PDA

View Full Version : Who won World War II?



wulfstan
05-04-2005, 09:13 AM
An interesting article found today on the BBC website....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4508901.stm

The Nazi regime collapsed in May 1945, squeezed ever more tightly between two fronts - the Soviet Union on one side and the Western Allies on the other.
But which of these fronts was the most important?


The amount of dead personnel and civilians is not mentioned here, altho they stand as a good indicator of the burdens...

The Chap
05-04-2005, 09:19 AM
I won WWII....

Jani.R
05-04-2005, 09:23 AM
Finland, only axis country that did not get occupied.

Caesar
05-04-2005, 09:24 AM
The allies, both from Eastern and Western fronts, won WW2.

wulfstan
05-04-2005, 09:26 AM
The allies, both from Eastern and Western fronts, won WW2.

Obviously you didn't read the article, it's about who out of the West and Soviet allies won.

California Joe
05-04-2005, 09:29 AM
I trust this thread is going to remain a scholarly discussion of facts right?


Right?

wulfstan
05-04-2005, 09:32 AM
I trust this thread is going to remain a scholarly discussion of facts right?


Right?

Well, i had hoped, but knowing this place... :roll:
Interesting to see that the Soviet Union is now re-assessing it's veiw (according to this article, anyway).

ShotOver
05-04-2005, 09:38 AM
No one won WW2

It was a war that could of been prevented. On the world scale that is.

Both World Wars have led indirectly to the phucked up violent world we live in today.

No it didnt.

California Joe
05-04-2005, 09:38 AM
I think the article makes a great deal of sense personally. But what do I know. I remember not too long ago the Soviets released actually numbers of military and civilian casualties and the numbers were staggering. I believe they were at least double what had previously reported during the Cold War era because they didn't want to appear weak to the West.

wulfstan
05-04-2005, 09:43 AM
It's interesting, cos instead of a 'we won it' type arguement, we get the conflicted details of the Soviets soaking up a lot of the punishment and regaining the most ground, but it would not have been possible without the lend-lease programme of the US, so it's a moot point in my opinion.
Did the US ever get it's trucks back? lol, I bet there are a lot of farmers driving Chevrolet trucks with 300,000 miles on the clock!

Karmapolice
05-04-2005, 09:51 AM
No one won WW2

It was a war that could of been prevented. On the world scale that is.

Both World Wars have led indirectly to the phucked up violent world we live in today.

Well in that case Hitler won the war, but I personally think over all humanity won the war. If we did not have wwII did not occur back then imagine if it occurred today. We were able to learn from that war or at least we hopefully did because I could only imagine if Hitler lived in this time and some countries ignored him and he had nukes :bash:.

Now between the soviets and the west I would say the west actually won the war because we kind of accepted the soviets as allies because they weren’t as bad as Hitler but if you look at the spread of communism and what it caused in eastern Europe and other parts of the world where the soviets had power and or the countries they supplied weapons too.

I could be completely off my rocker but that’s how I look at it because first Hitler should have never been ignored the overall destruction he was able to ensue could have been downsized if quicker action was taken and we traded one war for another in a sense but completely different kind of wars the style changed in that period.

Now if Hitler had the nukes and subs of the soviets ect that they had or were able to up keep during the cold war it wouldn’t have been a cold war.

Midtown
05-04-2005, 09:52 AM
In all honesty, i do think that if the US wouldnt have come into the war, the allies would have still won, but it would have taken alot longer, and there would have been an even more devastating amount of casualties. I have faith in my brit, and ruskie friends.

sp2c
05-04-2005, 09:56 AM
it was an allied effort

trying to determine which ally scored the gamewinner is useless.
For instance if there had been no western front, the Russians would have been defeated, unless Japan decided to sit this one out (meaning lots of extra troops and materials and equipment for the fight in Europe without the Americans) and so on and so on

imo the allies won, period

Kitsune
05-04-2005, 09:59 AM
American economic help to the Soviet Union was a significant factor. It's at least debatbale wether the Soviets would have won without it, especially after the Germans managed to beat them up so badly in 1941. (Had Stalin reacted mor intelligently as Barbarossa started this could have turned out quite differently however).
From the non-economic fighting point of view, the Soviets clerarly did MUCH more than the Western Allies.
On the Eastern Front, from 1941 to the end of WWII, around 3 million German soldiers and around 10 million Soviet soldiers died. The numbers of dead in the Western Campiagn after D-Day were 200.000 German soldiers and 210.000 Soldiers of the various Western Allied armed forces. Even at their best the Western Allies did not fight against more than a third of the Wehrmacht, an armed force that had seen constant and vast attrition since 1941 (and even so had some trouble doing so). Other theaters of operation in Europe, like Italy or N. Africa, were next to insignificant, at least if one compares them to the Eastern Front. And the Bombing War is overstated, it left an imprint on the German psyche, since it led to immens suffering of the civilian population, but it was quite ineffictive in ending the war. (If one considers the gargantuan ammount of men and material it costed, it was nothing short of an utter failure, that stuff could have been used much better somewhere else).

Conclusion: both sides, East and West had their contributions. From the fighting part, the Soviets did MUCH more than anyone else, however. Ironically Stalin's regime was even more totalitarian than Hitler's...so the view of WWII as a war in which democracy triumphs over tyranny goes pretty much out of the window, if one sees things realistically.

Drako
05-04-2005, 10:03 AM
I don't really care who won the war. Either way - we lost it.

<Gypsum Fantastic>
05-04-2005, 10:07 AM
I won WWII....

Yeah, thanks for that. :lol:

ShotOver
05-04-2005, 10:09 AM
Other theaters of operation in Europe, like Italy or N. Africa, were next to insignificant

North Africa was all about gaining Middle Eastern oil and possibly opening another front against the Russians in the southern Asian flank. This at a time when Italy ruled the med. (Italy did have quite a few battleships on par with any in the world at that time)

Think about it. Had Rommel and the Italians had of succeeded can you imagine the consequences of a Germany with a endless supply of oil?

Plus being able to invade Russia from it's undefended Southern Flank.

In my view the campaign in North Africa was perhaps the most important campaign in the entire war.

Yeah, Nazi Germany needed Oil to sustan it's war machine, lack of oil and supply lines lead to the demise of the Nazi regieme (Not to mention millions of allied troops)

hughdotoh
05-04-2005, 10:51 AM
Biggest winners:
The Jews - Despite genocide, they got Israel.
The Soviets - Got their influence over Eastern Europe (and then some) after the war
The US - Military and economic power that still exists today
Switzerland - and Nazi gold
The Third World - independence after seeing their colonial masters lose

Win some, lose some:
Brits - won the war, but lost the Empire
China - civil war after the Japanese war
France - ditto Brits

Lost despite winning
Poland - Communist rule after the Nazis

toki
05-04-2005, 11:00 AM
Biggest winners:
The Jews - Despite genocide, they got Israel.
The Soviets - Got their influence over Eastern Europe (and then some) after the war
The US - Military and economic power that still exists today
Switzerland - and Nazi gold
The Third World - independence after seeing their colonial masters lose

Win some, lose some:
Brits - won the war, but lost the Empire
China - civil war after the Japanese war
France - ditto Brits

Lost despite winning
Poland - Communist rule after the Nazis

1.) ouch... i guess you're being sarcastic, but saying "despite genocide" jews being biggest winners... :roll: Despite 6 million murdered YOU WIN

2.) In your logic you can put germany in 1st and 3rd category.
West germany in the 50's and 60's... up to the 80's growing to one of the wealthiest countries in europe.
East germany (see poland category 3)

The Chap
05-04-2005, 11:00 AM
The Third World - independence after seeing their colonial masters lose

Did they really win? look at the state of the third world. I agree they should have independance, but a far more ordered withdrawl from these places might have been better for them.

Erkeengel
05-04-2005, 11:11 AM
I have always taken the position to say that Russia took the biggest part in determining the outcome of the war and I still do.

corran.pl
05-04-2005, 11:19 AM
I don't really care who won the war. Either way - we lost it.

Sad But True

hughdotoh
05-04-2005, 11:36 AM
Biggest winners:
The Jews - Despite genocide, they got Israel.
The Soviets - Got their influence over Eastern Europe (and then some) after the war
The US - Military and economic power that still exists today
Switzerland - and Nazi gold
The Third World - independence after seeing their colonial masters lose

Win some, lose some:
Brits - won the war, but lost the Empire
China - civil war after the Japanese war
France - ditto Brits

Lost despite winning
Poland - Communist rule after the Nazis

1.) ouch... i guess you're being sarcastic, but saying "despite genocide" jews being biggest winners... :roll: Despite 6 million murdered YOU WIN

2.) In your logic you can put germany in 1st and 3rd category.
West germany in the 50's and 60's... up to the 80's growing to one of the wealthiest countries in europe.
East germany (see poland category 3)

No sarcasm there, bud. Think of it this way: WW2 and the result of the Holocaust accelerated the founding of the Jewish State. Survivors of the death camps made their way to Israel, and now it is the most vibrant democracy in the Middle East. If there was ever a come-back success story of the 20th century, this is it. Something like pissing on the grave of your critics after you have made it rich AND married a supermodel.

foxtrot023
05-04-2005, 11:38 AM
It was a joint effort. Without Russia, Germany would have had been able to concentrate its troops in other theatres, and the allies (read western allies) would not have been able to do jack, much less liberate anything, keeping in mind that the eastern front kept at its peak 75% of german troops (65% at the moment of the Normandy Invasion). On the other hand, had the germans being able to pull their full weight into the eastern front, the russians would have probably lost, not to mention that without western aid, the Red Army would have lacked the mobility that allowed the victories in '43 and '44, not ot mention the huge amounts of airplanes, tanks, and specially fuel (as in refined fuel of high octanage, which the soviets had a hard time producing it).

It is hard to envision a victory over Germany without one of the main 3 allies in the picture.

He219
05-04-2005, 01:06 PM
Who won World War II?
Interesting question!
:lol:

Post 1945:
Japan & Germany are in ruins.
The Marshall Plan stabilizes the West from Communism.
The majority of Allies are in debt from WWII.

2005:
US Gold reserves in Fort Knox went to repay the National Debt long ago.

