Could The Soviet Union Have Won Against Hitler's Germany Without Allied Help

[Ea$y-8]

Hello everyone I am back!!!


I think Germany had a chance to beat the USSR after all it took the might of 3 superpowers plus a lot of other countries to beat them - and they still almost won.

Without lease lend, bombing of German industry and without a large force in Africa (their where something like 200,000 men in the Afrika Korps when it surrendered). I think during in 1941/42 it was possible. Das Reich should have geared herself for total war in 1940. The the Third Reich was not prepared for a long war. It was to into the idea of a flawless Blitzkrieg. I think that if in Operation Typhoon if the Germans had winter gear and Panzers that could deal with the cold they would probably have made it to Moscow after a serious fight. He took troops away from Operation Typhoon to support other Army Groups after his outstanding commands told him not to. He could have entered Leningrad (he gave the order not to enter Leningrad) with the help of the Finns and captured a key city in the USSR.

Hitler should have gone after Moscow a second time in 1942 rather than Stalingrad. First off he was still at Moscow's door and was far away from Stalingrad. taking of Moscow in 1942 would have been almost certain death for the USSR first off because the it is the Soviet capital and thus its nerve center and IIRC it was the biggest industrial point it would also be a big moral blow. He might have won Stalingrad had he if he had enough troops (no Axis troops in Africa would help greatly here). to cover the flanks. He should have not gone into the South to get the oil fields The 4th Panzer Army should have stayed and guarded the area where the Soviets might have counter attacked. If the Red Army broke threw like they did and the 6th Army became trapped the 6th Army should have been allowed to make a break for it when Manstein was sent into save them.

After the lose of the 300,000 troops at Stalingrad victory was not possible... However the Wehrmacht might have been able to fight the Red Army to a stand still. after Kharkov where the II SS Panzer Korps with the help of GD stopped the Red Army's advance westward Manstein wanted to launch a plan he called "backhand blow" in which he wanted to trap to Soviets in a their very own Stalingrad. The Kursk offensive shouldn't have been launched but I think ol' Erich Von Manstein could have gotten another victory (for info on this one go see my post on the battle of Kursk). Army Group Center was also left deployed to far foward and under a poor commander (Ernst Busch) when it should have been left under a guy like Model or Manstein. With the forces that where in France they might have had a chance to minimize the damage done to Heersgruppen Mitte by Operation Bagration.

Just my two cents.

[StukaJr]

I cant remember the saying but its something along the lines of "armchair generals talk about tactics, real generals talk about logistics " ?

I guess Rommel was an Armchair General then? Let's not start using proverbs to discuss History now, 'kay?

[duck]

Hello everyone I am back!!!


I think Germany had a chance to beat the USSR after all it took the might of 3 superpowers plus a lot of other countries to beat them - and they still almost won.

Without lease lend, bombing of German industry and without a large force in Africa (their where something like 200,000 men in the Afrika Korps when it surrendered). I think during in 1941/42 it was possible. Das Reich should have geared herself for total war in 1940. The the Third Reich was not prepared for a long war. It was to into the idea of a flawless Blitzkrieg. I think that if in Operation Typhoon if the Germans had winter gear and Panzers that could deal with the cold they would probably have made it to Moscow after a serious fight. He took troops away from Operation Typhoon to support other Army Groups after his outstanding commands told him not to. He could have entered Leningrad (he gave the order not to enter Leningrad) with the help of the Finns and captured a key city in the USSR.

Hitler should have gone after Moscow a second time in 1942 rather than Stalingrad. First off he was still at Moscow's door and was far away from Stalingrad. taking of Moscow in 1942 would have been almost certain death for the USSR first off because the it is the Soviet capital and thus its nerve center and IIRC it was the biggest industrial point it would also be a big moral blow. He might have won Stalingrad had he if he had enough troops (no Axis troops in Africa would help greatly here). to cover the flanks. He should have not gone into the South to get the oil fields The 4th Panzer Army should have stayed and guarded the area where the Soviets might have counter attacked. If the Red Army broke threw like they did and the 6th Army became trapped the 6th Army should have been allowed to make a break for it when Manstein was sent into save them.

After the lose of the 300,000 troops at Stalingrad victory was not possible... However the Wehrmacht might have been able to fight the Red Army to a stand still. after Kharkov where the II SS Panzer Korps with the help of GD stopped the Red Army's advance westward Manstein wanted to launch a plan he called "backhand blow" in which he wanted to trap to Soviets in a their very own Stalingrad. The Kursk offensive shouldn't have been launched but I think ol' Erich Von Manstein could have gotten another victory (for info on this one go see my post on the battle of Kursk). Army Group Center was also left deployed to far foward and under a poor commander (Ernst Busch) when it should have been left under a guy like Model or Manstein. With the forces that where in France they might have had a chance to minimize the damage done to Heersgruppen Mitte by Operation Bagration.

Just my two cents.

Army Group North assaulted Leningrad with intent of breaking into the heart of the city from Sep 9th - Sep 17th 1941 with Hitler's consent. This included several Panzer divisions and support by the whole 8th Air corps. The reason that the Wehrmacht did not enter the city was military defeat, not any directive from Hitler.

As for Typhoon, if Germany would have had tanks of the quality of a T-34 they might have succeeded. The Pz-IIIs and IVs were more or less helpless against SU counter attacks on the crucial southern approaches ( Tula ) where a decisive victory could have been achieved.

Btw, I think the only way to Moscow in 1942 would have been after destroying the Red Army at Voronezh and Stalingrad. The STAVKA reserves were all piled up at Moscow so success there was most unlikely.

Maybe, just maybe, if the Germans had taken care of every single Red Army bridgehead over the Don and also achieved a breakthrough at Voronezh, the Stalingrad fiasco could have been avoided.

[Ea$y-8]

To duck:

Army Group North assaulted Leningrad with intent of breaking into the heart of the city from Sep 9th - Sep 17th 1941 with Hitler's consent. This included several Panzer divisions and support by the whole 8th Air corps. The reason that the Wehrmacht did not enter the city was military defeat, not any directive from Hitler.

Hitler gave the order to not enter Leningrad. I have proff

October the Germans refused to assault the city and Hitler's directive on October 7, signed by Alfred Jodl was a reminder not to accept a capitulation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Leningrad

Within two weeks they had been pushed back and the German High Command was left with the decision whether to take the city by storm or to besiege it. They decided on the latter course

http://www.expage.com/wwiieast11

As for Typhoon, if Germany would have had tanks of the quality of a T-34 they might have succeeded. The Pz-IIIs and IVs were more or less helpless against SU counter attacks on the crucial southern approaches ( Tula ) where a decisive victory could have been achieved.

Yes, The Pzkpfw III and earlier Pzkpfw IV where disigned for infantry support roles not open field armor battles. Heinz Guderian praised the T-34 and said it was the reason Germany was unable to enter Moscow. If the upgraded Panzer IVs (although still outclassed by the T-34 in a lot of ways) had been around The Wehrmacht might have been able to take Moscow.

