Could Russia have won without US Lend-Lease help?

[Cygnus]

Todays paper...


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

How about some payback first for the weapons that won the big war?
BY THE WAY By Max V. Soliven
The Philippine Star (http://www.philstar.com/philstar/News200505082602.htm) 05/08/2005

WASHINGTON, DC – War makes strange bedfellows, the old maxim went. Peace makes strange bedfellows, too. Otherwise, how can we explain the fact that America’s George W. Bush is in Moscow, making chika-chika with Russia’s evangelist of a new Soviet Empire, without Communism – but neither is he a Democrat (much less a Republican) – the post-Stalin "man of steel" and Yukos-basher – Vladimir Putin?

Next-door neighbors Estonia and Lithuania have refused Moscow’s invitation to join the celebration – still bitter over Russia’s refusal to apologize (it’s not just the Chinese who resent no apologies) for the old Soviet Union’s atrocities and iron-clad rule over them.

But Bush is merrily in the heart of what his fellow Republican Ronald Reagan once dubbed The Evil Empire, sunnily holding hands with Mr. Putin and preparing to sing the chorus tomorrow (May 9, the 60th anniversary of the Fall of Nazi Germany and Victory in Europe): "All hail to Josef Stalin and the Great Patriotic War – for having crushed Adolf Hitler and liberated Europe!"

For that’s what tomorrow’s fanfare and military goosestepping (yep, the Kremlin Guards have their own high-kickin’ style, balancing their rifles like ballet dancers on the palm of one hand) are all about.

We’re all for Mr. Bush cozying up somewhat to Mr. Putin, the former KGB in natty suits and with a killer smile. For Russia’s a good card to play – though it’s the other way around – with Pyongyang’s nuclear rockets (the current buzz) ready to test their "new" delivery systems in the direction of Tokyo and Washington DC. Believe me, that’s what they’re biting their nails about here in the corridors of frustration and power. North Korea’s Kim Il Sung may look crazy, but to risk a bromide, crazy like a fox.

Putin, of course, has his own agenda. He’s already selling weaponry, aircraft, technology and systems to the Chinese, but his nostalgia for past Soviet Power is what’s worrisome, not his mercantile instincts. David Satter, a Russian expert from the Hoover Institution and my alma mater, SAIS Johns Hopkins University, ran two timely quotations from Putin in The Wall Street Journal Friday. Putin, in his speech last year at the Victory Day celebrations had declared: "We were victorious in the most just war of the twentieth century. May 9 is the pinnacle of our glory." In his recent state of the nation address last April 25, Putin had even called the break-up of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century."

Longing for the old USSR? You betcha. Putin doesn’t hide his yearning under a bushel. Nobody was ever punished in Russia for the atrocities of Stalin and the Soviet gulags, no Communist commissar ever called to book, no former KGB torturer unmasked and made to pay for crimes. The victims continue to be victimized by loss of memory – and are forgotten. It was the bullies and murderers who were rehabilitated. * * *
Tomorrow it will be emphasized how Russia demolished Hitler, pounded Berlin to rubble, overran the Hitler Bunker, in effect, ended the war by bringing Germany down to the ashes of defeat. Indeed, the Russians did score a magnificent victory, by overwhelming then crushing Nazi Germany in a final offensive, tearing the Swastika from its pinnacle in the Reichstag, planting the Red flag on Potsdam Square. Russia did so at the horrible cost of 27 million dead. We salute the courage and valor of the Russian people and their fighters from the Soviet Republics.

Yet, this might be a propitious moment for Bush to hand oil-rich Putin, Moscow and Petersburg, the unpaid bill.


It’s already forgotten – deliberately I’d say – that America supplied its Allies with more than $50 billion in war material through Lend-Lease, with most of the weaponry, warplanes, tanks, locomotives, the sinews of war, being rushed to embattled Russia.

Stalinist propaganda, throughout the Cold War, and that of his Soviet successors, claimed that United States military equipment (a scant four percent! they alleged) delivered was not substantial.

This was nonsense. I remember one of my professors at the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins, here in DC was Dr. Moses Harvey – unknown despite his heroic contribution to winning the war. He had been one of the ranking supervisors of the Lend-Lease equipment and weaponry rushed to the Soviet eastern front to help Stalin stem the advance of Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa. He kept on complaining to us in class that the Russians had never paid back a cent.

"When we presented them our first bill of US$7 billion Stalin and his Kremlin gang scoffed. They offered to give everything back! Everything was, by then, mainly junk." But the Cold War was on and nobody, even in Washington, listened to Harvey’s rantings. He became almost a pathetic figure of fun.

Since the fall of the USSR and the demolition of the Iron Curtain, Soviet archives were finally opened and the real impact of Lend-Lease has just been revealed. Russian scholars A.S. Orlov and V.P. Kozhanov, citing data from the suddenly available archives reported in a Russian historical journal some long-suppressed details of more than 17 million tons of US Lend-Lease war material delivered to Russia under the agreement’s four protocols, from 1941-1945.

This is only a partial list of what helped Russia defeat Hitler:

Airplanes, 22,195! <<< one of this birds is the Bell P-39 Cobra (http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p39_19.html)

Armored vehicles, 12,980, including 7,000 tanks.

Chemical products, 842,000 tons.

Food, 4.3 million tons.

Locomotives, 1,981.

Medical supplies, 2.6 million tons.

Petroleum products, 345,000 tons.

Railroad cars, 11,156.

Ships, 560.

Trucks and other vehicles, 427,000.

Could Russia have won without US Lend-Lease help? Many American captains, their crews and ships went to the bottom of the Baltic, destroyed by German attack or Baltic winter storms, as well as British and other Allied ships and crews, to rush this stuff to Joe Stalin’s "brave" warriors. Will they be remembered, too – tomorrow, May 9th? Not likely.

As for our professor, Moses Harvey, we thought he was exaggerating, but he was right! Finally vindicated by history. Small consolation. They still haven’t paid and never will – not even in terms of gratitude or a salute.


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

An illustration of the Soviet P-39 (http://www.fighterplanes.net/aircobra.html)

[Cygnus]

It is so true, Russia would have not been abel to fight of the Nazis with out aid. They may have produced the mighty T-34, but with out the war materials and other vehicles [aid form the USA]... The number of their dead would be higher than the actual count.

What do you guys think???

[Son_Of_Suvorov]

Big surprise here, the article is a bunch of crap. Let's look at some points that jump out right away:


Could Russia have won without US Lend-Lease help? Many American captains, their crews and ships went to the bottom of the Baltic, destroyed by German attack or Baltic winter storms, as well as British and other Allied ships and crews, to rush this stuff to Joe Stalin’s "brave" warriors. Will they be remembered, too – tomorrow, May 9th? Not likely.

I see this particular journalist is very well read in history. Were those American captains delivering their cargo to the Nazis, because not only would they have passed through Nazi-controlled Denmark straights, they would have to land in Nazi-controlled Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia or Finland. I guess the man was too lazy to take the one minute it took me to find this map with a web search:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/BigL/img/BigL-p286.jpg


Locomotives, 1,981.

Now, considering that the USSR uses a different gauge, I would really like to see these engines (unless the American planners were bright and intelligent like the reporter, they wouldn't bother shipping cars over, so "locomotives" is also a very misleading word).

[stuntman]

It is so true, Russia would have not been abel to fight of the Nazis with out aid. They may have produced the mighty T-34, but with out the war materials and other vehicles [aid form the USA]... The number of their dead would be higher than the actual count.

What do you guys think???
Well I don't know about all that other number stuff but Soviets would have had to deal with 20+ divisions the allies were fighting. And not to mention although the supply numbers seem a little high the USA did send tons of equipment not to mention we (US)were fighting Imperial Japan!
SO to answer your question NO they would of lost big ****ing time and no winter would of saved them again! ;)

[caridon]

The missleading part is that he lists the help to ALL of the allies and insinuates that that help was to the USSR.

here (http://www.strategypage.com/cic/docs/cic74c.asp)
is a list of the dollar amount given.
i'l list some important ones.
British Empire 31,267,240,530.63
China 1,548,794,965,99
France 3,207,608,188.75
U.S.S.R. 11,260,343,603.02

note that GB got 3 times as much as the USSR.

/C

[stuntman]

note that GB got 3 times as much as the USSR.

/C
Well they are a island with no resources wile Russia has plenty..

[4nzix]

what a ****ing tool!!



RUSSIA defeated Germany buddy, and they could have very easily kept going west, if they wanted to.

[Cygnus]

what a f*** tool!!



RUSSIA defeated Germany buddy, and they could have very easily kept going west, if they wanted to.

If they did, those T-34 would cut down the Shermans...

By the way I'm impressed with the soviet smg back then... don't know what it is called but some guy here posted a pic of it from Iraq. A US service man was using one...

Anyway just glad they didn't...