Japan is the principal holder of US Bonds and financier of US Debt.
China is Second greatest financier of US Debt.

The German Mark (figuratively) united the EU and a united Europe is probably stronger than ever.
Berlin is arguably the most modern city in Europe.

Russia is in debt from the Cold War. Many of it's cities bear the scars from both WWII and the Cold War.


So who really won the war?
;)

Dima-RussianArms
05-04-2005, 01:08 PM
Did the US ever get it's trucks back? lol, I bet there are a lot of farmers driving Chevrolet trucks with 300,000 miles on the clock!

Did we ever get our gold back?
The biggest misconception in the West it that you "lend-lease" was a charity deal based purely on good will...
US/GB didn't donate equipment to the SU, they sold it and SU paid in gold.
So please stop portraying it like everything was simply given to the USSR out of goodness of the Allied heart.

Did the "lend-lease" help? Of course it did, but it's significance is way overrated in the West and underrated in the Russia...

Allies were so eager to sell equipment, food and raw materials to the SU because they had to keep Germans occupied on the Eastern front, otherwise GB would be an easy target. They hoped that both countries will fight themselves into exhaustion, see what Churchill had to say about it and how much he "liked" SU.
Entire allied ordeal was simply a twisted convinience marriage with each party pursuing their own interests.

SU had defeated Japan in 1939 after which the Emperor started to look for territorial gains elsewhere, GB also had nothing to do with Japan, so entire Pacific campaign was solely US deal and can be singled out as a separate US-Japan war.

According to German historians Third reich had lost the war the moment its panzers crossed to SU border.
Defeat at Moscow was the writing on the wall about things to come.
Stalingrad was the turning point.
After Kursk Germany had no military to fight with so it simply became the question of time.

And then, 3 years after SU had asked for it and SU pushed Germany well out of its borders, "allies" opened a second front to cash in on the victory and prevent Stalin taking over entire Europe in his quest for the spread of communism.

SU could have defeated Germany entirely on its own, with larger causualties of course, simply because of the Ural mountains.

California Joe
05-04-2005, 01:25 PM
Simmah don nah. We're not all retards. We know that "allies" is a political term. I'm pretty sure the ANZACS and Brits that served in the Pacific may disagree with you on at least one point there.

Newsflash, none of the allies liked Stalin, he was a communist psychopathic *****. That didn't exactly endear him to the West. See next 20 years or so of USSR history.

The Nazis were pretty damned close to winning on the Eastern Front when their own mental leader decided to start coaching....

Roger Rabbit
05-04-2005, 01:45 PM
SU had defeated Japan in 1939 after which the Emperor started to look for territorial gains elsewhere, GB also had nothing to do with Japan, so entire Pacific campaign was solely US deal and can be singled out as a separate US-Japan war.
Say what now? You probably ought to read at least one book on the war in Asia against Japan before you make yourself look even more of a moron.

foxtrot023
05-04-2005, 01:48 PM
Allies were so eager to sell equipment, food and raw materials to the SU because they had to keep Germans occupied on the Eastern front, otherwise GB would be an easy target.

Stalin had pretty much the same plan (Ribbentrop Molotov agreement) before June 1941 to keep the germans busy in the west.

GB had defended successfully itself from german invasion in 1940 (the so called Battle of Britain) and it seemed unlikely that the Germans could invade GB in 1941 onwards.


Did the "lend-lease" help? Of course it did, but it's significance is way overrated in the West and underrated in the Russia...

Half the vehicles in the Red Army were from western origin (trucks and jeeps mainly), just to name an example.


And then, 3 years after SU had asked for it and SU pushed Germany well out of its borders, "allies" opened a second front to cash in on the victory and prevent Stalin taking over entire Europe in his quest for the spread of communism.

Had the allies really tried to cash in, they would have invaded through the Balkans, not through France. To mount such an amphibious landing as the one in Normandy, required planning, logistics, gain air superiority, etc, all of which did not happened overnight.

By Jan. 1944 most of Germany's new production in weapons and soldiers went to the western front. The heer, which previously had only 25%-30% of troops outside the eastern front had to shift troops to France, Belgium and Netherlands, so that troops levels outside the eastern front grew to 35%-40%.

All allies contributed, and without one of the major allies, the others would have had a really though time defeating Germany.

He219
05-04-2005, 01:49 PM
Did the "lend-lease" help? Of course it did, but it's significance is way overrated in the West and underrated in the Russia...

Interestingly enough, I bought this movie about the Battle of Berlin April/May 1945 (Durchbruch an der Oder) just two weeks ago. The compiled footages are from all sides and various movie archives.

In it you see LOADS of American manufactured equipment, far more than I imagined during the single most important Soviet offensive of the war.

Even Zukov is shown flying to and from Stalin on a DC3, Sherman tanks and Halftracks amongst Soviet Ranks, Studebaker trucks, Duck amphibious vehicles, etc. etc. etc.

Now if the Battle of Berlin was insignificant to the Soviets, then all the American equipment they used was also ..
;)

<Gypsum Fantastic>
05-04-2005, 01:51 PM
Who won it? Technically we all won it. But we could easily have been helpless/unwilling to do anything in the first place.

Both America and Russia only stepped in to fight the Nazis when they themselves were attacked. Britain alone didn't have the manpower to liberate Europe alone, but enough to defend itself and the empire. And nobody else was strong enough to take on the Nazi military.

If Hitler had restrained himself and the Japanese he could of had a nice european empire, with possible expansion to the middle east and a strong alliance with a Japanese empire. Hitler could have exterminated all the Jews in Europe.

I don't think we so much won it as Hitler lost it.

Mr.K
05-04-2005, 01:58 PM
It's interesting, cos instead of a 'we won it' type arguement, we get the conflicted details of the Soviets soaking up a lot of the punishment and regaining the most ground, but it would not have been possible without the lend-lease programme of the US, so it's a moot point in my opinion.
Did the US ever get it's trucks back? lol, I bet there are a lot of farmers driving Chevrolet trucks with 300,000 miles on the clock!

have a look here http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/l1/lendleas.asp
Its not like you gave out equipement for free. Besides i'm sure its more profitable to have gold, than trucks with 300 000 miles on it.

Caesar
05-04-2005, 02:12 PM
The allies, both from Eastern and Western fronts, won WW2.

Obviously you didn't read the article, it's about who out of the West and Soviet allies won.

Obviously, you didn't read my post. I said both won WW2, no matter from which front they came from.

RomanS
05-04-2005, 02:12 PM
ALLIES WON

He219
05-04-2005, 02:13 PM
Good Answer, Roman!
p-)

Dima-RussianArms
05-04-2005, 02:28 PM
The Nazis were pretty damned close to winning on the Eastern Front when their own mental leader decided to start coaching....

How did you come to that conclusion?
You statement would be true if Germans ever made it over the Urals or had effective means of influencing/bombing SU production facilities.
SU tanks, airplanes, etc were made beyond the mountains.

Even if Moscow was lost it would carry no significance, remember we lost it few times before and still won the wars, so why would this time be any different?


Say what now? You probably ought to read at least one book on the war in Asia against Japan before you make yourself look even more of a moron.
How about you start your argument with the words "You are wrong", it might give your statement more weight and you might even come across as an intelligent person, calling someone a "moron" outright just shows poor manners and might get your ass kicked in real life, take it as a free tip, go and thank God that you are nowhere near me, asswipe...

Now, would someone else please explain me what significance US war in the Pacific had for the GB, I admitt on not being overly knowledgable on this particular subject, thank you.


Half the vehicles in the Red Army were from western origin (trucks and jeeps mainly), just to name an example.
I have seen numbers ranging from 20 to 35 percent, would you please point me to your source?


GB had defended successfully itself from german invasion in 1940 (the so called Battle of Britain) and it seemed unlikely that the Germans could invade GB in 1941 onwards.
The German "invasion" amounted to an air war, to which Luftwaffe commited only 600 aircraft, there were no attemts to cross the chanel, am I wrong?
Just to compare, only in the single battle of Kursk, Luftwaffe employed 1500 aircraft.


Stalin had pretty much the same plan (Ribbentrop Molotov agreement) before June 1941 to keep the germans busy in the west.
Yes he did.


In it you see LOADS of American manufactured equipment, far more than I imagined during the single most important Soviet offensive of the war.

I can't think of anything besides trucks and maybe very few Shermans, what other equipment do you see, would you please post some stills?


Even Zukov is shown flying to and from Stalin on a DC3
Correction, Li2. Yeah, I know it was a licence built DC 3 ;)


Let me emphasize again: "lend-lease" helped but wasn't a deal maker/braker.
[/quote]

Roger Rabbit
05-04-2005, 02:34 PM
How about you start your argument with the words "You are wrong", it might give your statement more weight and you might even come across as an intelligent person, calling someone a "moron" outright just shows poor manners and might get your ass kicked in real life, take it as a free tip, go and thank God that you are nowhere near me, asswipe...

Now, would someone else please explain me what significance US war in the Pacific had for the GB, I admitt on not being overly knowledgable on this particular subject, thank you.

How about you read a book before making statements you can't back up with solid facts. I'm not going to hold you hand whilst you learn about the involvement of British and Empire troops in Asia and the Pacific during World War 2. I will be thanking God that i am nowhere near you, mostly because i don't want to be infected by your stupidity or arrogance.

The reason i am annoyed by statements such as
GB also had nothing to do with Japan is because in one country alone(Burma) then 36,000 British and Empire soldiers died fighting against the Japanese.

Heres a list of various webpages you can get a very very basic understanding of what went on in Burma. Admittedly this does not deal with the Pacific but none the less it is still about the British fight with Japan that you denied occured.

US and British involvement in Burma
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-C-Burma45/

Burma, focussing mainly on the American involvement but there are some parts regarding the British role.
http://warren416.home.comcast.net/Ledo_Main.html

The Death Railway. 275,000 died building this, 30,000 were British.
http://www.ean.co.uk/Bygones/History/Article/WW2/Death_Railway/body_index.htm

The battles for Kohima and Imphal
http://www.mod.uk/aboutus/history/kohima60/

The Indian and Pacfici Ocean up to 1941, a basic timeline of events
http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsStartPac.htm

Another, slightly more detailled description of the British role in Burma fighting the Japanese
http://www.mgtrust.org/burma.htm


Burma played a significant part in World War Two for the British Army. It was in Burma, that Orde Wingate and the Chindits found fame and it was in Burma where the Japanese Army suffered serious military setbacks that led to them retreating back east.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/burma_and_world_war_two.htm

California Joe
05-04-2005, 02:37 PM
The Soviets flew Aircobras....

panzerjager
05-04-2005, 02:38 PM
I think the hippies won, they are everywhere now.