Btw, I think the only way to Moscow in 1942 would have been after destroying the Red Army at Voronezh and Stalingrad. The STAVKA reserves were all piled up at Moscow so success there was most unlikely.

That could work. Stalingrad was the key to the USSR in the southern region. If they took Stalingrad they would have cut off the reds from the Caucasus oil and the units in the south. I think it was stupid to go into the south for the oil it sucked out forces that could have been used to defend the flanks. Moscow could have been another Stalingrad if it had been handled in the same way.

[Durandal]

...the Allied distraction in North Africa and later Italy and the second front.

Come on dude?!

The distraction? Have you tallied up the actual amount of equipment sent to Africa vs. Russia, including troops? 4/5s nothing. A fraction of a fraction...its amazing Rommel achieved what he had.

As an American, I hate to say it, but by the time we pushed in on Normandy, the war was already lost for Germany. We simply accelerated the fall of the Reich.

[Kilgor]

I guess Rommel was an Armchair General then? Let's not start using proverbs to discuss History now, 'kay?

Armchair generals never have seen combat. So to call rommel one is stupid.
Oh, and maybe you should read up about the troubles rommel had with his supply lines across the desert and through the med. It was disasterous.

[Ea$y-8]

The distraction? Have you tallied up the actual amount of equipment sent to Africa vs. Russia, including troops? 4/5s nothing. A fraction of a fraction...its amazing Rommel achieved what he had.

The Axis surrendered over 200,000 troops in Africa and that is a lot of men. I think we helped the USSR a great deal.

[Lokos]

Kidding right? Britain a second rate player?


Minardiau, I am well aware of your views of the empire. Unfortunately, by any empirical (no pun intended) analysis, Britain was a second rate player in the war.

Just because the numbers of the war in the Pacifc were lower then in Europe, one must take a look at the terrain involved.

Numbers, specifically, are not what I'm looking at. The ability of Soviet forces to neutralize one million Japanese troops in seven days (!!) with 12,000 dead is indicative of the capability of Japanese forces to offer resistance to a major player with the kind of logistical and technical support that status meant on the battlefield. Similar displays by American forces in the island hopping campaign are telling.

Japanase had very clear objectives that fitted into the combined war effort of the Axis partners.

No. They did not.

Deliver a crippling blow to the US to draw America away from Europe, gain valuable oil and rubber suppies, sever the communication lines between the US, UK and Australia. And eventually link up or at minimum provide a trade route to Germany.

Only the 'gain valuable oil and rubber supplies' is applicable. Japan wanted a favourable peace with the US within weeks of the Pearl Harbour attack. How would this 'draw the US away from Europe'? That's the very last thing they wanted to happen. How would any of this, in any case, sever communication lines between the US and the UK?

Japan considered Britain, the Netherlands and France to be minor Allied partners in the war, by the way.

If you look at the strategic position. It is very clear what Germany and Japan were trying to do. Rommel takes Suez, Japanese take India, the British don'thave the fleet to combat the Japanese in the Indian Ocean.

You are giving a LOT of credit to the co-ordination of Japanese-German efforts. Pray tell, where do you get this information from?


Guess what. Germany gets another reletivly safe oil and rubber source.

Guess what? The hell it does. Between Japan and Germany there is a whole lot of Allied-owned territory.

And Russian supplies via lend lease stop.

How is that?

Not as if the British would of been able to get supplies through Iran with Japanese control of the Indian Ocean and German control of Suez.

You assume a whole lot there.

I think there shouldn't be any debate here : without the prospect of fighting this war with Allies, the Soviet Union offers to surrender as soon as autumn 1941.

I'm sorry, Atlantic Friend, but that was never on the cards.

Hitler gave the order to not enter Leningrad. I have proff

Your 'proof' says October.

If the upgraded Panzer IVs (although still outclassed by the T-34 in a lot of ways) had been around The Wehrmacht might have been able to take Moscow.

Not once in WW2 did better tanks provide decisive operational - let alone strategic - advantages. You'd be a fool to believe otherwise.

The Axis surrendered over 200,000 troops in Africa and that is a lot of men. I think we helped the USSR a great deal.

Fantastic. And how many of them were Italians?

Lokos

[RomanS]

Like I said Nationalistic BS.

Fuk you
so its ok for you to be proud of your nation?

No country, empire, nation ever could conquer and keep Russia. Our great parents, great parents, great great parents defeated all invading enemies. GOD BLESS THEM

1 on 1 Russia will take anyone

END OF FUKIN STORY

Germany lost, no more IFs

[Jani.R]

Fuk you
so its ok for you to be proud of your nation?

No country, empire, nation ever could conquer and keep Russia. Our great parents, great parents, great great parents defeated all invading enemies. GOD BLESS THEM

1 on 1 Russia will take anyone

END OF FUKIN STORY

Germany lost, no more IFs

This is why you use condoms.

[Durandal]

The Axis surrendered over 200,000 troops in Africa and that is a lot of men. I think we helped the USSR a great deal.

Actually, I am not talking about the surrendered troops, which numbered well over 300K. I am talking about total man power relative to the entire conflict on the Eastern Front. A MINORITY of the troops captured or killed were German as was the equipment destroyed.

THAT is my point. Africa (as was, to some degree Italy) was a side show for the Germans that did little to "distract" then from Russia. What little that was sent to Africa would have meant NOTHING on the Eastern Front.

Hell, the German's trip through the Balkans did more to hurt the Russian Campaign than anything else in terms of man power and equipment and that was prior top the damn invasion.

Africa was nothing...

I never said we did not help out Russia, in fact, if you read my initial comment on this thread I said the contrary...we did.

Just not in Africa. Africa simply screwed the Italians.

[Durandal]

No country, empire, nation ever could conquer and keep Russia. Our great parents, great parents, great great parents defeated all invading enemies.


All to true, well, except for the Mongols, who pretty much wrecked the area.

Bit your words speak mighty wisdom.

The real question is, why in gods name would anyone want it. p-)

[RomanS]

This is why you use condoms.
No I actually dont. My girl wants our baby to be half American half Russian
the best of both you know !

[Ezekiel25:17]

1 on 1 Russia will take anyone



What happen to the border skirmish with China? Why didn't Great Russia go all the way to Beijing?

[ed316]

Fuk you
so its ok for you to be proud of your nation?

No country, empire, nation ever could conquer and keep Russia. Our great parents, great parents, great great parents defeated all invading enemies. GOD BLESS THEM

1 on 1 Russia will take anyone

END OF FUKIN STORY

Germany lost, no more IFs

You prove me right. Congrats.

My Love for my country doesn't blind me to it's faults, short comming, or stated facts.

A person who loves his country doesn't leave her. He/she lives their and contribute not live somewhere else and hold it to such a pedestal that it's the end all. I give to Russians though, from peasants to a super power in less then 60 years. No "IF's"? The only "IF's" is how long would SU hang on without help materially from US/UK.

Lokos, Logistics wins war. what are you going to do when you are out of rounds, vehicles, food, and etc. The Facts is SU got help and she NEEDED it.