[sheroo]

But another question would have been the large number of german divisions which had to be diverted from the western front to handle the eastern front. If the allies did not provide the material they did then the large armored divisions and the supply logistics would have have to be dealt by the allies. The Soviets had the manpower whereas the west had the material power.
IMHO eventually the war would have been won by the allies (West+USSR) but at a much higher cost.

question is what was the affect of the lend-lease on breaking the back of the Stalingrad or leningrad seige by the russians. for some that was the turning point of the eastern front.

[ZaakM433]

nobody has even mentioned italy...

[He219]

RUSSIA defeated Germany buddy, and they could have very easily kept going west, if they wanted to.
Singlehandedly& easily?!?
:lol:

Patton had something else in mind, and he was right.


Could Russia have won without US Lend-Lease help?
Maybe; at the very least it would have taken a lot longer.

These hypothetical questions are rediculous. The Allied assault was two ****ged.
Take away Western participation and the Soviets would have been defeated.

The resources lost in the Ardennes offensive alone would have repulsed the Soviet advance onto Berlin.

[Abbyy]

Could Russia have won without US Lend-Lease help?

Yes.

I bet it should took more time in this case but anyway: yes.

I disagree with you He219. Germany was doomed in the day it invaded USSR. Blitzkrieg was only chance for Germany to win but already in September 1941 it became clear that Blitzkrieg failed.

[pathfinder82]

The resources lost in the Ardennes offensive alone would have repulsed the Soviet advance onto Berlin.[/quote]

I agree, I sometimes think people make remarks without knowing the history of their own armed forces during that period.

[He219]

Regardless Abbyy, I'm glad that the NAZIs were defeated.
In many ways they had to be defeated, one way or another.

It's just a shame how many millions of young people had to die before Adolf took his own life and put an end to the madness ...

[bloddyaxe]

Seriously, the journalist should be shot for writing "the Baltic."
Utterly removes any slightest credibility...very sad

[perdurabo]

Food, 4.3 million tons
that could be key whitout US grain more russians would starve so less of them could go on front remember that moust of russias food at that time came from western part mainly ukraine that was taken by germans if germans would breech to caucasus and ural russia would be doomed (so would be the rest of the world)
aout locomotives USA build spetial version for Russia in board gauge.

[jedisponge]

Could Russia have won without US Lend-Lease help?

Yes.

I bet it should took more time in this case but anyway: yes.

I disagree with you He219. Germany was doomed in the day it invaded USSR. Blitzkrieg was only chance for Germany to win but already in September 1941 it became clear that Blitzkrieg failed.
Sounds like Soviet superiority complex.

The Ardennes offensive had important amounts of men and armor in terms of quality. Are you saying that if all that material was on concentrated in the eastern front, the Soviet attack plans wouldn't have severly complicated? If that were to happen, then you have to look and study the generals in command of the Russian Army at the time, and then somehow predict what they might do. After that you'll have some idea of what would've happen, whether it was to succeed or not.

In terms of Russian pool of recruits, Germany did bite off more than it could chew when it invaded Russia.But lets say we're pretending the offensive didn't occur and the Western Allies didn't push into Germany. Without the Lend-Lease Act, a percentage of the population would have to be diverted to produce arms instead of being able to fight. Add the fact that the Soviet Army, Airforce and Navy was immensely manpower intensive you would have a serious supply problem unless a larger proportion was diverted to production. After back and forth fighting, lack of the Lend Lease Act, sooner or later the Russian population would've dwindled, which would stress both production and manpower in the military. Then take into account what would happen if German Divisions in the western front were diverted to the Eastern Front (because of lack of Western Allied involvement). Add that if the fighting were to last past 1945, you have to maturing of the Hitler Youth, whom would be able to participate if not for the repelling of the Ardennes Offensive and subsequent Allied movement into Germany.

[Abolith]

why do peple always bring this subject up?? what if this? what if that?? what does it matter? Nazi Germany was defeated and THAT is what really matters.

[Mr.K]

why do peple always bring this subject up?? what if this? what if that?? what does it matter? Nazi Germany was defeated and THAT is what really matters.

I totally agree with you, but it's a general trend now to discreditate soviet efforts and victory in ww2

[bloddyaxe]

The real question is: Could the CCCP have dislodged the Brits and Americans from the rest of Europe after they defeated the Germs? Or, what would have happened if Patton would have had his way?

Or, could Japan have conquered the US, if it had sent a massive invasion fleet after Pearl Harbour... Could the Japs have won an land invasion on Hawaii?

[DPGLAW]

I think that is a very good point that Russia really owes us lock, stock, and barrel for their victory in WWII. I mean they obviously had the people with the correct skills but without the equipment that we provided them, they would have gotten their asses handed to them. Now, I feel we should ask for repayment of those monies but that is unreasonable to think that tehy would own up to their debt so in my opinion, it would not be such a bad idea for Bush to make a public reminder of this duringthese celebrations that are coming up. At the very least to remind them what we as a country did for them during a war in whcih they were being heavily persecuted because we could use real support for them in this war against terror we are fighting instead of the support of a fair weathered friend type ally that we are getting now. Perhaps such a public reminder is in order. I dont however, think it will happen, unfortunately though..... That was a very interesting article, I had no idea that it was basically our equipment that won their part of the war and it has been so easily forgotten by them

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

Well the better question is how the allies would have faired minus the USSR. Lest we forget 8 out of every 10 German soldiers killed during WWII were killed by the Soviets. OK OK OK, I know the Americans strode in upon their white steed and saved the day HAHA. Without the Soviets taking the brunt of the actual German army the war may have been quite different.

DONT EVEN MENTION IF THE "ALLIES" would have let the Russkies go at it by themselves...cuz I'm sure Hitler had ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTIONS OF DEALING WITH THE ALMIGHTY BRITSH...haha yeeeeeeeah right. Hitler was so damn scared of the Brit's he would have just left them alone...wait...no I'm sure he had plans on taking Britain as well.

Also remember that Hitler HATED the US as well cuz he believed that the whole "melting pot" idea was not good and that all of the smart, tough intelligent Euro's went to America in the mass migrations to the Americas. So I'm sure he could have easily attacked the US with his far superior army as well if he wouldve held off on fighting the Soviets.

Also don't forget the fact that it was estimated the US would lose 200,000 soldiers taking Berlin.

Put it this way, the US may have provided supplies but the Soviets provided a much more important thing...lives. The West should be thankful for their efforts, and I think $50 bil is worth 27 mil lives (roughly $1852 a life) and I think it was once said that you can't put a price on a human life.

I think we should go after the nazi f**kers and get the money back and hey f**K swiss banks also...

[Mr.K]

Well the better question is how the allies would have faired minus the USSR. Lest we forget 8 out of every 10 German soldiers killed during WWII were killed by the Soviets. OK OK OK, I know the Americans strode in upon their white steed and saved the day HAHA. Without the Soviets taking the brunt of the actual German army the war may have been quite different.

DONT EVEN MENTION IF THE "ALLIES" would have let the Russkies go at it by themselves...cuz I'm sure Hitler had ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTIONS OF DEALING WITH THE ALMIGHTY BRITSH...haha yeeeeeeeah right. Hitler was so damn scared of the Brit's he would have just left them alone...wait...no I'm sure he had plans on taking Britain as well.

Also remember that Hitler HATED the US as well cuz he believed that the whole "melting pot" idea was not good and that all of the smart, tough intelligent Euro's went to America in the mass migrations to the Americas. So I'm sure he could have easily attacked the US with his far superior army as well if he wouldve held off on fighting the Soviets.

Also don't forget the fact that it was estimated the US would lose 200,000 soldiers taking Berlin.

Put it this way, the US may have provided supplies but the Soviets provided a much more important thing...lives. The West should be thankful for their efforts, and I think $50 bil is worth 27 mil lives (roughly $1852 a life) and I think it was once said that you can't put a price on a human life.

I think we should go after the nazi f**kers and get the money back and hey f**K swiss banks also...

Thank you , on may 9th i will drink one for the polish veterans that went from Warsaw to Berlin.

[Azide]

If you want to ask this question "Could Russia have won without US Lend-Lease help? " ask the other one as well "Could the US get out of a depression without a major production of goods needed for the Lend-Lease?" ;)

[DPGLAW]

Well the better question is how the allies would have faired minus the USSR. Lest we forget 8 out of every 10 German soldiers killed during WWII were killed by the Soviets. OK OK OK, I know the Americans strode in upon their white steed and saved the day HAHA. Without the Soviets taking the brunt of the actual German army the war may have been quite different.

DONT EVEN MENTION IF THE "ALLIES" would have let the Russkies go at it by themselves...cuz I'm sure Hitler had ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTIONS OF DEALING WITH THE ALMIGHTY BRITSH...haha yeeeeeeeah right. Hitler was so damn scared of the Brit's he would have just left them alone...wait...no I'm sure he had plans on taking Britain as well.

Also remember that Hitler HATED the US as well cuz he believed that the whole "melting pot" idea was not good and that all of the smart, tough intelligent Euro's went to America in the mass migrations to the Americas. So I'm sure he could have easily attacked the US with his far superior army as well if he wouldve held off on fighting the Soviets.