Dima-RussianArms
05-04-2005, 02:55 PM
The Soviets flew Aircobras....
Yes they did, several thousands of them.

Several of the Red Air Force's ranking aces flew the P-39 for a major portion of their combat sorties. The top ace in the P-39 and number four overall was Guards Major Gregoriy Rechkalov, who shot down 50 of his total 56 kills while flying a P-39. Guards Colonel Aleksandr Pokryshkin, who finished the war as the number two Soviet ace with 59 individual and 6 shared kills, reportedly flew the P-39 for 48 of his kills. Another high scorer in the P-39 was Guards Major Dmitriy Glinka, who destroyed 20 German aircraft in 40 aerial engagements in the summer of 1943, and finished the war with an even 50 kills, 41 of them while flying the P-39. Third-ranked Soviet ace Guards Major Nikolay Gulaev transitioned to the P-39 in early August 1943 with 16 individual and 2 shared kills. He flew his last combat sortie on 14 August 1944 (ordered to attend higher military schooling), leaving the battlefield with an additional 41 individual victories and 1 shared kill after just over one year in his P-39.

Why was the P-39, which achieved so little air combat success in other theaters, so effective on the Eastern Front? The answer to this question lies in the nature of the air war itself on that front. Neither the Germans nor the Soviets engaged in high-altitude, long-range, strategic bombing. The bulk of Soviet war industry had been moved east of the Ural mountains, beyond the range of the Luftwaffe. German medium level and dive bombers went out every day, escorted by Bf-109s and FW-190s, to find and attack Soviet Army ground units. These bombers, and by necessity their escorting fighters, flew at altitudes well within the high performance envelope of the P-39-under 15,000 feet. The P-39, with its nose armament alone, had devastating air-to-air firepower. A hit on a German bomber with a single 37mm round was frequently sufficient to disable or destroy it. The Red Air Force compensated for the P-39's short range by locating their tactical airfields extremely close to the front line-often within artillery range. And during surge periods, when German air activity was intense, Soviet P-39 pilots were known to fly five and even six or more sorties in a single day.

PeterRJG
05-04-2005, 03:09 PM
I wouldn't worry about it Roger Rabbit; the River Kwai, Kokoda and other places weren't part of the curriculum in the former USSR. They were too involved killing 20 million of their own people to be concerned about Commonwealth heroism in South-East Asia.

Roger Rabbit
05-04-2005, 03:09 PM
GB had defended successfully itself from german invasion in 1940 (the so called Battle of Britain) and it seemed unlikely that the Germans could invade GB in 1941 onwards.
The German "invasion" amounted to an air war, to which Luftwaffe commited only 600 aircraft, there were no attemts to cross the chanel, am I wrong?
Just to compare, only in the single battle of Kursk, Luftwaffe employed 1500 aircraft.


The RAF had 600 aircraft aprox, the Luftwaffe had 2800.

This all out attack was in preparation for "Operation Sea Lion", the invasion of Britain, by gaining absolute air superiority. Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering pitted 1700 bombers and 1100 fighters against 600 British fighters in the hope of achieving that goal.
Source:http://www.avoca.ndirect.co.uk/enigma/enigma9.htm
Looking at my lecture notes (so i can't list the source) then the figures given were 1400 medium range bombers(H111, Do 17, Ju88), 300 dive bombers (Ju 87), 800 single engined fighters (Me 109) and 280 twin engined fighters (Me 110). Either way its still a few more than the 600 you listed.

No attempt to cross the channel was made but the Germans did gather up barges which would have been used to make the crossing and there was a build up of troops who were dispersed to different theatres after it was clear the Battle of Britain had been lost.

defmin
05-04-2005, 03:11 PM
The Soviets flew Aircobras.... This led to an interesting situation in the Finnish Continuation war against Russia. I believe this front is the only one where US made fighters fought against each other.

Roger Rabbit
05-04-2005, 03:22 PM
Ok the British involvement in the Pacific.

British Carrier Fleet
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Ships/BPF/Britishpacificfleethomepage.html

HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales, sunk in the south China Sea
http://www.microworks.net/pacific/personal/pow_repulse.htm

Royal Australian Navy in the Pacific
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-navy/in_the_pacific.htm

More on the Pacific.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/P/Pa/Pacific_War.htm

foxtrot023
05-04-2005, 03:24 PM
Half the vehicles in the Red Army were from western origin (trucks and jeeps mainly), just to name an example.
I have seen numbers ranging from 20 to 35 percent, would you please point me to your source?


GB had defended successfully itself from german invasion in 1940 (the so called Battle of Britain) and it seemed unlikely that the Germans could invade GB in 1941 onwards.
The German "invasion" amounted to an air war, to which Luftwaffe commited only 600 aircraft, there were no attemts to cross the chanel, am I wrong?
Just to compare, only in the single battle of Kursk, Luftwaffe employed 1500 aircraft.


Stalin had pretty much the same plan (Ribbentrop Molotov agreement) before June 1941 to keep the germans busy in the west.
Yes he did.


[/quote]

No problem, but I will post the sources tomorrow as I will have to write down the sources (I have them on an old fashion book). On the Battle of Britain, no there was no invasion, as the plan was to first destroy the RAF and then invade, but since the RAF was not destroyed the "Sea Lion" part of the plan was never executed. In regards to number of planes, some just pointed out other figures.

I will also post the category of help (by airplanes, tanks, etc)

foxtrot023
05-04-2005, 03:32 PM
Numbers of Lend Lease programme to the USSR:

Total- 17,499,861 million tons of help and raw materiel given to the USSR.

Breakdown-

427.000 trucks
13.000 combat vehicles including 10.000 tanks
35.000 motorcycles
19.000 combat airplanes
11.000 train locomotives and cargo wagons
90 cargo ships
105 sub hunting ships
197 torpedo boats
3 million tons in oil products most of high octanage used for military purpose

breakdown per year:

In tonnes

1941- 360,778
1942- 2,453,097
1943- 4,794,545
1944- 6,217,622
1945- 3,673,819

As I said tomorrow I will post references.

Pandy
05-04-2005, 03:36 PM
Numbers of Lend Lease programme to the USSR:

Total- 17,499,861 million tons of help and raw materiel given to the USSR.

Breakdown-

427.000 trucks
13.000 combat vehicles including 10.000 tanks
35.000 motorcycles
19.000 combat airplanes
11.000 train locomotives and cargo wagons
90 cargo ships
105 sub hunting ships
197 torpedo boats
3 million tons in oil products most of high octanage used for military purpose

breakdown per year:

In tonnes

1941- 360,778
1942- 2,453,097
1943- 4,794,545
1944- 6,217,622
1945- 3,673,819

As I said tomorrow I will post references.

And wasn't there lots and lots of small arms weapons we sent to the Soviets. It turned out that they never used them and they were just chilling or being sold to other countries. How about those Tommy Guns being sent back to the United States, made in 1940s, never being used... never been taking out of the boxes matter of fact.

Dima-RussianArms
05-04-2005, 03:45 PM
Numbers of Lend Lease programme to the USSR:

Total- 17,499,861 million tons of help and raw materiel given to the USSR.


I insist on using the correct terminilogy, they weren't given, they were sold and they were sold for a reason so SU would keep germany occupied.

Now, if US/GB had no alterior motives and just donated/gave for free all of the things that you have listed above out of goodness of their hearts and because they couldn't see soviet people suffering, then "allied help" would mean something in the eyes of russians but it didn't happen that way...
USSR bought "lend-lease", simple like that.

Besides the numbers that you provided don't paint the accurate picture since only 32% of shipped "goods" ever reached SU, now take into consideration number of forces and territory involved into fighting and you'll see hoe much difference equipment bought on lend lease had.

foxtrot023
05-04-2005, 03:53 PM
Numbers of Lend Lease programme to the USSR:

Total- 17,499,861 million tons of help and raw materiel given to the USSR.


I insist on using the correct terminilogy, they weren't given, they were sold and they were sold for a reason so SU would keep germany occupied.

Now, if US/GB had no alterior motives and just donated/gave for free all of the things that you have listed above out of goodness of their hearts and because they couldn't see soviet people suffering, then "allied help" would mean something in the eyes of russians but it didn't happen that way...
USSR bought "lend-lease", simple like that.

Besides the numbers that you provided don't paint the accurate picture since only 32% of shipped "goods" ever reached SU, now take into consideration number of forces and territory involved into fighting and you'll see hoe much difference equipment bought on lend lease had.

By given I mean cargo delivered in Russian ports, or via the land route (Iraq-Iran). What was bought is not what I am discussing. The numbers are what arrived, not what was shipped.

In regards to numbers, to give an example, the USSR produced 30,000 tanks during WW2 (please wait till I give the references tomorrow), and received 10,000 tanks via lend lease which represents 25% of the tank force- and this is just one category.

wulfstan
05-04-2005, 03:54 PM
The SU beat Germany et al by throwing it's people at the Axis until they relented, without consideration of it's people or forces. Lucky for Stalin that he had such a massive population at his disposal...

foxtrot023
05-04-2005, 04:05 PM
The SU beat Germany et al by throwing it's people at the Axis until they relented, without consideration of it's people or forces. Lucky for Stalin that he had such a massive population at his disposal...

Maybe in 1941, and perhaps 1942 but from 1943 onwards, STAVKA did a great job, out generaling Germany (hindered by Hitler). The USSR did also produce outstanding vehicles like the T34. Of course, the Heer was the cat's miau, the best army in the world till 1944

FutureGrunt
05-04-2005, 04:07 PM
And wasn't there lots and lots of small arms weapons we sent to the Soviets. It turned out that they never used them and they were just chilling or being sold to other countries. How about those Tommy Guns being sent back to the United States, made in 1940s, never being used... never been taking out of the boxes matter of fact.

