 and
1966, are corraborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov, recorded as a result of
eavesdropping by security organs in 1963:
"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny
that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have
formed our reserves and ***could not have continued the war*** . . . we had no
explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans
actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet
steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our
production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it
seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."

>Most contribution US did for USSR is selling Soviets factories in 1930's.
>All large Soviet tank factory were designed and build with American help
>in 1930's. As one can see nothing change sense then. Americans would
>cooperate with any menace that would pay top dollars. However in this
>case, Thanks A Lot!

I can dig out the exact contribution by America, these numbers are from memory,
but are still very close. These are the percentages of the total available to
the Soviet military and industry that were supplied by America:

80% of all canned meat.
92% of all railroad locomotives, rolling stock and rails.
57% of all aviation fuel.
53% of all explosives.
74% of all truck transport.
88% of all radio equipment.
53% of all copper.
56% of all aluminum.
60+% of all automotive fuel.
74% of all vehicle tires.
12% of all armored vehicles.
14% of all combat aircraft.
The list includes a high percentage of the high grade steel, communications
cable, canned foods of all types, medical supplies, and virtually every modern
machine tool used by Soviet industry. Not to mention the "know-how required to
use and maintain this equipment.

>It also challenge the myth about Germans tied up in France waiting for
>invasion. It is not one of this "West kick ass and save the World
>pseudo-historic books" spreading myths about Soviets hordes, book
>actually analyzing Russian Army and points out TRUE reason of Soviet
>victory.
>
>It also question all kinds of myths about men shortage in Soviet army,
>and another Western inventions.

I have not read this book. However, I will endeavor to locate a copy.
Nonetheless, it is easy to find a book that supports ones position. What is
hard, is to consider sources that do not support it. That is why you need to
read Overy's books "Why The Allies Won" and "Russia's War". Overy's
credentials are beyond question. Moreover, he is an Englishman and a
Professor of Modern History at King's College. Therefore, you are not going
to get the "American view".

>> Plunder??? Ever hear of the Marshall Plan. Guess who paid to get Europe
>> back on it's feet. It wasn't the USSR.
>
>The only reason you did is because rapid spread of communism in Eastern
>Europe. Red Menace was too damn real. It took billions of dollars to save
>Greece and Turkey from almost assured collapsed into Communism.

That was part of the reasoning, to be sure. However, the primary intent was to
achieve economic stability. Without which, long term peace was unlikely.

>
>> That's unfortunate. No one denys that the Russian people suffered extreme
>> hardship. Nonetheless, you had no monopoly on pain and loss, and this in
>> no way gives you the right to make the disrespectful and uninformed comments
>> that you have dumped on us.
>
>From 1943 Soviets fought the war for political reasons. American and
>British unwillingness to suffer the same combat casualties as Russians,
>cost Jews millions of lifes and sentenced hundreds of millions of people
>for 40 years of Communism. Book very clear that Western Allies could not
>possible defeat Germans, no matter how hard they tried.

Yevgeniy, the Jews don't hold the western Allies responsible for the Nazi
atrocities, so why do you blame them?

There are many other military authorities who would strongly disagree with any
conclusion that the western Allies could not defeat Germany alone. One opinion
does not make it a fact. In this case, this is obvious bilge.

>Even in 1944, after major German forces had perished in Russia, 100
>German divisions give Brits and Americans more than they bargained for.
>At the same time Soviets handle 200 German divisions with easy.

Ease??!! I think not! Moreover, the Soviets never had to fight through the
Bocage country either. You also forget that the Allies were fighting in Italy
and defeating the Japanese Empire at this same time.

>All this talk about power of US and Britain, is nothing more than wishful
>thinking. What US had is industrial base, US did not had Army which was
>capable for prolong continental warfare, US did not had proper doctrine
>or leadership.