[RomanS]

What happen to the border skirmish with China? Why didn't Great Russia go all the way to Beijing?

what the fuk does this have to do with someone invading Russia and holding on to her?

Stop dreaming about having my motherland, nobody will! Thats what keeps pissing off many people! You just can't take her. GOD BLESS HER

[Thor]

Fuk you
so its ok for you to be proud of your nation?

No country, empire, nation ever could conquer and keep Russia. Our great parents, great parents, great great parents defeated all invading enemies. GOD BLESS THEM

1 on 1 Russia will take anyone
You know that's not true. It was foremost the massive human onslaught and casualties that brought the russians to Berlin. No 1 on 1 fighting.

This thread is so full of soviet propaganda mixed with blinding nationalistic feelings, that it has zero value.

[RomanS]

You prove me right. Congrats.

I dont need to prove to you anything. History did. Read the books, nobody ever took Russia. There are no fukin ifs in the history

[Durandal]

1 on 1 Russia will take anyone

So long as Russia is defending.

On the Attack well, Russia has a fairly sad history unless you count Turkomen. p-)

[Thor]

So long as Russia is defending.
No truth in that either.

[RomanS]

So long as Russia is defending.

On the Attack well, Russia has a fairly sad history unless you count Turkomen. p-)

Well if you look at the history, its the other nations/empires/countries that had a hard on Russia. So yes, ofcourse Russia would be defending

[Thor]

Well if you look at the history, its the other nations/empires/countries that had a hard on Russia. So yes, ofcourse Russia would be defending
Russia has been the one attacking (and expanding it's territory) in most cases.

[RomanS]

Russia has been the one attacking (and expanding it's territory) in most cases.
right
accept mongols, swedes, napoleon, hitler just a few MAJOR invadors in the history

[Thor]

right
accept mongols, swedes, napoleon, hitler just a few MAJOR invadors in the history
Yup, the mongols invaded and owned you (and your mothers) badly.

As for us, it was you who declared war on us..

Historically my statement still stands. Russia has expended on the expense of other peoples. Nothing strange with that really. That's just how things work.

[RomanS]

Yup, the mongols invaded and owned you (and your mothers) badly.

As for us, it was you who declared war on us..

Historically my statement still stands. Russia has expended on the expense of other peoples. Nothing strange with that really. That's just how things work.
ok..... right

But my point still stands for me and millions of Russians
We wont give Russia to anyone

[Kilgor]

There was one dictator that had Russia in his grasp for decades and killed millions. But inside jobs dont count right ?

[RomanS]

There was one dictator that had Russia in his grasp for decades and killed millions. But inside jobs dont count right ?
Hes dead to me, I guess he failed

[RomanS]

edited double post

[Brute]

Yup, the mongols invaded and owned you (and your mothers) badly.

As for us, it was you who declared war on us..

Historically my statement still stands. Russia has expended on the expense of other peoples. Nothing strange with that really. That's just how things work.


Awww, poor swede! To tell you the truth, I'm all too happy that Russia expanded at the expense of such dumbasses as yourself. Bitter still, eh? :-D

As for the Mongols, they would've dry-f*cked the living crap out of your pale scandinavian asses, had they decided to continue their conquest and pounded your god-forsaken place into the ground!

P.S. And just be glad you're not anywhere near me after that "mothers" comment... :slap:

[RomanS]

Awww, poor swede! To tell you the truth, I'm all too happy that Russia expanded at the expense of such dumbasses as yourself. Bitter still, eh? :-D

As for the Mongols, they would've dry-f*cked the living crap out of your pale scandinavian asses, had they decided to continue their conquest and pounded your god-forsaken place into the ground!

P.S. And just be glad you're not anywhere near me after that "mothers" comment... :slap:

I bow my head to you, and shake your hand my brother!
Bottle is on me

[Lokos]

On the Attack well, Russia has a fairly sad history unless you count Turkomen.

Russia didn't expand to be one of the world's greatest powers through defensive successes. Russian military doctrine has always centred on the spirit of the offensive - and that includes June-December 1941, by the way.

Yup, the mongols invaded and owned you (and your mothers) badly.

Call them Mongoloids and get it over with, you filthy slime.

As for the Mongols, I have one word for you: Kulikovo.

Lokos

[Atlantic Friend]

I'm sorry, Atlantic Friend, but that was never on the cards.

It was, from what I gather. Orders were given for the Politburo to evacuate Moscow in late autumn. And AFAIK, Stalin DID make peace overtures to Nazi Germany through Bulgaria.

[Pindeho]

Determination is what won the war for the Soviet Union and her great ingenuity. Not to mention angry Russian Partisans launching countless daily attacks sapping resources.

To the idiot who said there would not be an SU, there would not be an empire other the the 3rd Reich, all countries would be consumed, all territory would be consumed because would other world leaders carry on fighting or simply be wiped off the map. there would not be a Britain/France or a USA or Poland. All would have been under the control of the the Nazi empire, they would gain manpower as they would be the winning side and in exchange would offer to spare your life at the end of the war with the bare essentials of life. Most people of inferior race would be Murdered in camps, put into ovens,toasters(sigh) gas chambers, used as live targets on the Axis ranges to eliminate emotions of Axis troops, etc. Also all other nations which were "Of Use," would have been enslaved and made to work in industry as the reich empire exploited them to flourish a life of Luxury for every German citizen. SO no there would not be a free world you tit.:bash:

[foxtrot023]

Minardiau, I am well aware of your views of the empire. Unfortunately, by any empirical (no pun intended) analysis, Britain was a second rate player in the war.

It was the 3rd largest player on the allies side, and it did manage to stop the german offensive during the BoB on their own.

Numbers, specifically, are not what I'm looking at. The ability of Soviet forces to neutralize one million Japanese troops in seven days (!!) with 12,000 dead is indicative of the capability of Japanese forces to offer resistance to a major player with the kind of logistical and technical support that status meant on the battlefield. Similar displays by American forces in the island hopping campaign are telling.

You cant compare both! Island hopping meant lots of amphibous operations against an enemy that was entrenched and heavily fortified. How would the soviets fared in a similar situation?


rregards

1234567890

[Lokos]

It was the 3rd largest player on the allies side, and it did manage to stop the german offensive during the BoB on their own.

What German offensive during the Battle of Britain? Can that even be termed an 'offensive'?

You cant compare both! Island hopping meant lots of amphibous operations against an enemy that was entrenched and heavily fortified. How would the soviets fared in a similar situation?

That depends. Do they get massive naval and aerial support (the Soviets, I mean)? If so, they would have fared fine. If not, there would have been difficulties. Then again, why would they be doing island hopping without massive naval and aerial support? Your analogy confuses me. I compared the Soviet effort to the American to showcase how ineffective Japanese resistance was in both cases.

The Soviets did better than fine when tackling the 'entrenched and heavily fortified' Japanese border positions in Manchuria, though. Stupefingly fine, actually.

It was, from what I gather.