Thats because Soviets had loads of their own sub-machine guns such as PPSHa and others compared to which Thompsons were utter and complete crap. Ive read reports were a burst from Thompson was unable to penetrate a layer of winter clothing from something like 40 meters becouse of poor accuracy and weak energy rounds.


Did the US ever get it's trucks back? lol, I bet there are a lot of farmers driving Chevrolet trucks with 300,000 miles on the clock!

Yes we did. After they were PAID for, they were sent (at least some portion that I know of) to Vladivistok, crushed under the press, put on ships and sent back to America.

Let's get it straight. Could Soviets defeat Germans without the second front and lend-lease program? Of course, but the war would last another one or two years with another couple of million casualties (at least), but it would only postpone the inevitable - defeat of Nazis. With Allied help it all came to an end much sooner.


P.S. After reading this thread I wonder if Poles ever stop *****ing and complaining? You guys are worse then Jews lol. In every situation you guys have a "victim complex" blaming everybody and everything but themselves. Grow up.

foxtrot023
05-04-2005, 04:16 PM
Let's get it streight. Could Soviets defeat Germans without the second front and lend-lease program? Of course, but the war would last another one or two years with another couple of million casualties (at least), but it only would postpone the inevitable - defeat of Nazis. With Allied help it all came to an end much sooner.


I think that is a very large if. I am in no way doubting the capabilities of the SU, but if you consider that Japan was on the "other side" waiting for the SU to show weakness, and considering that almost 100% of the Luffwaffe and the Kriegsmarine was used against the west and not the SU (with the manpower that they used), all points out that while I tend to agree that the SU could have defeated the germans on their own, it would have certainly cost more than 2 additional years. As I said before, don't sell short any of the allies, all of them made Germany's defeat possible.

Dima-RussianArms
05-04-2005, 04:19 PM
The SU beat Germany et al by throwing it's people at the Axis until they relented, without consideration of it's people or forces. Lucky for Stalin that he had such a massive population at his disposal...
A typical western propaganda view that has nothing to do with the reality.

That would be an accurate statement through out the chaotic 1941 and some of the 1942 but after that STAVKA had the upper hand, they have simply outplayed germans.

California Joe
05-04-2005, 04:21 PM
And wasn't there lots and lots of small arms weapons we sent to the Soviets. It turned out that they never used them and they were just chilling or being sold to other countries. How about those Tommy Guns being sent back to the United States, made in 1940s, never being used... never been taking out of the boxes matter of fact.

Thats because Soviets had loads of their own sub-machine guns such as PPSHa and others compared to which Thompsons were utter and complete crap. Ive read reports were a burst from Thompson was unable to penetrate a layer of winter clothing from something like 40 meters becouse of poor accuracy and weak energy rounds.


Did the US ever get it's trucks back? lol, I bet there are a lot of farmers driving Chevrolet trucks with 300,000 miles on the clock!

Yes we did. After they were PAID for, they were sent (at least some portion that I know of) to Vladivistok, crushed under the press, put on ships and sent back to America.

Let's get it streight. Could Soviets defeat Germans without the second front and lend-lease program? Of course, but the war would last another one or two years with another couple of million casualties (at least), but it only would postpone the inevitable - defeat of Nazis. With Allied help it all came to an end much sooner.


P.S. After reading this thread I wonder if Poles ever stop *****ing and complaining? You guys are worse then Jews lol. In every situation you guys have a "victim complex" blaming everybody and everything but themselves. Grow up.

And correct me if I'm wrong but you sound like an ignorant 14 year old douchebag. Futuregrunt? In what army? Kid, everything you read is not gospel. Maybe you should get an education.

FutureGrunt
05-04-2005, 04:31 PM
And correct me if I'm wrong but you sound like an ignorant 14 year old douchebag. Futuregrunt? In what army? Kid, everything you read is not gospel. Maybe you should get an education.

How about some respect you moron? I don't give a damn that you are a moderator, if you don't like something I said let's discuss it before you open you mouth for some name calling.
And my nickname on this forum has nothing to do with my age or my life experiences, and I'm pretty sure youre an armchair commando so shove it.

(_SPETSNAZ_)
05-04-2005, 04:35 PM
The soviets won ww2 (Battle for berlin) AHHHH MOTHERLAND!!!!!! lol...

ChuckThunder
05-04-2005, 04:40 PM
Jeez...

FutureGrunt
05-04-2005, 04:40 PM
I think that is a very large if. I am in no way doubting the capabilities of the SU, but if you consider that Japan was on the "other side" waiting for the SU to show weakness, and considering that almost 100% of the Luffwaffe and the Kriegsmarine was used against the west and not the SU (with the manpower that they used), all points out that while I tend to agree that the SU could have defeated the germans on their own, it would have certainly cost more than 2 additional years. As I said before, don't sell short any of the allies, all of them made Germany's defeat possible.

Im sorry I guess I wasn't clear enough. If the things stayed the same with the Battle of Atlantic, Japan stayed busy with US and British in the Pacific, SU had the capabilities for a defeating Nazi Germany in the European Theater by 1945-1946.

foxtrot023
05-04-2005, 04:43 PM
I think that is a very large if. I am in no way doubting the capabilities of the SU, but if you consider that Japan was on the "other side" waiting for the SU to show weakness, and considering that almost 100% of the Luffwaffe and the Kriegsmarine was used against the west and not the SU (with the manpower that they used), all points out that while I tend to agree that the SU could have defeated the germans on their own, it would have certainly cost more than 2 additional years. As I said before, don't sell short any of the allies, all of them made Germany's defeat possible.

Im sorry I guess I wasn't clear enough. If the things stayed the same with the Battle of Atlantic, Japan stayed busy with US and British in the Pacific, SU had the capabilities for a defeating Nazi Germany in the European Theater by 1945-1946.

under those conditions I agree

nahimov
05-04-2005, 05:16 PM
Nice flame war :(

The basic truth is that Soviet Union was too big for ANY army. No matter how the Germans would try they could not have won against SU simply because it was too big, and once you get Russians pissed your stay on Russian land would be too costly. Napoleon found that out the hard way.

The fall of Germany was just a matter of time. With weapons bought from US, USSR won quicker but it would have won anyway. SU all by itself outproduced Germany so getting equipment from US was great but just by itself it was not a reason why SU won.

ALLIES won. All did their job and it does not matter if SU could have done it by itself or not. You can not rewrite history and history states that everyone contributed.

Herrmannek
05-04-2005, 05:19 PM
I don't really care who won the war. Either way - we lost it.

Sad But True

:(

foxtrot023
05-04-2005, 05:22 PM
The basic truth is that Soviet Union was too big for ANY army. No matter how the Germans would try they could not have won against SU simply because it was too big, and once you get Russians pissed your stay on Russian land would be too costly. Napoleon found that out the hard way.



True, but remember that in WW1, the germans defeated Russia (granted, they had a civil war brewing)

Jani.R
05-04-2005, 05:26 PM
I don't really care who won the war. Either way - we lost it.

Sad But True

:(

Haha, poles.

LordHalbert
05-04-2005, 06:35 PM
The USA won because it's economy thrived after WWII.

The UK probably lost because it's economy and power went down the toilet after WWII.

Germany lost for sure.

Italy lost - no questions there.

Russia won because it expanded it's reach/control that affected Eastern Europe for the next 45 years. That's quite an accomplishment.

Poland - well we know what happened there.

Japan lost because it's economy was in shambles after WWII and two cities were nuked.

That's my idiot's summary of the losers and winners.

BlackRain
05-04-2005, 06:50 PM
Obviously you didn't read the article, it's about who out of the West and Soviet allies won.

Agreed. This is just flame bait material.

All the Allies paid for their victory is blood and treasure. To measure who paid more or to what effect is unsavory.

wulfstan
05-04-2005, 07:08 PM
To put it into perspective, the Nazis had to be defeated, it's just a pity the aftermath was so awful for all those east of the Iron Curtain for another 30/40 years....

Herrmannek
05-04-2005, 07:12 PM
To put it into perspective, the Nazis had to be defeated, it's just a pity the aftermath was so awful for all those east of the Iron Curtain for another 30/40 years....
True, but that doesn't make us feel beter anybit...

Kilgor
05-04-2005, 07:57 PM
People dont realise that the main factors of lend lease was RAW materials such as food, metals and oil, and then transport.

Soviet propaganda will be quick to say.. "well only 3% of weapons were from america so it made little difference" . Whilst this is the truth, its error by omission to leave out the vast amounts of food, oil and raw materials which of course allowed the USSR to turn out soviet made weapons.

Soviet Union leader Nikita Khrushchev wrote, "Without SPAM we wouldn't have been able to feed our army."

BlackRain
05-04-2005, 08:11 PM
People dont realise that the main factors of lend lease was RAW materials such as food, metals and oil, and then transport.

Soviet propaganda will be quick to say.. "well only 3% of weapons were from america so it made little difference" . Whilst this is the truth, its error by omission to leave out the vast amounts of food, oil and raw materials which of course allowed the USSR to turn out soviet made weapons.

Soviet Union leader Nikita Khrushchev wrote, "Without SPAM we wouldn't have been able to feed our army."

If it wasn't for lend lease the Soviet Union would have perished due to the lack of war time materials.

Lend-Lease assistance to the USSR

Lend-Lease was the most visible sign of wartime cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union. About $11 billion (1945 dollars) in war matériel was sent to the Soviet Union under that program. The program started 3 months after the German invasion of USSR in June, 1941.

Additional assistance came from U.S. Russian War Relief (a private, nonprofit organization) and the Red Cross. About seventy percent of the aid reached the Soviet Union via the Persian Gulf through Iran; the remainder went across the Pacific to Vladivostok and across the North Atlantic to Murmansk. Lend- Lease to the Soviet Union officially ended in September 1945.

Joseph Stalin never revealed to his own people the full contributions of Lend-Lease to their country's survival, but he referred to the program at the 1945 Yalta Conference saying, "Lend-Lease is one of Franklin Roosevelt's most remarkable and vital achievements in the formation of the anti-Hitler alliance."