Utter nonsense. For a 20 year old college kid in Ohio, you certainly make a
point of arguing well over your head. I'll wager that you have no idea about
leadership, not having any experience at it. Moreover, can you define U.S. Army
doctrine? Not without a trip to library.......

>Supposedly better training is one
>of the myths. By 1943 Soviets were on pairs with Germans, and in fact
>even better. Most importantly neither US or Britain had CULTURE that
>would be able to put MILLIONS their sons into the graves. It was the MAIN
>reason why invasion only happened in 1944, and it had NO reason except
>salvage at least some piece of Europe from Red Menace.

The "MAIN reason" had to do with fighting a vast two front war. But, you are
correct in one respect; America was not willing to sacrifice its sons by the
millions for Europe or Russia. And, you know what? We still feel the same way.

My regards,
C.C. Jordan

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to matthewmcl :

Indeed, there are strong arguments that Hitler needed to go east in order to capture the oil needed to keep his economy and war machine running.  Without oil they had nothing.

This is the same reason Japan needed to take a lot of the SEA territory they did.

It wasn't just oil. The experience of the First World War informed both Germany and Japan in their setting of objectives in the Second. For Japan, an island nation, the British experience of potential isolation from the resources of empire by superior naval force was a serious concern from the beginning, hence the need to gain control of the Philippines and knock out the Pacific Fleet at Pearl. For Germany, the British blockade led to near-starvation conditions across Germany in the winter of 1917-18. The need to acquire not only fuel and other industrial commodities for the German war machine, but unblockadeable food supplies sufficient to feed the nation was a direct consequence of that experience. This in no small part helps to explain the turn south toward Ukraine in the late summer/early fall of 1941 that has been so criticized by armchair generals ever since 1945.

matthewmcl said:

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

The 3-front question has never been answered to my satisfaction. If Germany had stayed focused on Mainland Western Europe, what's to have kept Adolph and Co from leaving England, Russia and North Africa alone and just digging in and consolidating their gains?   

I believe the answer is the same money pyramid scheme that they had at the start of the war. They did not have enough resources to pay their bills without taking over new places to steal resources from.

I think it's a little more complex than that. Hitler had a reverence for things British.   And at the time, A lot of England shared the same prejudices that Hitler had. When you add the history of the royal family Hitler had every reason to believe England was ripe for the taking.   Do a little research into why the King abdicated.  It really wasn't about his choice of girlfriends.  ( although that makes a convenient  story) 

In fact Hitler had every reason to believe America was pro Germany.  Not only was Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh very pro German  but they founded the America first movement and took much of the Republican Party with them.  Basically Tying   the American  Presidents hands. 
   ABM, Ford Motor company, and several other major American firms had big branches in Germany and were vertically untouched during the whole war.   With a big percentage of Americans of German decent  there was  a fair number of Americans who actually fought on the German side.   For example the English speaking MP's dressed in American uniforms during the battle of the Bulge misdirecting troops  were all most all former Americans.     
     

Regarding Germany concentrating on England:  I read a book years ago (unfortunately I don't remember the name) that was a rather in-depth analysis of the Battle of Britain.  For those who don't know, the Battle of Britain was essentially a Luftwaffe attempt to destroy or suppress the RAF to the point that would allow the German invasion of England (operation Sea Lion as I remember).

The basic, well backed up, conclusion was that it was essentially impossible for the Germans to suppress the RAF.  Basic reasons: radar sites could not be destroyed,  (fighter) airfields could not be effectively attacked because of reconnaissance issues and Germany aircraft did not have the range to attack English production capacity.

If Germany could not suppress the RAF there is no way they could launch an effective cross channel invasion (I suspect the rather powerful British Navy would cause a few issues also).  So, it was effectively a non-starter for Germany to invade England.

Also of note is that whether Germany invaded Russia or not, it's generally considered an eventuality.  If they didn't start it, Russia eventually would have.  Trying to take out Russia before it became too powerful, may have been the only possible win scenario for Germany, even if it had a low chance of success.  Waiting for Russia to reach a point of readiness that it was prepared to invade is an almost certain loss situation.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to matthewmcl :

Indeed, there are strong arguments that Hitler needed to go east in order to capture the oil needed to keep his economy and war machine running.  Without oil they had nothing.