Negotiations were. Capitulation was not. The possible evacuation of Moscow was also, indeed, on the cards. The Soviet bureaucracy was actually removed from the city. Yet Stalin and his closest advisors stayed, even when it looked like the city might actually fall.

And AFAIK, Stalin DID make peace overtures to Nazi Germany through Bulgaria.

Certainly - but not offers of surrender.

Lokos

[Atlantic Friend]

Negotiations were. Capitulation was not. The possible evacuation of Moscow was also, indeed, on the cards. The Soviet bureaucracy was actually removed from the city. Yet Stalin and his closest advisors stayed, even when it looked like the city might actually fall./quote

This is of course absolutely irrefutable. They wavered, and they depsaired, but they sure did rally back with a vengeance.



Certainly - but not offers of surrender. [/QUOTE]

Well, let's face it in autumn 1941 the Soviet Union didn't have much in terms of bargaining chips, and peace overtures, if they had been agreed to by Germany, would have led to some kind of negotiated surrender, leaving an independent but considerably weaker SU.

[Shadow]

ok..... right

But my point still stands for me and millions of Russians
We wont give Russia to anyone

Guess what? Nobody wants Russia anyway...
Or is somebody interested in having a run-down corrupt country? ;)

[RomanS]

Guess what? Nobody wants Russia anyway...
Or is somebody interested in having a run-down corrupt country? ;)
than what are you doing in this thread?
keep on walking...

[Lokos]

Well, let's face it in autumn 1941 the Soviet Union didn't have much in terms of bargaining chips, and peace overtures, if they had been agreed to by Germany, would have led to some kind of negotiated surrender, leaving an independent but considerably weaker SU.

Peace terms which crippled the Union would have been rejected out of hand. Besides, even in autumn '41 the leadership of the SU had reason to be optimistic. Reserve armies were being formed as quickly as frontline ones were destroyed. The field army was continuously being reconstituted through a trained mobilization pool of some twelve million men.

The scenario you outline demands several intradependent factors:

a) That the Soviet peace feelers have the intended effect and that, at the same time, the Soviet leadership does not feel itself to be under the direct threat of destruction by the resulting peace terms - so as to accept them.

b) That all this takes place during the chronologically insignificant period during which the Soviet Union seemed about to collapse.

c) That the Germans would step away from what looked like an easy kill and start compromising with an enemy they consider defeated.

Do you honestly see this as a possibility?

Lokos

[Thor]

Awww, poor swede! To tell you the truth, I'm all too happy that Russia expanded at the expense of such dumbasses as yourself. Bitter still, eh?
Really, for what? We're one of the most scarcely populated countries in Europe and people keep flocking to the cities. So imagine WTF would we have done with the massive areas of plains, swamps and forests now called Russia.

As for the Mongols, they would've dry-f*cked the living crap out of your pale scandinavian asses had they decided to continue their conquest and pounded your god-forsaken place into the ground!
Yeah, just like.. like.. No one ever did. So keep dreaming.

And just be glad you're not anywhere near me after that "mothers" comment...
That's the vodka talking.

you filthy slime.
Oh dear

As for the Mongols, I have one word for you: Kulikovo.
Which took place after hundreds of years of humping.

Russian military doctrine has always centred on the spirit of the offensive
Leaders using peasants as cannon fodder is another way of putting it.

Yet Stalin and his closest advisors stayed, even when it looked like the city might actually fall.
Sure, with an armoured train standing by to get them out should the germans have decided to go for the final push.

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

ouch...this is getting harsh and starting to go in circles!

these are my thoughts...although ive expressed them before on here...

who had the best military...looking at numbers, casualties, ability, training, leadership etc...you would be very foolish to say anyone besides the germans.

what stopped them...they were overextended...finally matched up and faced an opponent that was numerically superior and their closest military equal (SU) until the US got involved...and they were overwhelmed. they simply did not have the numbers nor the capability, and eventually the fighting spirit to be thousands of miles from home fighting the first enemy that was as ruthless as they were.

could the germans HAVE won the war against the SU...yes. and if you think otherwise youre crazy. but were the cards in their favor...no, and thats why they lost. you can blame it on what you will, compare the numbers, but even if you have that germanic superman attitude you cannot downplay the overwhelming might of the SU. they were just as much of a sleeping lion as the US was and barbarossa was the biggest mistake hitler made. would the US have been willing to sacrifice millions in order to save Europe from the nazis had they decided to NOT invade SU, we'll never know. but if i was a european person, i would be kissing the SU's ass for making the sacrifices they did, so that youre not Jürgen's slave right now! and also id be glad i wouldnt be speaking german b/c it is such a hard language to learn it seems!

but such is the nationalistic feelings of europeans, haha! if you ask the finn's they kicked the crap out of the SU, or if you make fun of the italians contribution to the nazis theyll have to remind you of the roman empire, and if you make fun of the french theyll have to tell you about some guy named napolean, talk trash about the brits and they will remind you of how the "sun used to never set" haha! and even the nordic peoples will have to remind you of how they used to rule the coastlines!

so i think most of this is just national pride, and theres nothing wrong with that as long as it is focused in a constructive manner to advance the thread!

[duck]

Guess what? Nobody wants Russia anyway...
Or is somebody interested in having a run-down corrupt country? ;)

Well, I hope to see a free, strong and prosperous Russia in my lifetime. That would be nothing less than my ancestors fighting for the Czar two generations ago wanted.

[Lokos]

Oh dear

Hey, it's what you are.

Which took place after hundreds of years of humping.

And your proof of this is?

Or is this another one of those things where you say something, and when I ask for proof, you forget you said it?

Leaders using peasants as cannon fodder is another way of putting it.

Proof?

Sure, with an armoured train standing by to get them out should the germans have decided to go for the final push.

They did decide to go for the final push. They failed. I know, that makes you a Sad Panda (TM).

Lokos

[Thor]

Hey, it's what you are.
At least the girls don't think so.

You're a sad person, so blinded by desperate nationalism and lack of self-esteem that you have to go on ranting like this.

And your proof of this is?
That the mongols took war booty?? :cantbeli:

"Man's greatest joy is to slay his enemy,
plunder his riches, ride his steeds, see
the tears of his loved ones, and embrace
his women."
-Genghis Khan

Or is this another one of those things where you say something, and when I ask for proof, you forget you said it?
Name one such incident. You're the one with that habit (only second to repeating your communist indoctrination).

http://www.panorama.ru/works/patr/ir/13.html

Proof
You're the one claiming it. Give examples of non-peasants in low-casuality, successful major wars.

They did decide to go for the final push. They failed. I know, that makes you a Sad Panda (TM).
Get a grip, Hitler changed the main objective from Moscow to the caucasus oil fields. It is really time for you to get some non-soviet literature.

if you ask the finn's they kicked the crap out of the SU
If you ask anyone.

and even the nordic peoples will have to remind you of how they used to rule the coastlines!
We dominated northern Europe way after that as well. I believe German Pomerania was the last continental province we handed over, that was in the early 19th century.