Lend-Lease matériel was welcomed by the Soviet Union, and President Roosevelt attached the highest priority to using it to keep the Soviet Union in the war against Germany. Lend-Lease helped the Soviet Union push the Germans out of its territory and Eastern Europe, thus accelerating the end of the war. With Stalin's takeover of Eastern Europe, the wartime alliance ended, and the Cold War began.

radon
05-04-2005, 08:15 PM
Without soviets western allies could not have defeated germany. Better spam than people

BlackRain
05-04-2005, 08:18 PM
Without soviets western allies could not have defeated germany. Better spam than people


Really? Perhaps you never heard of our Atomic Weapons (used on one of the axis partners). They would have stopped the Germans cold WITHOUT the assistance of the Commies.

Question: What did the USA get in return for Lend-Lease to the USSR?

Answer: Espionage

As part of the aid arrangements, the United States invited the Soviets to greatly expand their diplomatic staffs and to establish special offices to facilitate aid arrangements. Thousands of Soviet military officers, engineers, and technicians entered the United States to review what aid was available and choose which machinery, weapons, vehicles (nearly 400,000 American trucks went to the Soviet Union), aircraft, and other materiel would most assist the Soviet war effort. Soviet personnel had to be trained to maintain the American equipment, manuals had to be translated into Russian, shipments to the Soviet Union had to be inspected to ensure that what was ordered had been delivered, properly loaded, and dispatched on the right ships. Entire Soviet naval crews arrived for training to take over American combat and cargo ships to be handed over to the Soviet Union.

Scores of Soviet intelligence officers of the KGB (the chief Soviet foreign intelligence and security agency), the GRU (the Soviet military intelligence agency), and the Naval GRU (the Soviet naval intelligence agency) were among the Soviet personnel arriving in America. These intelligence officers pursued two missions. One, security, was only indirectly connected with the United States. The internal security arm of the KGB employed several hundred thousand full-time personnel, assisted by several million part-time informants, to ensure the political loyalty of Soviet citizens. When the Soviets sent thousands of their citizens to the United States to assist with the Lend-Lease arrangement, they sent this internal security apparatus as well. A significant portion of the Venona messages deciphered by American code-breakers reported on this task. The messages show that every Soviet cargo ship that arrived at an American port to pick up Lend-Lease supplies had in its crew at least one, often two, and sometimes three informants who reported either to the KGB or to the Naval GRU. Their task was not to spy on Americans but to watch the Soviet merchant seamen for signs of political dissidence and potential defection. Some of the messages show Soviet security officers tracking down merchant seamen who had jumped ship, kidnapping them, and spiriting them back aboard Soviet ships in disregard of American law. Similarly, other messages discuss informants, recruited or planted by the KGB in every Soviet office in the United States, whose task was to report signs of ideological deviation or potential defection among Soviet personnel.

A second mission of these Soviet intelligence officers, however, was espionage against the United States, the size and scope of which is the principal subject of this book. The deciphered Venona cables do more than reveal the remarkable success that the Soviet Union had in recruiting spies and gaining access to many important U.S. government agencies and laboratories dealing with secret information. They expose beyond cavil the American Communist party as an auxiliary of the intelligence agencies of the Soviet Union. While not every Soviet spy was a Communist, most were. And while not every American Communist was a spy, hundreds were. The CPUSA itself worked closely with Soviet intelligence agencies to facilitate their espionage. Party leaders were not only aware of the liaison; they actively worked to assist the relationship

OMEGA7
05-04-2005, 08:25 PM
Without soviets western allies could not have defeated germany. Better spam than people


Really? Perhaps you never heard of our Atomic Weapons (used on one of the axis partners). They would have stopped the Germans cold WITHOUT the assistance of the Commies.

Question: What did the USA get in return for Lend-Lease to the USSR?

Answer: Espionage

As part of the aid arrangements, the United States invited the Soviets to greatly expand their diplomatic staffs and to establish special offices to facilitate aid arrangements. Thousands of Soviet military officers, engineers, and technicians entered the United States to review what aid was available and choose which machinery, weapons, vehicles (nearly 400,000 American trucks went to the Soviet Union), aircraft, and other materiel would most assist the Soviet war effort.

the soviet bring away the us property ?

Roger Rabbit
05-04-2005, 08:28 PM
Dima, what happened to your views on the British and how they never fought the Japanese? Is that an apology i hear?

OMEGA7
05-04-2005, 08:36 PM
Dima, what happened to your views on the British and how they never fought the Japanese? Is that an apology i hear?

i've simply said against what did the russian forces are offered to the US FORCES . is the russian force offered to the us forces ? , weapon and more ,

Dima-RussianArms
05-04-2005, 08:40 PM
Dima, what happened to your views on the British and how they never fought the Japanese? Is that an apology i hear?

I didn't read you posts as I have no interest of learning about the history from the people who start their teaching with the insults. Have a nice life.

oregongrunt
05-04-2005, 09:03 PM
That's a good question, was Europe better off under National Socialism or communism? it's like choosing between a lizard or a snake.

California Joe
05-04-2005, 10:22 PM
I knew that.

Dima-RussianArms
05-04-2005, 10:30 PM
What year did Australia engage and defeat Japan on land?

What threat did Japan present to the GB?
What effect would Japan's victory in the Pacific have on the GB?

BlackRain
05-04-2005, 10:57 PM
What year did Australia engage and defeat Japan on land?


Wow, your education is pretty limited.

THE BATTLE FOR MILNE BAY
25 AUGUST-7 SEPTEMBER 1942

Aerosoul
05-04-2005, 10:58 PM
For a thread with this title, I never would have thought this debate would be taking place.

Dima-RussianArms
05-04-2005, 11:07 PM
What year did Australia engage and defeat Japan on land?


Wow, your education is pretty limited.

THE BATTLE FOR MILNE BAY
25 AUGUST-7 SEPTEMBER 1942

Is it?


Australia was the 1st nation to defeat the Japanese on land.

25 AUGUST-7 SEPTEMBER 1942


August 20-31, 1939

Few battles are less known or more significant than Georgii Zhukov's decisive defeat of a Japanese force of seventy-five thousand men on the Mongolian-Manchurian border in the waning days of August 1939, just as the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact was being signed and World War II was about to begin. Handicapped by lengthy supply lines and facing crack units of the hitherto undefeated Japanese Kwantung Army, Zhukov, in a classic double envelopment and using his armor as a spearhead, first surrounded and then employed withering artillery to destroy his Japanese opponents. In doing so, according to Soviet sources, more than sixty thousand casualties and prisoners were inflicted on the Japanese—more than Tokyo received in that entire year in their concurrent war against China.

As a result, the Japanese warlords gave up forever their aspirations for an empire that would have included both Inner and Outer Mongolia, the Soviet Maritime Provinces, and key portions of Siberia, and chose instead to focus on obtaining the resources of Southeast Asia, leading to war with the United States rather than with the Soviet Union. Thus Khalkin-Gol had the vital effect of keeping Tokyo neutral toward the USSR throughout World War II. Among other things, this allowed Joseph Stalin to transfer key divisions from Siberia to the West, which played a vital role in saving Moscow from the Nazi onslaught in December 1941 (see Moscow, Campaigns for).


I am sorry, what did you say about "limited education"?

BlackRain
05-04-2005, 11:35 PM
[

August 20-31, 1939

Few battles are less known or more significant than Georgii Zhukov's decisive defeat of a Japanese force of seventy-five thousand men on the Mongolian-Manchurian border in the waning days of August 1939, just as the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact was being signed and World War II was about to begin. Handicapped by lengthy supply lines and facing crack units of the hitherto undefeated Japanese Kwantung Army, Zhukov, in a classic double envelopment and using his armor as a spearhead, first surrounded and then employed withering artillery to destroy his Japanese opponents. In doing so, according to Soviet sources, more than sixty thousand casualties and prisoners were inflicted on the Japanese—more than Tokyo received in that entire year in their concurrent war against China.

As a result, the Japanese warlords gave up forever their aspirations for an empire that would have included both Inner and Outer Mongolia, the Soviet Maritime Provinces, and key portions of Siberia, and chose instead to focus on obtaining the resources of Southeast Asia, leading to war with the United States rather than with the Soviet Union. Thus Khalkin-Gol had the vital effect of keeping Tokyo neutral toward the USSR throughout World War II. Among other things, this allowed Joseph Stalin to transfer key divisions from Siberia to the West, which played a vital role in saving Moscow from the Nazi onslaught in December 1941 (see Moscow, Campaigns for).


I am sorry, what did you say about "limited education"?


Close but no cigar.


Fighting ceased on September 16th 1939, when a truce was signed.

The Japanese were not defeated in this engagement as you would have people believe. A truce was signed not a surrender. The Soviets had a true with Japan throughout WWII until days before the USA dropped A-bombs on Japan. A Truce, isn't that nice of the Russians.



The Russians did not declare war with Japan until 8 August 1945.

While we are on the subject...

Did the USSR Provoke War Between USA and Japan in 1941?

http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/365/9999_japan.html

Dima-RussianArms
05-04-2005, 11:48 PM
Your the one who came in here and said the war in the Pacific was SOLEY a US Japanese affiar.

You have misunderstood my statement and haven't answered my question:
What significance on GB Japans victory in the Pacific would have?

You contradicted yourself.
Where?


Also Russia was the one that took peace rather then continue the fighting on two fronts like the US, UK, Canada and Australia were doing.
You are joking right?
Think about it...

Dima-RussianArms
05-05-2005, 12:00 AM
The Japanese were not defeated in this engagement as you would have people believe.

WHAT?!!!:cantbeli: rofl
What is exactly your definition of the "defeat"?
I 'd like to clarify terminology before continuing our discussion.

A truce was signed not a surrender.
Well yeah, so?

The Soviets had a true with Japan throughout WWII until days before the USA dropped A-bombs on Japan.
And only done so because of FDR's request at Yalta conference

A Truce, isn't that nice of the Russians.
??? I guess you are trying to be sarcastic...keep on trying....

While we are on the subject...

Did the USSR Provoke War Between USA and Japan in 1941?
I thought "Pravda" was "an evil lying propagandistic communist newspaper"?
So now you hold it in high regard because it is convinient for your argument?

http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/365/9999_japan.html

EvanL
05-05-2005, 12:03 AM
Your the one who came in here and said the war in the Pacific was SOLEY a US Japanese affiar.