This is the same reason Japan needed to take a lot of the SEA territory they did.

But those arguments have really nothing behind them in reality.  The Germans never was able to get any of the Soviet oil.  Ever.  If that was a real requirement, they would have been prepared to immediately drill when taking over the region, based on the accurate assumption that the Soviets would completely destroy every little piece they had there making the oil fields useless.  And with the attention pivot to Stalingrad, Hitler got so distracted with places that his army wasn't designed for that it really stopped the effort.

There wasn't a strategic reason for Barbarossa- that was all a point of conquest over what they thought was an inferior race.  As I posted before, they really thought it would be over by winter- since they had zero preparation for the very well known harsh Russian winter.

Some interesting news:

U.S. Planning to Give Ukraine Smart-Bomb Kits

(paywall):  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/12/14/ukraine-smart-bomb-jdams/

Those are JDAM kits, which are rather easy to bolt on kit (fins and guidance system) for iron bombs.  It of course requires planes to drop them. They will of course require some sort of avionics mod to the plane to get the targeting info to the plane and transmit that data to the bomb. 

The dropping plane just has to get the bomb into a general "basket" for them to hit the target so they don't have to be released very precisely.  I believe they can also be "lofted" (released in a climb to hit something a significant distance away) with some careful planing.  This could give the Ukrainian air force some significant ability to precisely hit targets, which is sorely lacking in the Russian air force.

I don't think the Germans needed to go to Russia to get oil.  They just went to Romania:

Ploesti:

Update:  Putler may be having an issue with framing the current situation.  The note about religious freedom is referring to the Ukrainians shutting down all the Russian orthodox churches in Ukraine.  Apparently those churches have been a rather blatant hot spot for pro Russian propaganda.

• Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly postponed his annual address to the Russian Federal Assembly, indicating that the Kremlin is not confident that it can continue to shape the Russian information space.
• Ukrainian officials are forecasting that Russian forces may attempt to launch a large-scale offensive at the beginning of 2023.
• Ukrainian air defenses shot down all drones that Russian forces launched in attacks on December 14.
• Ukrainian sources reported that 64 POWs returned to Ukrainian-held territory.
• The Kremlin will likely intensify information operations aimed at presenting the Ukrainian government as oppressing religious liberties and freedom of the press.  
• Ukrainian forces continued counteroffensive operations and Russian forces conducted counterattacks in the Svatove and Kreminna areas.
• Russian forces continued offensive operations in the Bakhmut and Avdiivka areas.
• Russian forces continued defensive operations south of the Dnipro River in Kherson Oblast.
• Kremlin officials admitted to receiving complaints about mobilization despite mobilization’s "de facto end."
• Ukrainian partisans continue to aid Ukrainian forces in identifying valuable Russian targets. 

alfadriver said:

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to matthewmcl :

Indeed, there are strong arguments that Hitler needed to go east in order to capture the oil needed to keep his economy and war machine running.  Without oil they had nothing.

This is the same reason Japan needed to take a lot of the SEA territory they did.

But those arguments have really nothing behind them in reality.  The Germans never was able to get any of the Soviet oil.  Ever.  If that was a real requirement, they would have been prepared to immediately drill when taking over the region, based on the accurate assumption that the Soviets would completely destroy every little piece they had there making the oil fields useless.  And with the attention pivot to Stalingrad, Hitler got so distracted with places that his army wasn't designed for that it really stopped the effort.

There wasn't a strategic reason for Barbarossa- that was all a point of conquest over what they thought was an inferior race.  As I posted before, they really thought it would be over by winter- since they had zero preparation for the very well known harsh Russian winter.