[Lokos]

That the mongols took war booty??

"Man's greatest joy is to slay his enemy,
plunder his riches, ride his steeds, see
the tears of his loved ones, and embrace
his women."
-Genghis Khan

You look like a worse joke each and every time we dance this dance. That's your proof? Go back to school, little boy.

Name one such incident.

Absolutely. When I asked for the names of those prominent researchers that supported your contention in one of the other WW2 threads, you didn't manage to get back to me on that. Can you do so now?

ou're the one claiming it. Give examples of non-peasants in low-casuality, successful major wars.

Low-casualty? Why low-casualty, specifically?

80% of the Swedes who died in the Great Northern War were peasants. ~30-40% of the Germans who died in WW1 were peasants. WW2 Russia was still, primarily, an agrarian state. It is only natural that most of the soldiery stemmed from an agricultural background. That you would disparage that tells me two things: that you're a pathetic, fat slime of a human being that I would gladly rip to pieces with my bare hands (I still remember those PMs, you sorry excuse for a homo sapien) and that you don't know diddly squat about anything being discussed.

And, FYI, all of the Soviet Union's tankers/airmen/engineers/artillerists etc. (any specialty branch) had at least a highschool level education, and the vast majority were industrial workers, not peasants.

But, please, show me you've read SOMETHING. Tell me where you get your information from.

Get a grip, Hitler changed the main objective from Moscow to the caucasus oil fields.

No, you're right, that was a terrible decision. Changing the objective from the ultra-fortified Moscow with the entirety of the STAVKA strategic reserve piled around it to the basically undefended Caucaus with its strategically important oil fields due to the fact that only 35% of German divisions were still capable of any sort of offensive action... What was he THINKING?

If you ask anyone.

Mannerheim would beg to differ!

Better yet, go to the Finnish topic on this very forum.

We dominated northern Europe way after that as well.

No, you got dominated in the GNW. You weren't even a particularly relevant naval power in the Baltic after Russia defeated you.

Lokos

[Ezekiel25:17]

Blind nationalism is what got Mother Russia into her present dilenma. History tells you differently from Russians who GREW UP IN THE WEST post. Russia was still a more or less peasent culture during WWII.


Please stop the blind nationalism. It makes Russians look more idiotic then they are.

[Lokos]

Please stop the blind nationalism. It makes Russians look more idiotic then they are.

Who are you talking at?

If it's at me, you can take a step back and realign, champ, 'cause I'm not Russian.

Nor am I 'blindly nationalist'.

Lokos

[Ezekiel25:17]

If your Russian or Slavic relations then I'm talking to you!

PS. SU killed more people then the third reich. If you defend it you are no better then the SS or Gestapo.

The again I wouln't expect any less from people who are blinded by nationalism,

[Thor]

You look like a worse joke each and every time we dance this dance. That's your proof? Go back to school, little boy.
Not that I needed to, but I did post a link if you would have bothered looking.

It is well-known that when a russian bleeds he bleeds part-asian blood. I don't see why you aren't proud of perhaps having that mongol warrior in you. Is it some racist thing?

Absolutely. When I asked for the names of those prominent researchers that supported your contention in one of the other WW2 threads, you didn't manage to get back to me on that. Can you do so now?
I have no idea what you are talking about. Post a link if you are referring to something specific.

80% of...
You always start panicing and diverting.. We were not discussing Sweden, Germany or your ways of making up numbers when you feel like it, but Russia and your leaders way of using their subjects as cannon fodder mindless of the casualties.

that you're a pathetic, fat slime of a human being that I would gladly rip to pieces with my bare hands
Nooo! :( Please, you magnificient huge slavic warrior that defeated NATO and didn't let the mongols anywhere near your mothers, let me the little scandinavian live!! I beg you! :)

And, FYI, all of the Soviet Union's tankers/airmen/engineers/artillerists etc. (any specialty branch) had at least a highschool level education, and the vast majority were industrial workers, not peasants.
That might be, but since you're in a heated mood and panicing, I don't take your word for it.

But, please, show me you've read SOMETHING. Tell me where you get your information from.
Look at your posts, you're just throwing out numbers and names without any sources. And then you accuse me for not believing Soviet BS?

No, you're right, that was a terrible decision. Changing the objective from the ultra-fortified Moscow with the entirety of the STAVKA strategic reserve piled around it to the basically undefended Caucaus with its strategically important oil fields due to the fact that only 35% of German divisions were still capable of any sort of offensive action... What was he THINKING?
Again, where are these numbers coming from...? Basically Hitler did not believe that Moscow had that much of a strategic value and directed the push down south. Many historians claim that was one of his worst strategic mistakes. As for fortifications, the Maginot line was ultra-fortified as well.

Mannerheim would beg to differ!
I think not. I've read plenty about Mannerheim.

You can start with reading his end speech.

No, you got dominated in the GNW. You weren't even a particularly relevant naval power in the Baltic after Russia defeated you.
Sure, but I referred to the period before that. Aren't you going to give credit to your fellow attackers, the poles and the danes?

It's hard to see any point in continuing this discussion. I hope you find peace within yourself.

[Lokos]

Not that I needed to, but I did post a link if you would have bothered looking.

The link you posted contradicts what you're saying in numerous instances, as well as being liberally covered with bullsheit. For example, the 'Kulaks' being mentioned as not only an 'ethnicity' but as an existing group of people during the interwar period. That's total nonsense. There was no such thing as a 'Kulak', ever. Ask Stephen Wheatcroft, a leading authority on the period.

I don't see why you aren't proud of perhaps having that mongol warrior in you. Is it some racist thing?

1) The Mongols never came near where my ancestors were born and raised.

2) I do not protest against the possibility of the Russians being part Asiatic. But I despise that your racist ass denigrates them on that point. I like how you tried to turn that around and make me look like a racist, when it is in fact you who began discussing the issue by talking about Mongols raping Russian women, and all the implications of that. I think you're a disgusting insect of a man, for it.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Post a link if you are referring to something specific.

Gladly.

In the Fire and Ice thread:

Again BS and Soviet Propaganda. Chrustchev himself mentioned a million losses in his book but all other trusted historians talk about 200,000-500,000 soviet casualties.

To which I responded with:

Do you know what a 'casualty' is? I shall now inform you, in any case. A casualty is a soldier who has been rendered ineffective through liquidation (terminal death), wounding (of any degree) or becoming unaccountable for (going MIA). By this criteria, the Soviet casualties were, indeed, higher than ~126,000 - which were the fatalities and the MIAs, alone.

Who are these 'trusted historians' of yours? Name a few. I am familiar with the works of roughly 85-90% of Eastern Front/Soviet military historians. Or are these the same 'trusted historians' you couldn't name, last time we had this discussion?

Now as for...

or your ways of making up numbers when you feel like it,

Swedish army composition: 'Peter the Great and the Russian military campaigns during the final years of the Great Northern War, 1719-1721' by James R. Moulton

German army composition: 'The First World War' by John Keegan.

but Russia and your leaders way of using their subjects as cannon fodder mindless of the casualties.