You have misunderstood my statement and haven't answered my question:
What significance on GB Japans victory in the Pacific would have?

You contradicted yourself.
Where?


Also Russia was the one that took peace rather then continue the fighting on two fronts like the US, UK, Canada and Australia were doing.
You are joking right?
Think about it...
Russia stayed out of the Pacific theatre man. They fought braveley in the Western front but that was it. That was where their war was. If Russia decided to fight the Japanese it would have been a much quicker war in the east. But they didnt. Why? Hell if i know. Probably wouldn't be able to fight two fronts and win. They threw everything they had into the western front and at times it looked like they were going to be defeated. If they did that in the east at the same time, they wouldn't be able to sustain either army and would have certainly lost one of the fronts.

Dima-RussianArms
05-05-2005, 12:16 AM
Of course it did, why would it get involved, for what reason?

But the thought of comparing Australia, US or GB fighting on two fronts thousand miles from their homeland to Russia fighting against Germany for its very survival in battles that involved millions of men and stretched for hundreds of miles is just nothing short of ridiculous in my mind...

Japans defeat at Khalkin Gol in 1939 ensured that Russia wouldn't have to fight a war on two fronts.

EvanL
05-05-2005, 12:20 AM
Of course it did, why would it get involved, for what reason?

But the thought of comparing Australia, US CANADAor GB fighting on two fronts thousand miles from their homeland to Russia fighting against Germany for its very survival in battles that involved millions of men and stretched for hundreds of miles is just nothing short of ridiculous in my mind...

Japans defeat at Khalkin Gol in 1939 ensured that Russia wouldn't have to fight a war on two fronts.
So your saying GB wasn't fighting for its survival?
I could have sworn that GB was fighting for its survival :cantbeli:
I mean especially because they were under constant attack from the Luftwaffe, i could have sworn that they were fighting for their survival.

callous
05-05-2005, 12:22 AM
Who ever said ww2 pacific was soley a US/Japan war sorry


Australia also liberated Borneo, Dutch East Indies, PNG. Australia was also involved in many of the clean up operations of islands that had been bypassed or garrisons left behind because the Americans dident have the experiance in dealing with such forces.


Exactly what kind of forces would these be, that the Americans didn't have the experience in dealing with?

Dima-RussianArms
05-05-2005, 12:30 AM
So your saying GB wasn't fighting for its survival?
Where am I saying that?
I believe I have said that fighting remote battles, even on 4 fronts, is not the same as fighting 75% percent of the German military force on your own soil...

I could have sworn that GB was fighting for its survival :cantbeli:
You mean like Hitler proclaimed britts subhumans who were to be eradicated and their country used as a "living space" for the thousand year reich?


I mean especially because they were under constant attack from the Luftwaffe, i could have sworn that they were fighting for their survival.
It is not exactly the same as having Japan land on one side of the island and Germans on another...

EvanL
05-05-2005, 12:32 AM
So your saying GB wasn't fighting for its survival?
Where am I saying that?
I believe I have said that fighting remote battles, even on 4 fronts, is not the same as fighting 75% percent of the German military force on your own soil...

I could have sworn that GB was fighting for its survival :cantbeli:
You mean like Hitler proclaimed britts subhumans who were to be eradicated and their country used as a "living space" for the thousand year reich?


I mean especially because they were under constant attack from the Luftwaffe, i could have sworn that they were fighting for their survival.
It is not exactly the same as having Japan land on one side of the island and Germans on another...
I thought you said that Russia wasn't at risk of being attacked by Japan?
Now your saying they were?
Waffles anybody?

Dima-RussianArms
05-05-2005, 12:40 AM
Dude. Australia was fighting to stop a possible Japanese invasion of Australia and to protect our possesions in the North. GB was fighting to protect it's possesions in Asia. So was the Dutch.
Dude, fighting to protect colonial possesions is not the same as fighting for the survival of your home country!
Even if Japan won the war in the Pacific it wouldn't make much difference in London.
And where did this argument about Australia come from?
I know they have fought braverly against Japanese but all that fighting had no affect on Stalingrad, Kursk and fall of Berlin.

You have also stated that

Australia was the 1st nation to defeat the Japanese on land.
Russia has done that 3 years before.

How real was the threat of the Japanese invasion of the Australia'a mainland?

EvanL
05-05-2005, 12:42 AM
Dude. Australia was fighting to stop a possible Japanese invasion of Australia and to protect our possesions in the North. GB was fighting to protect it's possesions in Asia. So was the Dutch.
Dude, fighting to protect colonial possesions is not the same as fighting for the survival of your home country!
Even if Japan won the war in the Pacific it wouldn't make much difference in London.
And where did this argument about Australia come from?
I know they have fought braverly against Japanese but all that fighting had no affect on Stalingrad, Kursk and fall of Berlin.

You have also stated that

Australia was the 1st nation to defeat the Japanese on land.
Russia has done that 3 years before.

How real was the threat of the Japanese invasion of the Australia'a mainland?


As was stated a truce was signed.
Thats like saying i won a fight because we pinky sweared that we wouldn't hit eachother afterwards.

Dima-RussianArms
05-05-2005, 12:44 AM
I thought you said that Russia wasn't at risk of being attacked by Japan?
Now your saying they were?
Waffles anybody?
Where did I say that?
In case you didn't know Stalin kept forces at the eastern border just in case...

BlackRain
05-05-2005, 12:44 AM
The Japanese were not defeated in this engagement as you would have people believe.

WHAT?!!!:cantbeli: rofl
What is exactly your definition of the "defeat"?
I 'd like to clarify terminology before continuing our discussion.

You really are a brainwashed with Soviet propoganda. Why didn't you mention this:


In spite of the losses, the Japanese commander prepared a counterattack with 3 new divisions. However, a truce was signed on September 10. War clouds were looming in the west, and the Russians were more interested in events in Europe.


A truce was signed not a surrender. A truce with a Japanese force that was outnumbered almost 3 to 1, undersupplied, and out classed with modern tactics. A truce not a victory.

Well yeah, so?

A truce means that Soviet were not victorious like you stated.

The Soviets had a true with Japan throughout WWII until days before the USA dropped A-bombs on Japan.
And only done so because of FDR's request at Yalta conference

A Truce, isn't that nice of the Russians.
??? I guess you are trying to be sarcastic...keep on trying....

Well, if the Soviet's were really Allies and not extremely week, they would have declared War against the remaining Axis partner, Japan like Britain, the USA, and Australia did.

While we are on the subject...

Did the USSR Provoke War Between USA and Japan in 1941?
I thought "Pravda" was "an evil lying propagandistic communist newspaper"?
So now you hold it in high regard because it is convinient for your argument?

I noticed your weak argument is not responsive but a deflection. I guess you have nothing to say.


http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/365/9999_japan.html

Lokos
05-05-2005, 02:46 AM
Dima:

Everyone knows how hard Russia fought in WW2 - and to what extent her contribution made victory possible. Why disparage the, relatively, humble efforts of the Australian/UK forces in the Pacific? Australians, especially, fought the Japanese with a desperation borne of survival instinct. You've got to understand, that they also fought bravely, honourably and to the extent of their ability, given the circumstances.

I have nothing but praise for Australian, British and Canadian efforts in WW2.

Lokos

Kilgor
05-05-2005, 02:51 AM
Also, the canadian navy played a vital role in shipping escorts, during the "uboat peril " times.

Lokos
05-05-2005, 03:07 AM
Ended the war with the 4th largest navy in the world, didn't they?

And made tens of thousands of tanks, air craft and other war machines.

Canadians are like the Northern hemisphere's Australians. Great people.

Lokos

Dima-RussianArms
05-05-2005, 03:16 AM
Lokos, I am by no means trying to belittle achievements/contributions of the Australians and Britts, every country had its heroes and glorious battles.
I just fail to see how them protecting their colonial possesions had a decisive impact on the outcome of the WW2 in Europe.

The way I look at WW2 is somewhat untraditional. To me there were 3 different wars: war in the Pacific, war in the Africa and the war in the Europe.

All of them were fought for different reasons and with different agendas.

To me the most important was the Eastern front and to a guy from Australia the Pacific deal (of which I know very little about) was the "ground zero"...

As for GB, the idea that I am trying to get across is that even if the kingdom had lost its colonial posessions at that time, it wouldn't be the end of the nation.
I also don't know of anyone else besides slavs, jews and gypsies marked for extermination .
To put it simply, other players didn't have the same stakes in the game...

Considering your extensive knowledge on the subject of the WW2, what is your opinion about importance of the lend-lease and possibility of SU defeating Germany without any external help?

Dima-RussianArms
05-05-2005, 03:36 AM
Dude all theatres of the war were all interelated.

North Africa was all about knocking a fatel blow to GB, gaining access to middle eastern oil, linking up with the Japanese and taking Russia from the rear.

Pacific was all about knocking out the America carriers, getting rid of the british from Asia, accessing Oil, Rubber and other resources which the colonial powers controlled, Burma was to link up with the Germans.

Basically. Withought the campaigns in Africa, Asia, Western Europe, Pacific and the Atlantic. Russia my friends was screwed.

That would be a viable argument if Hitler had run out of materials at the end of the war but he ran out of men, trained men.


inking up with the Japanese and taking Russia from the rear.
What rear? With what and whom?
Warfare in Siberia?
Perhaps you don't realize what Siberia was and still is , I don't mean it in the offencive way.
Germany had hard time navigating around in the European part of Russia, I can't even imagine them attacking through Siberia.

Russia's two biggest allies were and still are its territory and climate.

Roger Rabbit
05-05-2005, 04:04 AM
I just fail to see how them protecting their colonial possesions had a decisive impact on the outcome of the WW2 in Europe.
Britain had to fight in Burma to protect India. If she did not then the Japanese would (and did, see Kohima-Imphal) invade India and support or encourage a nationalist uprising against the British. The loss of India to the British would have meant the loss of a great deal of man power. By 1945 there were over 2.5 million soldiers in the British Indian Army. Not only would Britain lose manpower she would also lose the resources India provided and most importantly suffer total humiliation from the loss of the "jewel in the crown," which could have sparked off nationalist uprisings in other colonies. It could well have brought the downfall of the government as well. Furthermore Britain would lose the ports in the Indian Ocean which allowed her access to the Pacific. With this threat from the east, not counting the loss of possessions such as Hong Kong, Malaysia and others then it was essencial that Britain divert soldiers and resources to the Pacific Theatre to counter this threat. These troops and resources could have had a huge impact in the European Theatre had they been available.