I disagree with this entirely. There were clear strategic reasons for the invasion; that some of them revolved around exterminating a portion of the population and establishing German agricultural colonies does not make the objectives any less strategic. As far as oil, Romania was very important, but not sufficient for German needs. More importantly, gaining control of the Caucasus oil fields was every bit as much about denying them to the Soviets (they were even more important to the Soviets than they were to the Germans) as it was gaining access to their production. Given the German experience in the first six months of the war, capturing Soviet industrial and resource production at least partially intact was well within reasonable expectations.

aircooled said:

Some interesting news:

U.S. Planning to Give Ukraine Smart-Bomb Kits

(paywall):  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/12/14/ukraine-smart-bomb-jdams/

Those are JDAM kits, which are rather easy to bolt on kit (fins and guidance system) for iron bombs.  It of course requires planes to drop them. They will of course require some sort of avionics mod to the plane to get the targeting info to the plane and transmit that data to the bomb. 

The dropping plane just has to get the bomb into a general "basket" for them to hit the target so they don't have to be released very precisely.  I believe they can also be "lofted" (released in a climb to hit something a significant distance away) with some careful planing.  This could give the Ukrainian air force some significant ability to precisely hit targets, which is sorely lacking in the Russian air force.

I've been wondering since this thing started what happened to the much-discussed Russian ability to jam GPS. Either the West has figured out a way to overcome it, or the Russians don't have sufficient units to produce an effective jamming network.

In reply to 02Pilot :

Or option 3 they really didn't. Kinda like the mig25. 

In reply to 02Pilot :

But that is far more about exterminating people vs. getting resources that they really, really needed.  I don't see murdering people as being a strategic grab for stuff- so I think we will just disagree on the term usage.  Maybe they used those resources as "reasons" but the way the war was run- those reasons were largely ignored.

Again, IF Barbarosa was done in a realistic, strategic way, it would have been executed far differently.  Like preparing for winter, being ready to add to the rail network for long distance supplies, and being ready to drill and extract oil as soon as the land was taken.   Let alone prioritizing the defense of the oil fields vs. taking Stalingrad.   One thing to remember, for that area, they could ship the oil in tankers across the Black Sea- which they had 100% control over the west coastline of the sea.  And could have shipped supplies up the Danube.  Which never happened.

And lack of access to the oil fields to the Soviets didn't seem to matter much- they ran a massive amount of the remaining war without the oil fields being able to add anything.

In reply to alfadriver :

Slaughtering people certainly did the Germans no favors, but in spite of their actions, 1.5 million Soviets chose to serve under Germany during the war, more than half of them ethnic Russians. I think much of this depends on whether you're talking about operational objectives ("we need this stuff to fight the war to a successful conclusion") or strategic objectives ("we need this stuff to achieve autarky and ensure the survival and flourishing of the Thousand-Year Reich"). See Alexander Dallin's classic German Rule in Russia, Norman Rich's two-volume Hitler's War Aims, and Heinz Magenheimer's Hitler's War: Germany's Key Strategic Decisions 1940-1945 for wide-ranging discussions on this, or for a more concise treatment, Gerhard Weinberg's Visions of Victory.

That point aside, Baku represented 75% of Soviet oil production. The Soviets required large quantities of POL from Lend-lease to continue fighting, especially early on. 2.4 million barrels of fuel and aviation fuel were delivered from the US by Nov 41, for example.

In reply to 02Pilot :

I'm still leaning toward seeing that they didn't defend the important oil fields compared to attacking Stalingrad.  To the point they didn't hold them all that long, and lost so many getting caught up in Stalingrad- and that focus also exposed a very weak area that operation Uranus was able to exploit.

02Pilot said:

I've been wondering since this thing started what happened to the much-discussed Russian ability to jam GPS. Either the West has figured out a way to overcome it, or the Russians don't have sufficient units to produce an effective jamming network.