Also don't forget the fact that it was estimated the US would lose 200,000 soldiers taking Berlin.

Put it this way, the US may have provided supplies but the Soviets provided a much more important thing...lives. The West should be thankful for their efforts, and I think $50 bil is worth 27 mil lives (roughly $1852 a life) and I think it was once said that you can't put a price on a human life.

I think we should go after the nazi f**kers and get the money back and hey f**K swiss banks also...

Mabye you missed, ummm...my ENITRE post. I pointed out that we supplies the necessary equipment and that the Russians provided the people so I have abso****inglutely no idea where you get off with that and secondly you stated that you cant put a price on life but you just pointed out that it essentially came down to 1852 per life. so you need to really READ before posting, not just scan.

[Para]

I know that both Britain and America sent a lot of aid to Russia, but where did it go?, did any one ever see a Sherman Tank being used by the Russians, or any other Allied supplied equipment. Personally I often wondered what happened to it all did they melt it down to produce their own T34 tanks, which where far superior to any thing that we had.

[Kilgor]

I know that both Britain and America sent a lot of aid to Russia, but where did it go?, did any one ever see a Sherman Tank being used by the Russians, or any other Allied supplied equipment. Personally I often wondered what happened to it all did they melt it down to produce their own T34 tanks, which where far superior to any thing that we had.

No, it was there. But glorification and propaganda of LL equipment would have been very low, since it was suppied by "capitalists".

[Ruutiukko]

You could argue that at least the surrounding of the German 6th Army in Stalingrad, Operation Uranus, might not have been so succesfull if there had been no lend-lease. Much of the men and material needed there were transported in US made trucks. Then again, if you want to speculate what MIGHT or COULD have happened in many what-if situations, play Hearts of Iron II or Third REich and have a go at it yourselves. What happened happened and it is propably impossible to accurately say how the history would have gone if Y had happened instead of X. Many, many people died anyway and the Nazi's were brought down.

P.S. Finland was not a Nazi puppet-state, it made a separate peace in 1944 and ousted the remaining Germans form its soil. It was not occupied by the Soviets, either. Being a Finn (and a history student) myself I have studied WW 2 and its effects on Finland a lot.

[nahimov]

But another question would have been the large number of german divisions which had to be diverted from the western front to handle the eastern front. If the allies did not provide the material they did then the large armored divisions and the supply logistics would have have to be dealt by the allies. The Soviets had the manpower whereas the west had the material power.
IMHO eventually the war would have been won by the allies (West+USSR) but at a much higher cost.

question is what was the affect of the lend-lease on breaking the back of the Stalingrad or leningrad seige by the russians. for some that was the turning point of the eastern front.

LOL "large number of divisions"? Care to elaborate? Do your research before posting something like that.

Plus many people tend to "foget" that USSR alone outproduced the whole German Europe. USSR could have won anyway.

[nahimov]

I know that both Britain and America sent a lot of aid to Russia, but where did it go?, did any one ever see a Sherman Tank being used by the Russians, or any other Allied supplied equipment. Personally I often wondered what happened to it all did they melt it down to produce their own T34 tanks, which where far superior to any thing that we had.

No, it was there. But glorification and propaganda of LL equipment would have been very low, since it was suppied by "capitalists".

USSR paid for all theat LL equipment anyway. This wasn't some humanitarian aid. If USSR was able to pay that means LL was not "help" but just another business deal.

[sheroo]

But another question would have been the large number of german divisions which had to be diverted from the western front to handle the eastern front. If the allies did not provide the material they did then the large armored divisions and the supply logistics would have have to be dealt by the allies. The Soviets had the manpower whereas the west had the material power.
IMHO eventually the war would have been won by the allies (West+USSR) but at a much higher cost.

question is what was the affect of the lend-lease on breaking the back of the Stalingrad or leningrad seige by the russians. for some that was the turning point of the eastern front.

LOL "large number of divisions"? Care to elaborate? Do your research before posting something like that.

Plus many people tend to "foget" that USSR alone outproduced the whole German Europe. USSR could have won anyway.

Don't think I will bother responding to that :roll: :roll:

[Son_Of_Suvorov]

I know that both Britain and America sent a lot of aid to Russia, but where did it go?, did any one ever see a Sherman Tank being used by the Russians, or any other Allied supplied equipment. Personally I often wondered what happened to it all did they melt it down to produce their own T34 tanks, which where far superior to any thing that we had.

Some of that equipment was bought by the USSR (the lease part of "lend-lease"), but what wasn't had to be returned (the lend part of "lend-lease"). Here's an account (http://www.autogallery.org.ru/gstuder.htm) of what happened to some of the Studebaker trucks:


My father described me the procedure he witnessed. American ship with tremendous press machine arrived into Soviet Far East. Americans, accompanied by Soviet officials, gathered every lend-lease automobiles they were able to find (many of these vehicles had been sent and participated the war against Japan in August 1945). American ship, laden with trucks went off-shore, crushed the load and dumped it onto the Pacific bottom. They returned and returned.

And Americans wonder why some foreigners think they are wasteful. :roll:

Here's a quote about canned produce from the same page:


Yes, we are grateful to americans for their cars and other goods, american tinned meat saved thousands from hunger and got the joke name "2nd front" (because every summer our people expected 2nd front in Europe, but it was opened only in 1944, cunning Churchill awaited when russians and germans will be exhausted; don't be angry with me, I didn't forget war in Africa and on the Pacific, but even many americans and UK people supposed then that 2nd front in Europe was more important). By the way, tin of meat was the most interesting exhibit for me in the Washington Smitsonian Museum of American History.

Ok, now time to play some more "point out the stupid journalist's bull****" game:


Nobody was ever punished in Russia for the atrocities of Stalin and the Soviet gulags, no Communist commissar ever called to book, no former KGB torturer unmasked and made to pay for crimes.

I suppose the trials of Beria and his lieutenants was just a fantasy of the collective imagination.

[California Joe]

This is like the 10th one of these threads in a week. What the hell point do they serve? Everyone's nationalistic tendencies seem to come out, everyone sites historians or studies with similar viewpoints to there own and things inevitably turn ugly with no one changing their minds. It's all hindsight. The "what if's" never end......

[jedisponge]

This is like the 10th one of these threads in a week. What the hell point do they serve? Everyone's nationalistic tendencies seem to come out, everyone sites historians or studies with similar viewpoints to there own and things inevitably turn ugly with no one changing their minds. It's all hindsight. The "what if's" never end......
I agree.. we'll never know what would have happen.

[Lokos]

He219:

I normally respect what you have to say. But you're getting ahead of yourself with that Ardennes comment.

If you want to see what a major German armored thrust could still do against the Soviets that late in the game, look at the Lake Balaton Battle. A veritable massacre for German armor against properly led, properly outfitted, properly supplied Soviet forces.

The reason why Hitler picked the Western Allies to deploy his last strategic reserve against was because he believed they would be easier to remove as a threat than the Soviets, so that then he could turn his full attention to the 'Eastern threat'. He may have very well been right, theoretically.

You cite that these few divisions could stop the Soviet advance on Berlin alone. How? The Soviet Berlin Operation involved more than 2 million Soviet soldiers and well over 5,000 tanks and SPGs. This is more than the entire Wehrmacht had at their disposal (both manpower and armor-wise) at this point.

Do not draw silly conclusions, please.

This whole debate about LL is, in fact, silly as hell. Saying it made no difference is silly, saying it made all the difference is silly. Historians like House, Glantz, Erickson (i.e. the best Western historians for the SU's involvement in WW2) and Dunn agree generally that LL was a considerable help, but was not absolutely vital for the survival or, indeed, the victory of the Soviets. It did, however, facilitate the consecutive, sustained campaigns of mid '44 and beyond.

Lokos

[USMC-Congbuster]

patton would have owned those russkies if they came past berlin
the war would have gone on a lot longer but remember what happened in japan in august of 1945

[hell]

Well, here goes my .02 cents.....

Do I think Russia would have outright lost the war? No. They may not have won like they did, but at some point one side would have had to sue for peace, even if we are talking about the degree of madness and paranoia that Hitler and Stalin exihibited.

The reality of the Russo-German war was more or less decided in the fall of 1941 when Hitler decided to break up Army Group Centre into two smaller forces, sending one force (a new army group) down to the Caucasus mountains because he was obsessed with oil. Invading Russia was a bad idea to begin with, but that just screwed the pooch, for a lack of a better description.

I'd cite some historical quotes from the Russian General Staff, but I can't remember who said it, so I won't even pretend that I know. But at least one high-ranking Russian general stated that he thought the war with Germany could possibly have been lost without the American Studebaker trucks. Look back in history and note the times and areas in which the Soviet army had to stop to gather and prepare its forces for another large offensive. You'll see alot of their materials were moved with those trucks.