Have a read of 'Stalin's reluctant soldiers : a social history of the Red Army, 1925-1941' by Roger Reese for the social composition of the Red Army.

Now, as for 'cannon fodder', you should really read: 'The Value of Human Life in Soviet Warfare' by Amnon Sella.

Until you do, nothing you have to say means diddly.

Nooo! Please, you magnificient huge slavic warrior that defeated NATO and didn't let the mongols anywhere near your mothers, let me the little scandinavian live!! I beg you!

Not worth giving a proper response to.

That might be, but since you're in a heated mood and panicing, I don't take your word for it.

1) I'm not panicking. Whatever gave you that idea?

2) Don't take my word for it. Take the word of 'The Red Army Handbook' by Steven J. Zaloga.

Look at your posts, you're just throwing out numbers and names without any sources. And then you accuse me for not believing Soviet BS?

Not one of the above books is 'Soviet'.

Again, where are these numbers coming from...?

Re: STAVKA reserve: 'Clash of Titans: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler' by David M. Glantz

Re: German divisional capability: 'The Road to Stalingrad' by John Erickson.

As for fortifications, the Maginot line was ultra-fortified as well.

Which is probably why the Germans went around it, dipshiet.

I think not. I've read plenty about Mannerheim.


Maybe you should read up on his position vis a vis the war on 2 March 1940.

your fellow attackers, the poles and the danes?

No, not really.

Lokos

[asch]

SU killed more people then the third reich. If you defend it you are no better then the SS or Gestapo. idiotism.
christianity killed more people than the third reich and SU.
so fcukin what?
make it forbidden, eh?
spaniards almost destroyed entire civiliations of Inkas, Aztecs, whatever.
so, destroy Spain?

so much people, who come here not to discuss, but to aggravate opponents. this is just unmature.

back to topic: SU would win. vast resources, and even if professionalism of our soldiers questioned here, battlefield is a best teacher soldier ever can have. more important, our parents defend their Rodina.
and no racistic hateful crap from thor etc. can change this facts. enjoy your personal facism, world around don't care.

[M_S]

Lokos why do you even respond to this retard?

He is obviously a small kid somewhere in a dark place, with obvious racist/nazi opinions.

He talk from his ass, and you should know all he is trying to do is to provoke you. He has to, otherwise he would look like more of an retard than he already is.

Thor do you even read alot of books on anything? Lazy retard.

[RGRBOX]

Boy... this thread when straight down the s.h.i.tt.er....

There's no way to know who would have won... because it didn't happen that way...

[Pindeho]

If your Russian or Slavic relations then I'm talking to you!

PS. SU killed more people then the third reich. If you defend it you are no better then the SS or Gestapo.

The again I wouln't expect any less from people who are blinded by nationalism,

Judging by your other posts there is lots of things which can be said about Yanks.:bash:

[Atlantic Friend]

The scenario you outline demands several intradependent factors:

a) That the Soviet peace feelers have the intended effect and that, at the same time, the Soviet leadership does not feel itself to be under the direct threat of destruction by the resulting peace terms - so as to accept them.

Of course, that goes without saying. Peace is being offered to Germany, first question is whether Germany seizes the golden opportunity. And of course Germany's terms would have had to be acceptable for the Soviet Union to prefer it to a continuation of military operations.

b) That all this takes place during the chronologically insignificant period during which the Soviet Union seemed about to collapse.

Chronologically insignificant ? We are talking about weeks, which are a lenghty enough period for the German forces to gobble up most of Western Russia.

Even if France did not have the same geographical and demographical advantages, its civilian powers went from confidence to doubt to despair to surrender in a matter of weeks, too. So I do tend to think this period WAS significant.

c) That the Germans would step away from what looked like an easy kill and start compromising with an enemy they consider defeated.

This is not a third factor, this is a rewording of your first one : does Germany seizes the opportunity, does it agree to a negotiated peace, or does it think it's a sure sign the Soviet regime will collapse soon as the Russian regime did in 1917 ?

Do you honestly see this as a possibility?

Yes, honestly, I do think the possibility existed. However brave the Russian soldiers, and however able the Red Army, there was a significant (to me, at least) period when the Soviet leaders, including their absolute master, DID think the Germans could not be stopped. What use is a tool you decide not to use anymore out of doubt ?

So I really don't think Germany's defeat was written on the wall as sson as Barbarossa was launched - Stalin sure wasn't convinced of the future of Bloshevism, let alone of his eventual victory, in those few months where the fate of the Soviet Union was in balance.

Germany also had several cards to play, and wasted them through arrogance (Hitler's ranting about "one good kick on the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse") or "racial blindness" (not playing Ukrainians against Russians more seriously because all Slavs were to be considered untermenschen for example).

[RomanS]

Judging by your other posts there is lots of things which can be said about Yanks.:bash:

I dont think he's an AMerican. I have too many American friends that say I need to ignore dumbfuks, but I dont think hes a Yank.

Just ignore him, wastes of sperm are not worth our time bro

[Ezekiel25:17]

American and proud. I was not born here but I have lived here for over 25 years. I'm a citizen. I don't live in America and talk about how great others countries are. If you think your motherland is a great place go back there. No one in America will miss you. The only waste of sperm is people who come to America and complain that it's isn't as good as their motherland.

[Ezekiel25:17]

Judging by your other posts there is lots of things which can be said about Yanks.:bash:

Nice username it suits you.

[RomanS]

American and proud. I was not born here but I have lived here for over 25 years. I'm a citizen. I don't live in America and talk about how great others countries are. If you think your motherland is a great place go back there. No one in America will miss you. The only waste of sperm is people who come to America and complain that it's isn't as good as their motherland.

Find me ONE post, by me, where i said Im not proud of living in America, and that I think Russia is better ?

I will rest my case, and take my hat off to you if you do.

Im waiting.

[Pindeho]

Roman, no point in taking the hat off because I bet he's not going to find one. Also creating my username I had no choice because other names were taken.

[Durandal]

Find me ONE post, by me, where i said Im not proud of living in America, and that I think Russia is better ?

I will rest my case, and take my hat off to you if you do.

Im waiting.

As an American...

I have got to back Roman on this one.

[Lokos]

And of course Germany's terms would have had to be acceptable for the Soviet Union to prefer it to a continuation of military operations.

The key distinction lies between what the Soviets consider 'acceptable' and what the Germans would feel they had 'coming to them'.

I believe these positions were entirely incompatible.

Chronologically insignificant ? We are talking about weeks, which are a lenghty enough period for the German forces to gobble up most of Western Russia.

The chronologically insignificant period during which the leadership of the Soviet Union believed that there was a potential for immediate complete collapse of the Soviet state. This, indeed, was several weeks long. Unfortunately, peace negotiations take significantly more time. And it is unlikely that a general ceasefire would prevail, in the meantime. More likely, the negotiations would stretch out, until, finally, Soviet forces established themselves defensively, the crisis passed, and the Soviets re-formatted their terms, putting the Germans in a position they felt they should not be in (i.e. giving up significant gains).