Or option 4, they *can* jam it, but enough of their own units depend on GPS that they think it would do more harm than good.  Yes, they've got their own constellation, but given the way they've burned through equipment I wouldn't be surprised if they were depending on cheap consumer GPS receivers in a lot of places.

This is basically the reason why the US govt gave up on selective availability -- they had too many civilian receivers in use in important places.

They might use some sort of powerful local amplifier, or reference point, or have some special trick based on how the Russians are jamming it.  They did capture one of the Russian electronic warfare units when they retreated from Kyiv, and I think they captured more stuff in the Kharkiv offensive...

https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-fall-and-rise-of-russian-electronic-warfare

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

02Pilot said:

I've been wondering since this thing started what happened to the much-discussed Russian ability to jam GPS. Either the West has figured out a way to overcome it, or the Russians don't have sufficient units to produce an effective jamming network.

Or option 4, they *can* jam it, but enough of their own units depend on GPS that they think it would do more harm than good.  Yes, they've got their own constellation, but given the way they've burned through equipment I wouldn't be surprised if they were depending on cheap consumer GPS receivers in a lot of places.

This is basically the reason why the US govt gave up on selective availability -- they had too many civilian receivers in use in important places.

 

Even with GPS jammed, JDAMs are more accurate than dumb bombs or rockets. Yeah, we won't get video of them dropping down elevator shafts, but they are still capable of hitting close enough to do some damage.  Not to mention, the bombs they attach to pack more explosives than HIMARS rockets.

My experience with this is old as it's been 25 years but I assume they have INS.  Older INS would spin a mass like a gyroscope and as the plane moved the unit would measure the forces from the gyroscope to tell the acceleration in different directions. Pretty simple math. I know the Special Ops C130s I worked on went ring laser INS in the mid to late 90s. Somehow really smart people figured out how to do the same thing by measuring the defection of lasers. I remember a Lockheed engineer saying we could fly across country and park the nose wheel within 6 inches of the mark just using the ring laser INS. Surely that has advanced in the last 25 years. 

alfadriver said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

I'm still leaning toward seeing that they didn't defend the important oil fields compared to attacking Stalingrad.  To the point they didn't hold them all that long, and lost so many getting caught up in Stalingrad- and that focus also exposed a very weak area that operation Uranus was able to exploit.

Certainly, Hitler's decision to attack Stalingrad rather than stay focused on the oil fields was a huge blunder; he fell for the trap Zhukov set for him, and paid for it. Both Hitler and Stalin made some pretty big mistakes on every level, but only one of them had the US and UK to back them up and bail them out.

Another little nugget from McMeekin's book: following the Soviet invasion of Finland and the dismembering of Poland, the British imposed an embargo on the Soviets and were actively considering bombing Baku in early 1940, going so far as to hold secret talks with Turkey and to conduct aerial reconnaissance over Baku. This was intended both to punish the Soviets and because that oil was still being exported to Germany in large quantities and providing fuel for the Luftwaffe. Destroying the oil fields there would have put a huge dent in both German and Soviet warmaking capabilities. (p.134-6)

Found some fairly detailed information on the various guidance and anti-jamming technologies used in JDAM munitions at Globalsecurity.org.

Stampie said:

My experience with this is old as it's been 25 years but I assume they have INS.  Older INS would spin a mass like a gyroscope and as the plane moved the unit would measure the forces from the gyroscope to tell the acceleration in different directions. Pretty simple math. I know the Special Ops C130s I worked on went ring laser INS in the mid to late 90s. Somehow really smart people figured out how to do the same thing by measuring the defection of lasers. I remember a Lockheed engineer saying we could fly across country and park the nose wheel within 6 inches of the mark just using the ring laser INS. Surely that has advanced in the last 25 years. 

From my (limited) reading, any laser guidance would require more extensive modifications to Ukrainian aircraft, as would being able to select a target while airborne.  Supposedly, the planes that have already been adapted for HARMs would require minimal work to launch JDAMs, as long as the target was selected beforehand.