And yea, I believe that the Russian T-34 played a large part in Russia's successes. Anyone know that the T-34 had such good deflection properties for two reasons? One of course was the sloped armor, which wasn't new at the time, but not used by the majority of the worlds' armies. The second reason was the steel used in the T-34 was prepared in these huge hearth furnaces in Tankograd. These furnaces were provided by the USA. I've read where the Germans tried to more or less produce their own T-34 (with German-style changes; a different commanders cupola, etc). The German models sucked because even the sloped armor wasn't great, because the steel/iron had weaker integrity. The Germans couldn't produce the same level of quality in their steel, their furnaces weren't capable. Does this mean the US won the war for the Soviets? Doubtful.

(And on another note to reply to a post above, Finland wasn't a lap-dog to Germany. Finland more or less was acting out of revenge when it sided with Germany for the war of '41-'44. Finland was still pissed about the Winter War, which Russia started on false charges of Finnish aggression, similiar to the way Germany did on September 1, 1939, with Poland. If I remember correctly, Finland was the only country on the Axis side in WWII that wasn't occupied by any one of the Allied countries).

On a last note, if we're calling in everyone's tab, then many decendants of European Jews need their **** back that was looted in the war, as well as all of the other countries that were occupied by Germany. While were at it, the US needs to pay all of the displaced Native Americans back for all of the land we stole from them. We probably owe them a few billion dollars in today's prices. My point, **** happens; the US will never be paid back, but as long as we owe other people just the same, we can STFU until we're ready to put OUR money where our mouths are.

....alright, I'm getting back down from my soapbox now. Sorry about that.

[4nzix]

"""patton would have owned those russkies if they came past berlin"""


LOL rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl



Pattons Shermans would have been chopped to pieces by the way superior T-34.

[PeterRJG]

"""patton would have owned those russkies if they came past berlin"""


LOL rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl



Pattons Shermans would have been chopped to pieces by the way superior T-34.

Takes more than machinery to win a war. The Soviets weren't the brightest when it came to armoured and infantry cooperative tactics something the Germans, and later, the Allies excelled at. The breakdown rate of the T-34 wasn't particularly favourable either.

A vehicle is only as good as its worst driver.

[4nzix]

on the contrary T-34 was one of the most reliable tanks in the war.

[CG51]

wooohooo its flame time...

America enjoyed total air superioty, thus t-34's would have been in huge burning columns as far as the eye could see...

[Azide]

wooohooo its flame time...

America enjoyed total air superioty, thus t-34's would have been in huge burning columns as far as the eye could see...

Like the Soviets didn't have there own air power?

[Seiyuuki]

The reason why Hitler picked the Western Allies to deploy his last strategic reserve against was because he believed they would be easier to remove as a threat than the Soviets, so that then he could turn his full attention to the 'Eastern threat'. He may have very well been right, theoretically.

Now, you're getting ahead of yourself with that comment. The Nazis knew the Allies, in their push toward Germany, went beyond their logistical setup too far and too fast. Most people tend to neglect the geography factor. The distance from the Russian border to Germany was a greater distance than from Normandy to Germany, it was even closer from Normandy to Germany's industrial area in the Rhine valley. Hitler knew he had some breathing room in dealing with the Soviet Union, but Allies was basically at his doorstep. Hitler could have deal with the Soviet Union first, but probably by the time his troops meet the Russian troops on the Eastern fronts, the Allies would probably be crossing the Rhine if they did not face heavy resistence such as the German's counteroffensive in the Ardennes.

[Belrick]

Short answer is a resounding No.
Long answer is possibly but certainly it would of been the Allies who'd taken Berlin.

The key ingrediants for Russia's success can be found with the reemergence of the VVS...
Which would never of occured without american aluminium to build the planes and avgas to fly them.

And secondly mobility. The achievements of 1944 when the Red army smashed the wehrmacht could not of been achieved to anywhere near the degree it was without...

500,000 studebaker trucks.

ps: This is no way underscores the sacrifises ordinary Russians made to defeat a terrible foe, Germany was never going to defeat the humble Russian comrade... Just a damn pity they were doing so led by a man more evil than Adolf Hitler.

[Belrick]

In a computer game like command and conquer the T-34 is superior to the PZIII and Sherman.

However in the reality that the rest of us recides (the one that determined the fate of thens of thousands of Russian reality tanks from Golan heights to the sands of Iraq and the hills of pyongyang) the T-34 was a peice of junk.

Why? Where does the problem lie within the real world the blue pill takes you to?

The simple fact that tanks are crewed by Humans. Pissa eh?

Humans require ease of use, comfort, communication, optics etc etc, big guns and heavy armour are the only stats mentioned within pc games which unfortunately many of todays generation treat as reality.

Russian armour kill ratio statistics make a sad reading for this very reason.

[nahimov]

In a computer game like command and conquer the T-34 is superior to the PZIII and Sherman.

However in the reality that the rest of us recides (the one that determined the fate of thens of thousands of Russian reality tanks from Golan heights to the sands of Iraq and the hills of pyongyang) the T-34 was a peice of junk.

Why? Where does the problem lie within the real world the blue pill takes you to?

The simple fact that tanks are crewed by Humans. Pissa eh?

Humans require ease of use, comfort, communication, optics etc etc, big guns and heavy armour are the only stats mentioned within pc games which unfortunately many of todays generation treat as reality.

Russian armour kill ratio statistics make a sad reading for this very reason.

So Sherman was better armored had better communications optics etc? And it had better kill ratio to German armor? So 10 Sermans to 1 tiger is better than whatever T-34 had?

[Belrick]

Close your eyes and imagine this.

What good is a big calibre gun if you cant see the target?
Or if you can see it how easily can you communicate that knowledge to the commander within a noisey tank?
Whats the work load of the commander? how many things is he trying to do at once?
Can the gunner see it thru his optics and take a moving target? How well does the turret rotate, incrementaly in small steps eg?
Can he easily tell the driver to move forward to get a branch out of his vision?
When he shoots does the round have a flat trajectory? Does he have a good range finder?

My main point is mechanically the Russians had good tanks... IF they had been controlled by computers they would of kicked the Germans arse.

You should note the most successful tank in history was not the superior T-34, nor the mass produced sherman and certainly not mighty panther or tiger.

It was the humble StuG III with over 20,000 confirmed kills, allied and Russian, something youd never of guessed judging it by its mediocre armour and average gun.

Never ever underplay the human element, tanks are merely tools.

[nahimov]

Close your eyes and imagine this.

What good is a big calibre gun if you cant see the target?
Or if you can see it how easily can you communicate that knowledge to the commander within a noisey tank?
Whats the work load of the commander? how many things is he trying to do at once?
Can the gunner see it thru his optics and take a moving target? How well does the turret rotate, incrementaly in small steps eg?
Can he easily tell the driver to move forward to get a branch out of his vision?
When he shoots does the round have a flat trajectory? Does he have a good range finder?

My main point is mechanically the Russians had good tanks... IF they had been controlled by computers they would of kicked the Germans arse.

You should note the most successful tank in history was not the superior T-34, nor the mass produced sherman and certainly not mighty panther or tiger.

It was the humble StuG III with over 20,000 confirmed kills, allied and Russian, something youd never of guessed judging it by its mediocre armour and average gun.

Never ever underplay the human element, tanks are merely tools.

Well yes the human factor is very important. But have you taken into account the fact that during first year of the war Soviet army was not prepared for invasion and had all its officers purged? If you want to take into account the whole picture than you must look at other factors than just number of kills.

[Belrick]

Yeah but thats not a fair comment because.

A: The russians were using there military.
B: The Germans wernt ready either, look at the equipment they were using along with the assumption it would be a short war.

No one can really say either that those 35,000 officers stalin had executed could have made the difference. Besides Russian began the war with 3 brilliant generals, Zhukov, Timoshenko and Konev. No doubt there were many others not mentioned in the history books.

Hindsight is a wonderous thing and both sides could of kicked arese if they had of had it.

[nahimov]

Yeah but thats not a fair comment because.

A: The russians were using there military.
B: The Germans wernt ready either, look at the equipment they were using along with the assumption it would be a short war.

No one can really say either that those 35,000 officers stalin had executed could have made the difference. Besides Russian began the war with 3 brilliant generals, Zhukov, Timoshenko and Konev. No doubt there were many others not mentioned in the history books.

Hindsight is a wonderous thing and both sides could of kicked arese if they had of had it.

German army was much better prepared for WWII than USSR. I mean common are you saying that 1 million captured soldiers in the first year of the war is not a sign that Soviet millitary command was **** right before the war?

I don't think your approach is any better. T-34 was an excellent tank that was used looong after WWII. Same can not be said of any other WWII tank.

[Belrick]

WHat about the winter war with Finland?

22,000 tanks vs 3,500?

It was only in the air, moral and doctrines were the Germans better prepared. Besides how well did the Germans fair vs 50 siberian divisions outside Moscow?
The germans wernt prepared for the weather at all.

Use of kar98 and horse drawn artillery and logistics etc etc. German army in hindsight could have been much better prepared.