Even if France did not have the same geographical and demographical advantages, its civilian powers went from confidence to doubt to despair to surrender in a matter of weeks, too.

Certainly you are not comparing the military situation of France in mid-1940 with that of the Soviet Union in late 1941? Unlike the French, the Soviets were a) not inclined to 'cut their losses in a hopeless situation' and b) had a rather massive formation of reserve armies in the process of placing numerous rifle divisions between key campaign objectives and the Germans.

This is not a third factor, this is a rewording of your first one : does Germany seizes the opportunity, does it agree to a negotiated peace, or does it think it's a sure sign the Soviet regime will collapse soon as the Russian regime did in 1917 ?

The first factor was that the Soviet peace feelers get the attention of the Germans, and that the Soviet leadership agrees to resulting terms. The third factor, on the other hand, is the German acceptance of Soviet terms, in turn, in the face of what seemed to be imminent victory. I do not think this was likely.

So I really don't think Germany's defeat was written on the wall as sson as Barbarossa was launched - Stalin sure wasn't convinced of the future of Bloshevism, let alone of his eventual victory, in those few months where the fate of the Soviet Union was in balance.

While I agree that there was doubt, I disagree that it meant the Soviets were willing to capitulate.

period when the Soviet leaders, including their absolute master, DID think the Germans could not be stopped.

During the period in question, there were several instances of German forces being fought to a standstill. This gave the RKKA a significant morale boost, and the Soviet leadership a renewed faith in the potential of that institution.

Lokos



Lokos

[foxtrot023]

During the period in question, there were several instances of German forces being fought to a standstill. This gave the RKKA a significant morale boost, and the Soviet leadership a renewed faith in the potential of that institution.

Lokos



Specially, but not limited, to the area of operations of Army Group North

[jipman]

No...I don't think a defending Russia can be beaten. But I don't think they are too determined if they have to attack another country.

[RomanS]

American and proud. I was not born here but I have lived here for over 25 years. I'm a citizen. I don't live in America and talk about how great others countries are. If you think your motherland is a great place go back there. No one in America will miss you. The only waste of sperm is people who come to America and complain that it's isn't as good as their motherland.
still waiting....
back your shiit up

[Ezekiel25:17]

still waiting....
back your shiit up

Don't need to. Your post and hard on you have for Stalin and a motherland you don't live in says it all. Have a great time lying about your exploits in Chechnya. :roll:

[RomanS]

Don't need to. Your post and hard on you have for Stalin and a motherland you don't live in says it all. Have a great time lying about your exploits in Chechnya. :roll:

thought so...
when you cant bring a civil debate with valid points, you throw your assshole card on the table and walk away

on ignore you go as well

[TheRussian1]

Have a great time lying about your exploits in Chechnya. :roll:

how does that pertain to this thread?

[MACT-1]

The Germans would have steam rolled the Soviets.
Stalin was a bigger idiot than Hitler.

[asch]

how does that pertain to this thread?
forget it, just everyday dumb insulting, nothing special.
Stalin was a bigger idiot than Hitler.
haha, you know them both, eh?
and yes, those Georgians, they soo... wonderfully simple.

[eucalyptus]

asch what is it with Russian and Georgians? I always woundered what all the dumb Georgians jokes are for.

[Durandal]

The Germans would have steam rolled the Soviets.
Stalin was a bigger idiot than Hitler.

37 posts in and a confirmed idiot.

Rock on.

[asch]

asch what is it with Russian and Georgians? I always woundered what all the dumb Georgians jokes are for.
whoops, you got me. always thought that those jokes kinda racist. and i don't know why i write this :) too long day, too much coffee maybe...
i think every country have this sort of jokes. nothing to be proud of, of course.
37 posts in and a confirmed idiot.
some people just... talented.
:)

[eucalyptus]

whoops, you got me. always thought that those jokes kinda racist. and i don't know why i write this :) too long day, too much coffee maybe...
:)
No I dont meen dumb jokes but dumb-jokes like why Sweden has "Norwegian are so dumb..." jokes. :) Ive seen alot of Georgian jokes by Russian members here, why is that?

[Schizo]

No I dont meen dumb jokes but dumb-jokes like why Sweden has "Norwegian are so dumb..." jokes. Ive seen alot of Georgian jokes by Russian members here, why is that?
In Russian there are jokes about every ex-soviet group of people, seriously (even the Slavic) :).

[Para]

A lot of this would depend if the Germans were still tied up with troops in North Africa and many oher Battle Fronts. If Germany had turned it's full force into Russia at the start with out having to worry about other battle fronts then the out come just could have different

[Durandal]

A lot of this would depend if the Germans were still tied up with troops in North Africa and many oher Battle Fronts. If Germany had turned it's full force into Russia at the start with out having to worry about other battle fronts then the out come just could have different

That's pretty much what they did. Like I have said before, the campaign in the Balkans did more to hurt the campaign in Russia than any small force deployment elsewhere (and lets be honest, any of the other deployments were small...very small).

Hell, Germany hurt itself more by not committing to a war time economy till late in the war and wasting resources executing millions of their labor and providing guards for it.

[foxtrot023]

That's pretty much what they did. Like I have said before, the campaign in the Balkans did more to hurt the campaign in Russia than any small force deployment elsewhere (and lets be honest, any of the other deployments were small...very small).

Hell, Germany hurt itself more by not committing to a war time economy till late in the war and wasting resources executing millions of their labor and providing guards for it.

and let us not forget that not only did Germany geared towards total war late in the war, they also left untapped a plentiful source of labor, their women. Not only they were not used, they could have also free several million men to go to the armed forces. So while allied women contributed in the factories, Nazi Machistas would not allow german women to work.

[Lokos]

and let us not forget that not only did Germany geared towards total war late in the war, they also left untapped a plentiful source of labor, their women. Not only they were not used, they could have also free several million men to go to the armed forces. So while allied women contributed in the factories, Nazi Machistas would not allow german women to work.

Granted! However, the Allies did not import seven million slave labourers to substitute the replacement of a male workforce by a female one.

Lokos

[foxtrot023]

Granted! However, the Allies did not import seven million slave labourers to substitute the replacement of a male workforce by a female one.

Lokos

True, true. But I think that those women would have been more productive than those 7 million slaves.

[Belrick]

^I doubt that.^

Wether or not the SU could of defeated Germany without allied help is debatable. However without allied help Russia would of faced Germany;

-With an extra million men
-Without the resurgence of the VVS (made possible by allied avgas, aluminium etc)
-Without half a million studebaker trucks (plus trains etc)that allowed them the mobility to smash the German army in 1944.

[Son_Of_Suvorov]

No I dont meen dumb jokes but dumb-jokes like why Sweden has "Norwegian are so dumb..." jokes. :) Ive seen alot of Georgian jokes by Russian members here, why is that?

It is because of a member named Levan from Georgia. He was very anti-Russian and sometimes posted things so stupid, the only way to respond was with a joke or not at all. Call me easily amused, but I enjoyed telling him to go copulate with a goat. Now he has been banned, but the Georgian jokes still continue.