I also don't know of anyone else besides slavs, jews and gypsies marked for extermination .
The Rape of Nanking. The Japanese marked several Asian races as inferior to their own. There was no specific plan for the extermination of these races(just as initially there was no plan for the Holocaust) but the Japanese were to be responsible for the deaths of millions in Asia through starvation and brutality. River Kwai, Batan Death March, Unit 731, etc etc. Unfortunately at the end of the war many of the Japanese war crimminals were not put on trial and the Holocuast tends to shadow Japans actions in Asia.

Kilgor
05-05-2005, 04:58 AM
Some lend - lease bits

409500 vehicles
43% of tires
56% of railway rails
1900 trains, when only 92 were built in the SU
58% of hi-octane fuel
1/3 of explosives
4/5 of copper
328000 tonnes of aluminium when the SU only produced 283000 tonnes

Enough canned food to provide every soldier a meal a day (though accounts from the front make it clear they werent the regular beneficiaries.

Only 4% of weapons used by the SU came from lend lease. So the post war propaganda was very quick to exploit this figure, and completely ignoring the fact the vast bulk of lend lease was other goods.

RavenW
05-05-2005, 05:47 AM
Who won WWII?

According to my history books World War Two was won by Allied powers (UK, USSR, USA and others), while Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler in Germany was defeated and overthwon as well as fascist regime of Benito Mussolini was defeated and overthrown in Italy.

any questions? :roll: :cantbeli:

Lokos
05-05-2005, 06:51 AM
From my readings on the subject, I believe that Lend Lease certainly had a significant impact on the Red Army's ability to sustain consecutive offensives. That said, and as important as that was to the Soviet war effort, the Germans were destined for defeat in the SU after mid '43 - before Lend Lease made its true impact felt.

LL definitely shortened the war for the SU, though.

Lokos

foxtrot023
05-05-2005, 10:58 AM
From my readings on the subject, I believe that Lend Lease certainly had a significant impact on the Red Army's ability to sustain consecutive offensives. That said, and as important as that was to the Soviet war effort, the Germans were destined for defeat in the SU after mid '43 - before Lend Lease made its true impact felt.

LL definitely shortened the war for the SU, though.

Lokos

Lokos,

Lend lease permitted the SU campaigns of ´43 and ´44 to have a high degree of mobility, thereby increasing greatly their chance for success.

Lend Lease per year:
1941- 360,778
1942- 2,453,097
1943- 4,794,545****
1944- 6,217,622****
1945- 3,673,819

For Dima:

Here are the references/sources

Istoriya vol. 6 pp.48, 62 and 72
Jacobsen, Der Zweite Weltkrieg, p. 568
Deane, The strange alliance, pp.86-103
Stettinius, Lend Lease
Werth, Russia at war, pp.624-8
Schlauch, Rustungshilfe der USA an die Verbundeten im Zweiten Weltkrieg

BlackRain
05-05-2005, 02:12 PM
The USSR would have perished with out Lend Lease period end of story.

Stalinist propoganda would have you believe that the Allies contribution to the USSR was small but it was not.


Net value of Lend Lease to the USSR for its time in 1940: U.S. dollars $ 11,260,343,603.02. In 1994 dollars that comes to: U.S. dollars $131 billion.

The USA supplied the USSR with 6,430 planes, 3,734 tanks, 104 ships and boats, 210,000 autos, 3,000 anti-aircraft guns, 245,000 field telephones, gasoline, aluminum, copper, zinc, steel and five million tons of food.

This was enough to feed an army of 12 million every day of the war.

The Allies supplied 317,000 tons of explosive materials including 22 million shells that was equal to just over half of the total Soviet production of approximately 600,000 tons.

Britain supplied 5,800 planes, 4,292 tanks, and 12 minesweepers.

Canada supplied 1,188 tanks, 842 armoured cars, nearly one million shells, and 208,000 tons of wheat and flour.

The USSR depended on American trucks for its mobility since 427,000 out of 665,000 motor vehicles (trucks and jeeps) at the end of the war were of western origin.

Additionally, the Allies shipped 2,400 miscellaneous field guns and mortars, 81,000 machine guns (both field and aircraft types), and misc. flame-throwers, rifles, pistols, hand grenades and mines.


Lend-Lease Ammunition And Explosives

The Allies supplied 317,000 tons of explosive materials including 22 million shells that was equal to just over half of the total Soviet production of approximately 600,000 tons. Additionally the Allies supplied 103,000 tons of toluene, the primary ingredient of trinitrotoluene (more commonly known as TNT) while Soviet manufacture totaled 116,000 tons. If the Allies had not shipped these amounts of explosive materials, the Soviets undoubtedly would have had even more serious ammunition problems in addition to all their other shortcomings. The Soviet's ammunition shortages, mainly early in the war, caused them to be conservative with artillery shells and reinforced the use of their field guns in direct fire mode. This was done even though it brought greater risk to the artillery crews and their guns. The shortage of radios, field telephones, faulty communications wire further exacerbated the Soviet lack of artillery flexibility until the Allies provided more communications equipment. The Allies shipped, in addition to explosives and ammunition, 991 million miscellaneous shell cartridges to speed up the manufacturing of ammunition.


Lend-Lease Motor Transport

The most important vehicles that the Allies supplied were trucks and jeeps. Soviet manufactured trucks were copies of 1930-era designs and did not have the cross-country abilities of the more modern vehicles provided by the Allies. The amounts shipped to Russia included; 197,825 - 1 1/2 ton trucks, 210,000 - 2 1/2 ton trucks, 12,000 jeeps and automobiles, 52,000 motorcycles, 4,000 ordinance and fuel hauling vehicles, 8,000 trailers, and 2 million miscellaneous tires.

The Soviets produced an estimated 281,500 trucks during the War, and made use of many captured vehicles. The Allies sent just over 400,000 trucks, these higher quality Lend-Lease trucks greatly facilitated Soviets in mounting offensives at a faster pace, that eventually got them to Berlin. Without them they undoubtedly would have had to manufacture trucks instead of AFV's and other equipment, causing the War in the East to be prolonged. For example: In Koniev's initial offensive in April 1945 to take Berlin, 15,000 of the 18,000 trucks in his Motor Transport Regiments moving ammunition and food around and to the front were Lend-Lease trucks.


As mentioned earlier the Allies shipped a total of 476,000 tons of 100 octane aviation fuel that was also one of the more important items received. Production of this fuel was necessary to considerably enhance aircraft performance. It required sophisticated refining equipment and advanced techniques of production that the Soviets were short of.


Lend-Lease Military Equipment Misc.

5.5 Million Combat boots

23 million yards of army cloth for uniforms, etc.

Misc. rucksacks, bedding, blankets, tents and cots

Misc. saddles, harnesses and 93,000 tons of jute.

And the most valuable of item of all: gold braid to decorate their Soviet uniforms


Lend-Lease Communications, Rail and Naval Equipment

Over 2 million feet of waterproof telephone wire sent. This was a very important commodity that requires precise quality control standards. The Russian-made wire on the other hand, was substandard and had a reputation for always having a leak or short in it somewhere. The Lend-Lease cable was considerably more reliable. Since the Russians preferred using wire communications over wireless radios (so the Germans could not listen in on them) it was considered one of the more valuable items.

56,500 field telephones and 245,000 wireless radios for field and vehicle use.

1,000 locomotives and 250,000 tons of steel rails.

Miscellaneous Rail switching and signaling equipment.

520 Ships, tugs, barges and miscellaneous vessels that included 4 older Capital Ships, 33 Subchasers, 22 Minesweepers and 12 Gunboats.

1,111 - 20mm naval AA guns as well as several hundred torpedoes.


Lend-Lease Misc. Raw Materials, Tooling, Construction And Mfg. Equipment

1.2 million tons of steel in the form of slabs, sheets, tubing and bars (the Allies shipped them enough to make approximately 40,000 medium tanks, like the T-34).

Misc. Raw metals including 217,000 tons copper, 134,000 tons aluminum, 48,000 tons lead, 42,000 tons zinc, 29,000 tons tin, and 6,500 tons nickel.

Misc. chemicals, lubricants, paint, antifreeze, propane, acetylene, oxygen and 103,000 tons of rubber.

20,000 machine-tools including mills, lathes, grinders, drill bits, industrial diamonds, welding equipment and miscellaneous tools (calipers, scales, drills, hammers, screwdrivers)

Excavators, bulldozers, cranes and electrical equipment.

Oil refining equipment.


Lend-Lease Farm Equipment, Food, Cigarettes And Medical Supplies

Farm Tractors, plows, farm Implements (shovels, spades, sledgehammers) and fertilizers.

Field Kitchens, cooking pans and utensils.

4.5 million tons of food that included flour, rations, preserves, chocolates and 12,000 tons of butter.

Cigarettes And Tobacco.

Medical Equipment -- instruments, stethoscopes, drugs such as morphine to aspirin for pain relief, antigens, antiseptics and bandages.


Samples Sent

M-1 Rifle, T-10 Heavy Tank, DeHavilland Mosquito, B-17 Flying Fortress, B-24 Liberator and misc. other equipment to help the Russians in a technical sense as examples of what the Allies were manufacturing.





Soviet Weapons Losses in 1941 (The First Six Months Of The War)

One of the most compelling reasons for Western Allied assistance to the Soviet Union was the incredible heavy losses of weapons and equipment caused by the German invasion. The following few examples illustrate the severity of the Russian losses. The percentage of Weapons available, lost by Soviet Forces during 1941:

56% of all Small-arms and Machine guns.
69% of all Anti-Tank guns.
59% of all Field guns and Mortars.
72% of all Tanks.
34% of all Combat Aircraft.