[nahimov]

WHat about the winter war with Finland?

22,000 tanks vs 3,500?

It was only in the air, moral and doctrines were the Germans better prepared. Besides how well did the Germans fair vs 50 siberian divisions outside Moscow?
The germans wernt prepared for the weather at all.

Use of kar98 and horse drawn artillery and logistics etc etc. German army in hindsight could have been much better prepared.

Finland? Finland was not a tank battle you should know this by now. If you really want to bring an example of tank battles use Kursk or something.

Of course Germany "could have" "would have" and all these things but what happened happened. Are you reading Suvorov by any chance? If you do I recommend you drop that book and read something better and more accurate.

[Lokos]

Seiyuuki:

What breathing space was that, exactly? The Soviets were on the offensive nearly continuously after June 1944. There was no longer any question of 'if' the Heer would crack, but only 'when', in the East. Throwing the Ardennes battle group against the Soviets would have been pissing in the wind, figuratively speaking. The difference is that, when it comes to the Soviets, Hitler understood that.

I was not saying that *I* believed it would be easier to throw the Allies back into the sea, but that Hitler believed as such - the strategic reserve Germany had available at that point, in reality, could not stop *either* Allied side for any length of time. But this belief of his (that the Western Allies would more easily be thrown back) can be gleaned from the orders regarding the Ardennes offensive and the aims of the operation.

You do have a point in that he was also playing for time, halting the Western Allies so as to give potential discord between the USSR and the WA time to fester. But I do not believe that this is an either/or scenario. I instead believe that we are both correct, to a degree.

Lokos

[Seiyuuki]

What breathing space was that, exactly?

Fuhrer Directive (No. 51), 3 November 1943


For the last two and one-half years the bitter and costly struggle against Bolshevism has made the utmost demands upon the bulk of our military resources and energies [...] The situation has since changed. The threat from the East remains, but an even greater danger looms in the West: the Anglo-American landing! In the East, the vastness of the space will, as a last resort, permit a loss of territory even on a major scale, without suffering a mortal blow to Germany's chance for survival.

Not so in the West! If the enemy here succeeds in penetrating our defense on a wide front, consequences of staggering proportions will follow within a short time.

The Rhine-Ruhr region was the industrial heartland of Germany during WWII. A successful Anglo-American offensive in 1944 would pose a direct threat to that region. Basically, the front line in the East in 1943 was more than 2,000 kilometers from Berlin, in the West, from Normandy to Berlin was about 1,000 kilometers, from Normandy to the Rhine-Ruhr was about 500 kilometers. Soviet Unions' offensives in 1944 would overrun a lot of territories, but those areas would not as critical to Germany's war-making capability. The Rhine-Ruhr region on the other hand were very crucial to Germany.

On the political side, as Hitler informed his principal commanders in the West in 1944...


The destruction of the enemy's landing attempt means more than a purely local decision on the Western Front. It is the sole decisive factor in the whole conduct of the war and hence in its final result.

[...] Once defeated, the enemy will never again try to invade. Quite apart from their heavy losses, they would need months to organize a fresh attempt. And an invasion failure would also deliver a crushing blow to British and American morale. For one thing, it would prvent Roosevelt from being reelected - with any luck he'd finish up in jail somewhere! For another, war weariness would grip Britian even faster and Churchill, already a sick old man with his influence waning, wouldn't be able to carry through a new invasion operation.

[The Wehrmacht could then transfer forty-five divisions from the West to the East to] revolutionize the situation there...So the whole outcome of the war depends on each man fighting in the West, and that means the fate of the Reich as well!



Sources

Ambrose, Stephen. D-Day. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994.

Fuhrer Directive (No. 51) is printed in a translated version in Gordon A. Harrison, Cross-Channel Attack (Washington, D.C.: Dept. of the Army, 1951), pp. 464-67

Reported in Samuel Mitcham, Rommel's Last Battle: The Desert Fox and the Normandy Campaign (New York: Stein & Day, 1983), pp. 44-45.

Erwin Rommel, The Rommel Papers, ed. B. H. Liddell Hart (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1953), p. 466.

[Lokos]

Seiyuuki:

As fine as your sources are, please note the date of the first: 3 November 1943. The Ardennes Offensive occured a little later, with somewhat different circumstances in play. For example, when Hitler ordered the go-ahead for the offensive there was no more 'vastness of space' to trade in the East. The Russians were entering the other German industrial heartland (Prussia), liberating the Balkans, knocking out Axis satellites and winding their way through Poland.

As for your other source, well, in all honesty it seems to support exactly what I'm saying; that Hitler believed that knocking out the Western Allies first would be the 'simpler' thing to do. A lunacy, assuredly, as his armies could no longer stop anything the Allies set their minds to, but that does seem to be his viewpoint.

Lokos

[Belrick]

What are you on about nahimov?

Your the one making excuses for the Red Armies poor performance in 1941 when in fact they were just as prepared as the Germans.

Theyd recently fought a modern war versus Finland, over all there tanks were more numerous and of a equal quality as the germans etc etc etc.

So stop with the rubbish and accept this. Russia could of been better prepared but so could of Germany for prepardness is NOT a valid excuse to what they got there arses handed back to them on a platter.

[nahimov]

What are you on about nahimov?

Your the one making excuses for the Red Armies poor performance in 1941 when in fact they were just as prepared as the Germans.

Theyd recently fought a modern war versus Finland, over all there tanks were more numerous and of a equal quality as the germans etc etc etc.

So stop with the rubbish and accept this. Russia could of been better prepared but so could of Germany for prepardness is NOT a valid excuse to what they got there arses handed back to them on a platter.
War in Finland just showed how unprepaired Soviet army was.

I don't get you. So according to you what was the problem that Soviets had? Poor T-34 design? Not true because in 1941 that tank was better than German. Because Russians are born poor fighters? Than why did Germany lose? What else? You don't explain **** but just draw conclutions.

[He219]

Not true because in 1941 that tank was better than German. Because Russians are born poor fighters? Than why did Germany lose? What else? You don't explain **** but just draw conclutions.
Germany lost because it fought a two-front war against the Allied Powers that included the Soviet Union as one of the Primary Partners.

The Germans learned fast from the sloping armor and firepower of the T-34 and in many ways was inept to mass-produce one of their own in effective numbers. Germany didn't develop a Ural Bomber to go after Soviet factories that eventually built the bulk of equipment that defeated Germany late in the war. Germany relied on technical advances and Prussian military skill to counter numerically superior Soviet forces.

Yes, Soviets were poor fighters in comparison to the training and experience of the Wehrmacht. Not until late in the war did they become seasoned fighters while Germans lost their best to the ever-increasing strength of Soviet Forces and relied more on 16-18 year olds and old men.

The Soviets always had numerical superiority. Just look at how many Soviets them Nazis killed. They were exceedingly efficient at it, especially when Soviet Soldiers were sent into batlle without the necessary armaments and told to collect them from the dead early in the war.

Do not underestimate the capabilites of the German Army had the Western Powers not played a pivotal role in the defeat of Nazi Germany.

[Kilgor]

I think alot of it can also being attributed to the "total war" concept.

The soviet economy, people and war machine were much more centrally organised and prepared for "total" war much earlier than their german foes.

Despite many people thinking germany was one big war machine, they werent prepared anywhere near as well as they could be for a long war.
Albert speer corrected many of these issues, but his much needed leadership came far too late to save germany.

Of course the soviet leadership was ruthless and cruel, it played a vital part in keeping everything central and organised.

[StukaJr]

Not true because in 1941 that tank was better than German. Because Russians are born poor fighters? Than why did Germany lose? What else? You don't explain **** but just draw conclutions.
Germany lost because it fought a two-front war against the Allied Powers that included the Soviet Union as one of the Primary Partners.

The Germans learned fast from the sloping armor and firepower of the T-34 and in many ways was inept to mass-produce one of their own in effective numbers. Germany didn't develop a Ural Bomber to go after Soviet factories that eventually built the bulk of equipment that defeated Germany late in the war. Germany relied on technical advances and Prussian military skill to counter numerically superior Soviet forces.

Yes, Soviets were poor fighters in comparison to the training and experience of the Wehrmacht. Not until late in the war did they become seasoned fighters while Germans lost their best to the ever-increasing strength of Soviet Forces and relied more on 16-18 year olds and old men.

The Soviets always had numerical superiority. Just look at how many Soviets them Nazis killed. They were exceedingly efficient at it, especially when Soviet Soldiers were sent into batlle without the necessary armaments and told to collect them from the dead early in the war.

Do not underestimate the capabilites of the German Army had the Western Powers not played a pivotal role in the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Of course, one must not forget that Soviet Army did put the Axis Germany on the deffensive as early as 1941 and did initiate a number of successive counter-offensives way before the Western Allies were making any success against them, before the strategic bombing began taking its toll and way before the "Second Front".

One must not forget that Soviet Union faced 3 to 4 times the number of German divisions at all times that its Western Allies - for example, 1944 saw the 150 odd division in the East with 40 odd divisions in the West. Every 3 out of 4 casualties suffered by Axis Germany were on the Eastern Front. Soviet fighters bled the Luftwaffe to the point of almost no experienced pilots being left to oppose the Invassion from the west.

1942, Stalingrad - perfect illustration of the disposition of the resources and reserves...

Obviously, the Lend Lease or the Second Front does not apply to Battle of Moscow '41 - the first time the Axis were sent into a full scale retreat, without Studdebackers, tons of steel, canned meat or "Graves for Seven Brothers"...

[ronin2172]

the question is would you have been able to mainttain your momentum without the western allies helping you out...the short answer probably not. The fact that you had them on the defensive doesn't mean you had the war won...

No one is denying russia's contribution....but to marginalise the western allies contribution is just ignorant. Which a lot of you seem to be doing

[StukaJr]

the question is would you have been able to mainttain your momentum without the western allies helping you out...the short answer probably not. The fact that you had them on the defensive doesn't mean you had the war won...

No one is denying russia's contribution....but to marginalise the western allies contribution is just ignorant. Which a lot of you seem to be doing

Me, personally? No... I wouldn't personally be able to maintain my momentum p-) However, my personal opinion would be that it would take longer and harder for the Soviet Union to at least send Hitler the way of Napoleon, the end the result being the same. Axis have not even come half of its desired goal in its conquest of USSR - and there was a lot more of Russia past the Urals.

Soviet troops considered trucks, canned meat etc a luxury - I believe they would have fought as valiantly without such luxuries.

[He219]

Me, personally? No... I wouldn't personally be able to maintain my momentum p-)
:lol:

[ronin2172]

the question is would you have been able to mainttain your momentum without the western allies helping you out...the short answer probably not. The fact that you had them on the defensive doesn't mean you had the war won...

No one is denying russia's contribution....but to marginalise the western allies contribution is just ignorant. Which a lot of you seem to be doing

Me, personally? No... I wouldn't personally be able to maintain my momentum p-) However, my personal opinion would be that it would take longer and harder for the Soviet Union to at least send Hitler the way of Napoleon, the end the result being the same. Axis have not even come half of its desired goal in its conquest of USSR - and there was a lot more of Russia past the Urals.

Soviet troops considered trucks, canned meat etc a luxury - I believe they would have fought as valiantly without such luxuries.
lol, good one!

I am not saying that Hitler would have been able to conquer all of the Soviet Union.....IMO that would have been impossible...and I am not saying the Soviet troops would not have fought with the same tenacity with out the supplies.....however you can't deny that those same supplies and their activities helped out the Soviet cause greatly.

[Shiftyfive]

the soviet troops would have not fought with all that tenacity if it had not been all those guns their comrads were pointing at their backs. Besides the russians didnt get any lend-lease support - that is just a western myth to discredit the russian triumph. We also stole the nuke bomb from them our allies too :roll:

[StukaJr]

lol, good one!

I am not saying that Hitler would have been able to conquer all of the Soviet Union.....IMO that would have been impossible...and I am not saying the Soviet troops would not have fought with the same tenacity with out the supplies.....however you can't deny that those same supplies and their activities helped out the Soviet cause greatly.

I'm not denying that at all. I hope nobody else on this forum is ignorant of the importance of the Aid and then Lend-Lease material provided to the Red Army. It's just very hard to appear appreciative the help while pointing out that it was not the saving point for the Soviet fight - as some may have believed.

After all, the Western Help was not as felt until there were boots hitting the occupied soil.

But does anybody want to reverse the subject and discuss the absense of Soviet Union from the Western Allies's fight and what would be the outcome of that war? p-)

[StukaJr]

the soviet troops would have not fought with all that tenacity if it had not been all those guns their comrads were pointing at their backs. Besides the russians didnt get any lend-lease support - that is just a western myth to discredit the russian triumph. We also stole the nuke bomb from them our allies too :roll:

Troll alert! :-*$

[Shiftyfive]

I wish I could remember what the russians told their soldiers the letters "USA" that was stamped on all the equipment we GAVE them stood for - it was pretty funny.

[nahimov]

I wish I could remember what the russians told their soldiers the letters "USA" that was stamped on all the equipment we GAVE them stood for - it was pretty funny.

Another bad trolling attempt.
Hmm you can't even be a good troll.

[Shiftyfive]

I wish I could remember what the russians told their soldiers the letters "USA" that was stamped on all the equipment we GAVE them stood for - it was pretty funny.

Another bad trolling attempt.
Hmm you can't even be a good troll.

rofl i apologize if I have read a book or two that was not approved by the communist party.

[Abolith]

lol, good one!

I am not saying that Hitler would have been able to conquer all of the Soviet Union.....IMO that would have been impossible...and I am not saying the Soviet troops would not have fought with the same tenacity with out the supplies.....however you can't deny that those same supplies and their activities helped out the Soviet cause greatly.

I'm not denying that at all. I hope nobody else on this forum is ignorant of the importance of the Aid and then Lend-Lease material provided to the Red Army. It's just very hard to appear appreciative the help while pointing out that it was not the saving point for the Soviet fight - as some may have believed.

After all, the Western Help was not as felt until there were boots hitting the occupied soil.

But does anybody want to reverse the subject and discuss the absense of Soviet Union from the Western Allies's fight and what would be the outcome of that war? p-)

we might have won without the soivets but the cost would have been so high that a democratic based army would have just accepted the taking of a large portion of Europe for peace, that is just the way it goes. if a western general lost 300K in men for taking a single city or beachhead he would have been replaced by the next morning! Democracies are not (historicly speaking) are not willing take those kinds of casulties in a battle (unless it is for survival than it's a whole other ball of wax).

Just for example the fight for berlin was one where the red army lost 300,000 men plus god only knows how many wounded. those are levels of dead that a democratic army would not have been willing to accept (politicians ect..), we would have been forced to A) find another way to take berlin or B) not take berlin at all. the same thing applies to the war in general, we would have either found a less costly way to win than by throwing millions of men at the problem (although it can be an effective tactic) or we would have allowed germany to have peace and keep large portions of europe.

and as a note for those who say the west (namely the US) couldn't have fielded an army large enough, that is factualy untrue, the number of exemptions that were issued for "war critical" industries was huge. my own grandfather had to get a different job in an industry that was not considered critical to the war before the navy would even think about looking at letting him join up (which he did, served in the PTO). millions of young men were not allowed to join up because they were "needed" in a given industry, roles that women have proven in the past more than capable of filling.

lets face it either one of us (Western Allies and Russia) would have failed without the other. It HAD to be a team effort, the germans were just that good. without the western support and war effort germany would have had the supplies and manpower to keep pushing before russia was ready reguardless of the soviet winter, and without russia the allies would have had one hell of a nasty time in the normandy landings. perhaps costing many more times the number of lives just for a foothold on the atlantic wall. there are many "what ifs" and "what might have happened" out ther but the truth is that TOGETHER we won and it was for the best, European, american and Russian.


A-

[ronin2172]

lol, good one!

I am not saying that Hitler would have been able to conquer all of the Soviet Union.....IMO that would have been impossible...and I am not saying the Soviet troops would not have fought with the same tenacity with out the supplies.....however you can't deny that those same supplies and their activities helped out the Soviet cause greatly.

I'm not denying that at all. I hope nobody else on this forum is ignorant of the importance of the Aid and then Lend-Lease material provided to the Red Army. It's just very hard to appear appreciative the help while pointing out that it was not the saving point for the Soviet fight - as some may have believed.

After all, the Western Help was not as felt until there were boots hitting the occupied soil.

But does anybody want to reverse the subject and discuss the absense of Soviet Union from the Western Allies's fight and what would be the outcome of that war? p-)
well if the germans hadn't started Barbarosa and if they had given Rommel what he needed in North Africa, the outlook would have been grim to say the least.

That in itself would have been bad for the soviets however, not having to worry about the brits and having all the oil he needed, plus there is a good indication Turkey would have come in on the german side, life still would have been bad for the USSR

[Seiyuuki]

The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military Efforts, 1941-1945
by Boris V. Sokolov


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

[Shiftyfive]

The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military Efforts, 1941-1945
by Boris V. Sokolov


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

from what i have seen one of things the russians appreciated the most was our trucks. But on the tanks the west sent they had mixed feelings from what i have seen. I keep wanting to buy this book written by a russian sherman comander durring ww2 - he thought the world of it - but I keep forgetting to get it.

[Lokos]

Shiftyfive:

Which book not approved by the Communist party did you read, exactly?

It is obvious to me you haven't read ANYTHING considered remotely authorative on this subject. Your statement regarding the 'guns being pointed at the Russians' backs' just shows this.

The NKVD detachments, my not-so-learned friend, were not there to shoot retreating Soviet troops. This happened on VERY few occasions - as opposed to what Enemy At The Gates would have you believe. The NKVD detachments were there to provide a rallying point for routed formations. They did so relatively effectively, especially as the war dragged on.