Approximately 20,000 Tanks and 10,000 Combat Aircraft were lost by Soviet forces in this period.

nahimov
05-05-2005, 02:35 PM
Hmm 131 Billion is not that much at all. Iraqi war already costs a lot more. I'm pretty sure that the cost of WWII for SU was in trillions not billions.

FutureGrunt
05-05-2005, 03:27 PM
I thought you said that Russia wasn't at risk of being attacked by Japan?
Now your saying they were?
Waffles anybody?

Well even in the darkest days in the beginning of the war Soviet Union kept 19 divisions, 1,200 tanks and some 1,000 aircraft in Mongolia to confront the Japanese.
Japanese deployed a million men Kwantung Army against Soviets. If its not an indicator of a risk being attacked i dont know what is ;)

JTAR7242
05-05-2005, 03:28 PM
Who won WWII?

According to my history books World War Two was won by Allied powers (UK, USSR, USA and others), while Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler in Germany was defeated and overthwon as well as fascist regime of Benito Mussolini was defeated and overthrown in Italy.

any questions? :roll: :cantbeli:

Your book forgot that there were a few skirmishes in the Pacific as well.

Skaman
05-05-2005, 04:11 PM
I would go so far as to suggest the u boat campaign in the Atlantic as being the uncontested tactical failure of the Kriegsmarine, ultimately dooming the respective Weimarcht components and facilitating the destruction of the Third Reich. Regardless of Germans Army initiatives in the USSR and the threat of an impending Red advance, the strategic importance of the West cannot be denied. This is made evident by German high commands strategic shortsightedness thus resulting in the fall of Hitler’s European seawall, compromising his wartime effort in the East. Had the war in the Atlantic faired better, Hitler could have denied Allied access to Europe, likely waging a more successful offensive in the East with an ineffective lend lease program hindered by German controlled sea lanes.

" The only thing that ever really frightened me during the war, was the U-Boat menace."

-Winston Churchill

foxtrot023
05-05-2005, 05:21 PM
I would go so far as to suggest the u boat campaign in the Atlantic as being the uncontested tactical failure of the Kriegsmarine, ultimately dooming the respective Weimarcht components and facilitating the destruction of the Third Reich. Regardless of Germans Army initiatives in the USSR and the threat of an impending Red advance, the strategic importance of the West cannot be denied. This is made evident by German high commands strategic shortsightedness thus resulting in the fall of Hitler’s European seawall, compromising his wartime effort in the East. Had the war in the Atlantic faired better, Hitler could have denied Allied access to Europe, likely waging a more successful offensive in the East with an ineffective lend lease program hindered by German controlled sea lanes.

" The only thing that ever really frightened me during the war, was the U-Boat menace."

-Winston Churchill

No. The most important european theatre in WW2 was the eastern theatre. All sides contributed, but when you think that between 60% and 75% of the Werhmacht was committed to the East, it certainly puts a perspective on what you wrote.

To be fair though, the West soaked most of the german navy and a significant part of the german airforce.

wulfstan
05-05-2005, 05:40 PM
I could have sworn that GB was fighting for its survival :cantbeli:
[*******blue]You mean like Hitler proclaimed britts subhumans who were to be eradicated and their country used as a "living space" for the thousand year reich?



I'm assuming you are not saying that Hitler wanted Britain as Lebenstraum? Cos he/they didn't, he reluctantly had to attack when he realised that they wouldn't back his insane plan. In fact, he admired the British for their ability to dominate millions of 'sub-humans'.

Lokos
05-05-2005, 11:02 PM
foxtrot:

Did you miss when I said 'before mid-1943'?

Yes, I am well aware that Lend Lease allowed the SU to sustain consecutive operations and exploit them to a far greater extent than would have otherwise been possible.

That does nothing to dispute my point that, apart from shortening the war, LL did not, in fact, 'save the USSR's ass'. The USSR's ass was saved by the smashing strategic victories at Stalingrad and the operational successes immediately following Kursk (Orel etc) (Kursk itself was a draw, IMHO). These victories were not heavily influenced by the presence or non-presence of LL.

That presence was most assuredly felt in late 1943 and beyond.

Lokos

Kilgor
05-05-2005, 11:39 PM
No, what saved USSR's ass what the failure to capture moscow instead turning south to capture the ukraine. Hitlers complete refusal to provide winter clothing for his troops (until too late), and his constant refusal to let troops withdraw from very dangerous situations like stalingrad and most importantly the disorganistation of hitlers war industries which were not forced into full production until it was too late.


These victories were not heavily influenced by the presence or non-presence of LL.


Lokos, the soviet army used all this resources to their victory in places like stalingrad and kursk. Its like saying your breakfast had nothing to do with your activities today.

Id like to see how the soviet army would have fought without the transport, steel, food and especially communications that LL provided.

Especially the thousands of radio sets provided. One of the main problems of the early soviet army was the complete lack of organisation due to radio.

Kilgor
05-06-2005, 12:24 AM
And as I said. Just because a country lost what 20 odd million doesent mean a country who lost 50,000 men any less significant. .

And remember, If stalin took all the warnings of invasion seriously and hadnt purged the army so severly, Russian losses would have certainly been less than 20 million.

Both Hitler and Stalin were responsible for the Russian people's suffereing.

callous
05-06-2005, 12:28 AM
With Kursk Hitler stoped the offensive, because he panicked when the Wetern Allies invaded Sicily. He quickly sent troops that were involved in the battle to Italy. I'm not trying to take away from the valiant effort of the Soviet Troops at Kursk. Just pointing out how the Allies helped each other by fighting on different fronts. Making Hitler send troops from where they were needed to defend other areas.

IMO one of the most important things that helped win the War was the spies and breaking of codes.

Stalin new when and where the Germans were going to attack at Kursk. They also new from a spy at the German embassy in Japan. That the Japanese weren't going to attack Russia. Allowing them to move Troops from the East to fight the Germans. etc.etc.etc.

Kitsune
05-06-2005, 12:39 AM
Even right up to the invasion of the low countries Germany wanted peace with GB. But because of GB stubborness peace never happened.


Even after the conquest of France Hitler offered peace to Britain, believe it or not. He offered the the immediate end of the occupation of France if Britain would just cease hostilites. Nothing else was demanded from Britain. Churchill flatly rejected this, without further discussion, a decision that was seen quite critically at the time, since the war went quite bad for Britain. (Actually it was serious considered by quite a few British politicans to send Churchill into exile and make peace with Germany. Of course, after the war was won this was conveniently forgotten.)
It's interesting that all of this is almost never mentioned.

Lokos
05-06-2005, 12:48 AM
Kilgor:

By your definition the war was over before it started. The decision to turn south into the Ukraine was a *valid* one. There were over 700,000 Soviet troops still fighting there, and leaving them in their rear was NOT in the Wehrmacht's best interest.

Either they could go to Moscow early, overstretch, and have Army Group Center drained by bloody, indecisive fighting in and around the city, or they could wrap up the Ukraine, then turn their full remaining strength against the city. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Nevertheless, the Germans were still in a position to win the war in '42. Had they made wiser strategic decisions and by-passed Stalingrad, there is every likelihood of the USSR's eventual downfall.

But they instead got bogged down fighting for a minor industrial city for months on end. Bad move.

Now, as for LL, there was nearly none at Stalingrad, and very little at Kursk. Was it helpful? Assuredly. Was it vital in those battles? No. I am not belittling LL, here. This is just fact. While it was vital for the repeated, consecutive campaigns of '44 and '45, it was certainly not for the turning of the tide in the East.

calluous:

I called Kursk a draw simply because neither side really overmatched the other one. The question of German victory, however, is easily answered: there could have been no strategic success for the Germans at Kursk. Look at the map, look at first day objectives and then look at the three-day progress of the Germans. In the north, nearly non-existent. In the south, inconsequential. And, if worst came to worst, the Soviets could simply ***** their Orel salient of manpower and plug the gaps.

And that's regardless of the presence of the German troops withdrawn because of Allied efforts in Italy.

All the Soviets wanted to do at Kursk was repel the German offensive. With defence-in-depth this was accomplished. Their counter strokes were incredibly effective, and far more consequential than Kursk itself.

Lokos

Brozozo
05-06-2005, 01:28 AM
From my readings and from the LL figures posted here I'm led to believe that without the LL the USSR wouldn't have a chance of defeating the Germans. And if the Germans were only engaged on the Eastern front the war would have been even shorter with different results.

callous
05-06-2005, 04:21 AM
Actually in the South the Germans had fought through the heaviest fortifications and only faced weak defenses in front of them. After that there would be no Russian troops between them and Kursk. With the Arrival of the 3rd panzer corps They could've pushed on. Instead Hitler Transfered the 2nd SS to italy and called of the offensive.

Also thanks to the LL the soviets had the supplies, trucks and jeeps that made thier counter offensive possible.

Lokos
05-06-2005, 12:05 PM
callous:

Weak defenses? Do you understand the kind of reserves the Soviets were ready to employ in case of a German breakthrough? With or without the Waffen SS, Citadel was doomed to failure.

And LL did not make a difference in the Kursk counteroffensives, apart from helping the Soviets to an extent. This was not a drastic help, rest assured.

Brozozo:

You're led to believe wrongly.

LL was vital for the SUSTAINED, CONSECUTIVE Soviet offensives of mid-1944 and 1945. It was NOT vital for Soviet survival, and it was NOT vital for the turning of the tide in the East during 1942-1943. Stop overreaching. Overall, was LL extremely important? Yes. Was it what saved the Soviet Union? Only if you're a 'patriotic' American. I mean, those dumb Commies couldn't save their own asses, right? :roll:

And in 1941-1943 the VAST majority of the war-capable Wehrmacht/Waffen SS WAS employed against the Soviets. What strategic difference were the couple of divisions in the Afrika Korps going to make on the Eastern Front, where there were well over 200 Axis divisions (that's Axis, not just German) already?

By that same token, if the USSR only had one front to worry about, it might have had an easier time of it, too. Unfortunately, it had to keep dozens of valuable divisions in the East, to guard against a possible Japanese attack. Hundreds of thousands of men and vast amounts of equipment.

Forget the notion that somebody saved the Soviet Union's ass in WW2. That's just not the way it went down.

Lokos