You need schooling, boy-o.

Lokos

[Werewolf01]

what a f*** tool!!



RUSSIA defeated Germany buddy, and they could have very easily kept going west, if they wanted to.


Sure, then big cities in Russia along with massive Russian military formation would have started going up in a big blinding flash.

Truman: "You know Uncle Joe, we have this little thing alled the atomic bomb."

Dream on. Stalin's megalomania was only comprable to Hitler's. He would have kept going if he didn't know he'd have gotten his ass kicked. :slap:

[foxtrot023]

Shiftyfive:

Which book not approved by the Communist party did you read, exactly?

It is obvious to me you haven't read ANYTHING considered remotely authorative on this subject. Your statement regarding the 'guns being pointed at the Russians' backs' just shows this.

The NKVD detachments, my not-so-learned friend, were not there to shoot retreating Soviet troops. This happened on VERY few occasions - as opposed to what Enemy At The Gates would have you believe. The NKVD detachments were there to provide a rallying point for routed formations. They did so relatively effectively, especially as the war dragged on.

You need schooling, boy-o.

Lokos

Lokos,

I think it happened in more than just a 'very few' occasions, specially between '41 and '42.

and in regards to the question, could the USSR won without lend lease, the answer is probly yes, but it would have cost them even more (both in time and casualties). if the question, could the USSR won without the western allies, the best answer has been given above by Abolith

[Lokos]

foxtrot:

You are mistaken. Relatively speaking, instances of NKVD executions of retreating troops were few and far between.

Lokos

[foxtrot023]

foxtrot:

You are mistaken. Relatively speaking, instances of NKVD executions of retreating troops were few and far between.

Lokos

http://www.world-war-2.info/battles/bt_3.php
Rattenkrieg

Units of the Red Army in Stalingrad were quickly organized into the new 62nd Army, under the command of General Lopatin. When Lopatin expressed his fears about the upcoming battle, Yeremenko immediately replaced him with Vasily Ivanovich Chuikov, who had previously fought around Stalingrad against the White Army.

Yeremenko directed Chuikov to hold the city at all costs, and issued an order similar to Stalin's own, "Not another step back". Countersigned by Nikita Krushchev, this order was backed up with instructions for the NKVD to shoot anyone who failed to comply.


http://www.enlightenweb.net/n/nk/nkvd.html

During World War II, NKVD units were used for rear area security, including halting deserters

I know they are a bit squimpy, as sources go, but if you give me a day, tomorrow I will give you much better sources.

[Shiftyfive]

foxtrot:

You are mistaken. Relatively speaking, instances of NKVD executions of retreating troops were few and far between.

Lokos

lokos quit making me laugh its hard to control the mouse rofl

[Para]

Russia could have held it's own against Germany once it started to get a grip on the situation. What really broke the Germans was the different fronts that they were trying to fight on.

[Belrick]

However would of the 50+ divisions that were sitting idle in the west have made a difference on the eastern front?

Besides Russia could of crumbled like the rotten structure it was if Hitler had of used propaganda and given autonomy to ukraine, belorussia etc being the russian peasants friend instead of the murdering bstard he was.

Also in 1941 the T-34 was a poor tank, youll note despite the cries of dismay from German tankers facing the T-34 that destroy them they still did.

If the T-34 had of been coupled with American suspension (actually it already was just a terrible 1920's American suspension) German optics and communications then it would of been a truely great tank. A case of missed potential IMHO.

Russian tanks always look good on paper yet always end up as funeral pyres, great things were trumpeted about say the T-62 for example and look at how successful they were.
Which is why i laugh when i see comrades ranting about the new T-92 and how its going to kick the M1's arse.

History is not on there side. :O

[nahimov]

However would of the 50+ divisions that were sitting idle in the west have made a difference on the eastern front?

Besides Russia could of crumbled like the rotten structure it was if Hitler had of used propaganda and given autonomy to ukraine, belorussia etc being the russian peasants friend instead of the murdering bstard he was.

Also in 1941 the T-34 was a poor tank, youll note despite the cries of dismay from German tankers facing the T-34 that destroy them they still did.

If the T-34 had of been coupled with American suspension (actually it already was just a terrible 1920's American suspension) German optics and communications then it would of been a truely great tank. A case of missed potential IMHO.

Russian tanks always look good on paper yet always end up as funeral pyres, great things were trumpeted about say the T-62 for example and look at how successful they were.
Which is why i laugh when i see comrades ranting about the new T-92 and how its going to kick the M1's arse.

History is not on there side. :O

Are you a troll or you really belive what you type? Are you a tank expert? Based on what I see the answer is probably no. Here is what Germans had to say about T-34:

"It was the most excellent example of the offensive weapon of Second World War." - General Mellentin.

"Their T-34 was the best in the world." - Field marshal Kleist.


I will leave you with that since I don't belive you really interested in the truth.

[foxtrot023]

However would of the 50+ divisions that were sitting idle in the west have made a difference on the eastern front?


there were more than 50

[Dima-RussianArms]

However would of the 50+ divisions that were sitting idle in the west have made a difference on the eastern front?


there were more than 50

You mean the "rotational" ones, the ones that were taken out off the Eastern front for a breather and re-equipment?

Considering the "gratitude" of the liberated, I think that USSR should have stopped at its borders and let the West liberate Europe but somehow I doubt that they would be either interested or capable.

[Abolith]

However would of the 50+ divisions that were sitting idle in the west have made a difference on the eastern front?


it was well over 50 divisions they had 62 division just in france alone at the time of the normandey landings (they just were not all Mobile, many would have had to march to wherever they were going)




If the T-34 had of been coupled with American suspension (actually it already was just a terrible 1920's American suspension) German optics and communications then it would of been a truely great tank. A case of missed potential IMHO.


it was americans that helped the russians develop the Blast furnace that led to the development of the T-34's superior steel armor.




You mean the "rotational" ones, the ones that were taken out off the Eastern front for a breather and re-equipment?


those were not rotaional divisions they were full time non-mobile guard untis who were to guard the atlantic wall and france full time. they were also the ones who would have been used for an invasion of GB




Considering the "gratitude" of the liberated, I think that USSR should have stopped at its borders and let the West liberate Europe but somehow I doubt that they would be either interested or capable.



of course they were more than capable if Russia had stopped at it's borders, however see my post above for why the west would have taken alot longer to do it.

[foxtrot023]

However would of the 50+ divisions that were sitting idle in the west have made a difference on the eastern front?


there were more than 50

You mean the "rotational" ones, the ones that were taken out off the Eastern front for a breather and re-equipment?

Considering the "gratitude" of the liberated, I think that USSR should have stopped at its borders and let the West liberate Europe but somehow I doubt that they would be either interested or capable.

No, I mean that since January 1944, Hitler issued a series of orders by which the West got heavily reinforced in materiel and men. By the time the normandy landings occurred, 40% of the Wehrmacht-heer was outside the Eastern theatre (from the 1941 low of 25%).

In regards to the issue of "liberation" that topic is being discuss in detail somewhere else in this forum, but bear in mind that during the different joint allied meetings, like Yalta, it was Stalin that established Eastern Europe as the USSR sphere of influence, hence it ws in the USSR interest to "liberate" Eastern Europe. Had it not being in its interest, Stalin would not have done it (as he indeed threaten to).

[Dima-RussianArms]

They were "rotational"/3rd string not according to me but according to germans.

Stalin was wrong about "liberating" Europe, among many other things, USSR should have never interfired.

Considering how much trouble Allies had on the western front at the time when Germany was already heavily wounded, I am highly sceptical about their ability to liberate Europe themselves.
What do you think would become of the Allied bombing campaign if Germany was able to transfer its fighters and pilots from the Eastern front, I am not even talking about ground forces (thousands of tanks and millions of men).

[foxtrot023]

They were "rotational"/3rd string not according to me but according to germans.



Once again, I can give sources by tomorrow, but at the moment of the normandy landings there were amongst others: The 1st & 12th Pz SS, the 21st, 10th, the 116th, the Lehr, etc. various Airborne divs. plus others that were not definitively 3rd string. Some have indeed being rotated and refit. But as I mentioned on 1944 the west got the reinforcement and materiel- as mentioned before, the reason being that the Rhin and its industrial base was very close to Calais, were Hitler swore the invasion would happen.

[Dima-RussianArms]

They were "rotational"/3rd string not according to me but according to germans.



Once again, I can give sources by tomorrow, but at the moment of the normandy landings there were amongst others: The 1st & 12th Pz SS, the 21st, 10th, the 116th, the Lehr, etc. various Airborne divs. plus others that were not definitively 3rd string
Of course not, they were on "rotation"

. Some have indeed being rotated and refit.
Exactly my point.

But as I mentioned on 1944 the west got the reinforcement and materiel- as mentioned before,
Yes he did, but what/who was the source and quality of the reinforcements - unfit for duty previously, pow that switched sides and kids.
hitler was running out of quality men because ethey were dying on the Eastern front.

[Seiyuuki]

What do you think would become of the Allied bombing campaign if Germany was able to transfer its fighters and pilots from the Eastern front, I am not even talking about ground forces (thousands of tanks and millions of men).

Actually, it is the other way around, what would become of the Soviet Union offensives if the resources defending the West against the Allies strategic bombing offensive were to be reallocated to the Eastern front.

This being a very close estimates...

- 55,000 anti-aircraft guns, including 75% of those were 88mm guns, dedicated to shooting at bombers instead of being outfitted on German tanks to shoot at Soviet T-34s.
- About 2 million men were involved in the defense of the Reich against the strategic bomber offensive.
- 75% of the Luftwaffe fighter arm was tied down shooting Allies bombers, defending the West and agaist an Allies invasion.
- 20% of all artillery ammunition was allocated to anti-air defense of Germany.

Defending against the bombing campaign alone mean Germany produced 35% less armor than they projected, 31% fewer aircraft (82% of that were fighters) and over 40% fewer trucks.

If that was not the case, you are looking at a 30% increase in the number of tanks with 88mm guns increasing by three-fold, the crews to man them all. Germans mobility would be increase with the 40% more trucks and of course the shift of 75% of the Luftwaffe fighter arm and a 31% increase in production of fighters all on the Eastern front.

There is a reason Churchill called the Allies strategic bombing offensive a "second front."

[Shiftyfive]

oh dont ruin dimas wet dreams

[StukaJr]

They were "rotational"/3rd string not according to me but according to germans.



Once again, I can give sources by tomorrow, but at the moment of the normandy landings there were amongst others: The 1st & 12th Pz SS, the 21st, 10th, the 116th, the Lehr, etc. various Airborne divs. plus others that were not definitively 3rd string. Some have indeed being rotated and refit. But as I mentioned on 1944 the west got the reinforcement and materiel- as mentioned before, the reason being that the Rhin and its industrial base was very close to Calais, were Hitler swore the invasion would happen.

12th Pz SS? That's a Hitlerjugend Division - mostly "boys" by all standards. 65% of the soldiers were under the age of 18 and were fresh recruits from schools and youth organizations, 3% of the men over the age of 25 were officers and non-coms. Not to mention, it lacked 1/5th of its required officers and had only half of the required NCO's! They were fanatical - but they were by no means fit for the fighting that laid ahead.

21st Panzer Division was being refitted in Norther France after its complete destruction in North Afrika, spent a whole year in France yet was deemed unfit for the Eastern Front (not by me, by Germans) - thus, it was still in Normandy on D-Day. It had such advance tanks as old French Somua tanks, SPG's based on PzI and French Lorraine tanks, PzIII's and other scrap. The most advance tanks it had were the PzIVH's - also, the 21st Pazer was in the process of re-arming at the time of invassion.

I haven't seen many Somua tanks on Eastern front :)

[StukaJr]

Defending against the bombing campaign alone mean Germany produced 35% less armor than they projected, 31% fewer aircraft (82% of that were fighters) and over 40% fewer trucks.

If that was not the case, you are looking at a 30% increase in the number of tanks with 88mm guns increasing by three-fold, the crews to man them all. Germans mobility would be increase with the 40% more trucks and of course the shift of 75% of the Luftwaffe fighter arm and a 31% increase in production of fighters all on the Eastern front.

There is a reason Churchill called the Allies strategic bombing offensive a "second front."

That's why Allies captured so many surface factories - running and operational to the last days of the war. Not to mention the underground plants that never seized production. That's why they've captured rows of ready aircraft with nobody to fly them (or fuel for that matter). It took the boots on the ground to defeat the Fashism - not the planes in the air... While the production was obviously hampered - it was never completely halted.

I never hear claims given to sabotage and resistence damage to the Axis war production neither.



- About 2 million men were involved in the defense of the Reich against the strategic bomber offensive.
How many of them were civilian volunteers - homefront and Hitleryouth? I doubt these were frontline troops running around with buckets of sand and working searchlight projectors.

You can give 40% more trucks to the Axis - are you also going to magically pull that much fuel out of thin air? The bombing of Axis oil fields was not so successful UNTIL the Soviets took it away - even with those, Axis were always short on Crude Oil.

I'm checking your claims of 70% of fighters being fighting the Allies.

[He219]

If WWII was such a lopsided victory for the Soviets, why celebrate it 60 years after the fact like it was the best thing that came out of Russia over the last century?
p-)

[Kilgor]

[quote="Dima-RussianArms"]

Considering how much trouble Allies had on the western front at the time when Germany was already heavily wounded, quote]

Trouble ?

do explain .. im very interested to hear this .

[StukaJr]

[quote="Dima-RussianArms"]

Considering how much trouble Allies had on the western front at the time when Germany was already heavily wounded, [quote]

Trouble ?

do explain .. im very interested to hear this .

Ardennes Offensive '44 could be a good example. The often used example that the same force applied against the Soviet Lines would amount to nothing at all.

[StukaJr]

If WWII was such a lopsided victory for the Soviets, why celebrate it 60 years after the fact like it was the best thing that came out of Russia over the last century?
p-)

Pearl Harbor (cough... violent cough!) p-)

[Kilgor]

oh lets see.. total lack of air cover and hitler massing large amounts of reserves and men, armour and fuel. (not to mention total lack of air cover) and in the weakest manned sector !

Hitler saved a great deal of resources for that offensive, and it still failed. So one setback means the whole western campaign was difficult.

Thats rubbish.

[Pandy]

If I was a mod, I would have closed this **** a LONG time ago.

We don't know what the **** would have happened and there is so many other ways this **** could have gone down... but one thing happened and that's it... end of discussion, no more post.

[Erik2a4]

Yes: The USSR would have defeated Nazi Germany without help.

Yes: It would have taken far longer, and cost countless lives.

No: This topic is interesting, and should keep taking up space.

[StukaJr]

oh lets see.. total lack of air cover and hitler massing large amounts of reserves and men, armour and fuel. (not to mention total lack of air cover) and in the weakest manned sector !

Hitler saved a great deal of resources for that offensive, and it still failed. So one setback means the whole western campaign was difficult.

Thats rubbish.

Rubbish, huh?

A high number of attacking forces were Volkstrum and Volksgrenadiers - many Panzer divissions went into battle 75%-50% strength, as some of the on-paper armor never made it until weeks into offensive but somehow made it into paperback history books. "The Elite" paratroopers were dropped behind enemy lines with no feasible ways to link up and got slaughtered. Majority of the divisions were half strength - some panzergrenadier divisions had no panzers to grenadier!

The offensive halted because it ran out of fuel - it entirely relied on the German Army capturing fuel to proceed. When US denied that - offensive halted. Think Peiper.

To counter attack at the Ardennes - an army from another frontline area was pulled.

Prior to the Battle of the Bulge - the American advance was not going much smoother.

Actually, most of the US frontline was weakly held - by divisions which should have been refiting in the rear, instead they were on the frontlines as there were no reserves to take them off the line. If Axis was attack the strongest sector - which sector would it be? Am I hearing... The Eastern Sector? p-)

My grandfather fought in a Mortar platoon, frontline since '41 - he ended the war never crossing the Ukranian border... That's right, the army packed from Ukranian border to the Reichstag - pick your sector.

[bloddyaxe]

foxtrot:

You are mistaken. Relatively speaking, instances of NKVD executions of retreating troops were few and far between.

Lokos

lokos quit making me laugh its hard to control the mouse rofl

You should get a cat then!

[Shiftyfive]

foxtrot:

You are mistaken. Relatively speaking, instances of NKVD executions of retreating troops were few and far between.

Lokos

lokos quit making me laugh its hard to control the mouse rofl

You should get a cat then!

nothing I love more than a nice pussy cat ;)

[bloddyaxe]

foxtrot:

You are mistaken. Relatively speaking, instances of NKVD executions of retreating troops were few and far between.

Lokos

lokos quit making me laugh its hard to control the mouse rofl

You should get a cat then!

nothing I love more than a nice pussy cat ;)
this must be the cat of your dreams then
http://going24-7.com/pins/images_2a/cheshire_cat_tree.jpg

[Lokos]

foxtrot:

Your first source is interesting. It provides us with the information that there was an order for NKVD troops to halt deserters at all costs. However, there is a flaw with your source. It's meaningless. Just because Stalin sayid 'Not a step back!' doesn't mean that no steps back were taken. Just because Stalin said that the Red Army was capable of routing the Wehrmacht in '41 in his Winter Offensive orders doesn't make that so, either.

Your second source, meanwhile, says the exact same thing I was saying. That the NKVD were there to provide a rallying point, and halt retreating troops.

Neither of your sources provide any hard data on execution rates. So, either provide the better sources you were talking about, or we'll leave it at that.

Shiftyfive:

So sayeth the troll.

Lokos

[Kilgor]

Lokos, whats the word in russian for "second line" behind the first ?

you know what im talking about .

And before you start crying about enemy at the gates, you know there is some truth to it.