[Snoshi]

There is no way of winning WW2 flame war vs Lokos

[asch]

It is because of a member named Levan from Georgia. He was very anti-Russian and sometimes posted things so stupid, the only way to respond was with a joke or not at all. Call me easily amused, but I enjoyed telling him to go copulate with a goat. Now he has been banned, but the Georgian jokes still continue.
yup.
:)
7890

[XShipRider]

More man power? The Russians had more man and woman power than any other country in the war. They won battles by just throwing man after man into the line of fire. They had more men then guns, and that says something. Pearl Harbor was goin happen anyway, the Japanese thought the US was waging an undelcared war against them. And the numerous embargos placed on the Japanese by the US "forced" (in the Japanese mind set) the Japanese to fight out and strike the US.

The Germans could have won, but they would have to battle the winter and the Russians. The winter stopped Napoleon, who was kickin some ass back in the day. The Germans did have the armor and air power but during and after the winter these assests were almost taken out of the picture. What really hurt the Germans was the winter, which grounded planes and the tanks got stuck in the ground. The Germans also were hurt by their rapid advance which strung out their supply lines. They also had to face the overwheling amount of men and mass proudecing tanks the Russians had. This was other thing Hitler did wrong, he didnt have the men to tank ratio that the Russians had.

Hilter was dumb enough to try to fight a two front war, which drained his men men and materials. This helped the other Allied nations, and ended up in Germany's defeat. Without the other Allied nations the war on the eastern front would have been long and bloody. But its hard to say who would have won, the Germans were winning but then the winter hit; but Russia had the man power and will power to fight to the last man. So it would end up as a close Russian win or a North Korea ending with no winner and a never ending war.

edit- spelling, god i hate grammer.
I believe you're placing too much emphasis on Russian domestic
production in your analysis. The Allies were supplying Russia with
everything from fuel to tanks to planes to icebreakers. I think
without the Allies arrayed against Germany the Germans would
have eventually defeated Stalin.

Yes, the weather could have played a role (obviously a historical fact)
but Germany would have had time in the Spring to regroup and surge
into Moscow. Again, all this IF the Allies had not been kidney
punching Germany ad infinitum.

[asch]

I believe you're placing too much emphasis on Russian domestic
production in your analysis. The Allies were supplying Russia with
everything from fuel to tanks to planes to icebreakers. I think
without the Allies arrayed against Germany the Germans would
have eventually defeated Stalin.

Yes, the weather could have played a role (obviously a historical fact)
but Germany would have had time in the Spring to regroup and surge
into Moscow. Again, all this IF the Allies had not been kidney
punching Germany ad infinitum.
please, read entire thread before posting your opinion!

[XShipRider]

please, read entire thread before posting your opinion!
My comment was based on your post and the original posting.

I was trying to give an opinion of could Germany have defeated
the USSR without the Allied aid to the Russians?

Sorry if it looked as if I was only critiquing your thread.

I missed it in the rules where it said your opinion is more valid or valued than everyone elses.

Just to be safe I'll avoid your replies from here on out.:backhand:

Besides that, there's over 300 replies... to wit, many are just banter between two people.

[Jim Bowie]

I believe you're placing too much emphasis on Russian domestic
production in your analysis. The Allies were supplying Russia with
everything from fuel to tanks to planes to icebreakers. I think
without the Allies arrayed against Germany the Germans would
have eventually defeated Stalin.

Yes, the weather could have played a role (obviously a historical fact)
but Germany would have had time in the Spring to regroup and surge
into Moscow. Again, all this IF the Allies had not been kidney
punching Germany ad infinitum.

You are correct. The Soviet offensive across Poland and into Germany would have been much slower, probably ending in the winter of 1945-46. The Allies supplied the Soviets with not just raw materials for tanks and artillery but also trucks. Trucks that allowed Soviet troops and material to flow effortlessly to the front. Not only did that save Soviet lives, but also spared the lives of many German civilians who would have starved to death under a prolonged conflict.

[Lokos]

My comment was based on your post and the original posting.


Your comment is also redundant, as its primary thesis has already been thoroughly discussed in this thread - which is why asch told you to read the whole thing before posting. It was good advice.

Jim Bowie:

The same advice applies to you.

Lokos

[Minardiau]

Lokos

Mate, I value your contributions to this section. You do post some very interesting posts.

Unfortunatly I disagree with alot of it. Your grasp of history it seems only deals with the Eastern Front. Because of which, you fail to understand the full implications of the Pacific and North Africa campaigns.

If you was impartial as you make out, you will realise that WW2 was not a single front campaign. But rather a war that involved the entire world.

As soon as you realise that, the more objective your posts will be.

For example.

The Japanese had the US defeated. If it was not for Australian efforts in New Guinea, Japan had access to the Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean and had overall strategic advantage. Even after Midway and Coral Sea the US had only 1 fleet carrier in operation.

Now, if the Japanese had of focuses on the Indian Ocean as opposed to the Pacific, and isloated India, do you seriously think, the US and UK would of been in a position to supply Russia with the all important, Iron Ore, AVGAS, Aliminum ect?

I'm not saying I know everything, far from it.

All I am asking is for you to sit back, and realise that WW2 is/was not just about Russia.

[Lokos]

Your grasp of history it seems only deals with the Eastern Front. Because of which, you fail to understand the full implications of the Pacific and North Africa campaigns.

That's a very, very hefty assertion.

If you was impartial as you make out, you will realise that WW2 was not a single front campaign

Based on evidence at hand, and the lack of co-ordination between Japan and Germany (the total lack of co-ordination, rather), my personal analysis of the Pacific War is that it was a self-contained conflict which was not truly (albeit technically it was) a part of the WW2 that began when Germany invaded Poland in September 1939. Many historians have paid - at the very least - the token lip service of serrating the conflict at large into 'The Pacific War' and 'The European Theater of Operations'. An argument for a seamless continuity, however, cannot be made.

The Japanese had the US defeated.

You are grossly missunderstanding two things: a) Japanese war aims and b) the strategic reality, and the Japanese perception thereof.

a) -> The Japanese embarked on war in August of 1941 (when the final decision was made) with the intention of knocking out the US Pacific Fleet in one massive port strike at Pearl Harbour, and forcing the Americans to the negotiating table. This was based on what was proven to be a false assumption: that the Americans would cut their losses even after allowing for the widespread destruction of a significant portion of their fleet. Instead, the American government mobilized the nation for a protracted conflict. The Japanese naval leadership knew, at that point, that the war was over in all but name. To put it somewhat differently, the Japanese David attempted to suckerpunch the American Goliath, but failed to floor him. Goliath's retribution would be terrible, by any reckoning. Therefore, this makes the Japanese perception of the war quite clear: if the US did not come to the negotiating table, an eventual defeat was almost certain.

b) -> The strategic reality of 1941 is somewhat different than what you make it out to be.

1) The Japanese did not have the merchant marine and the amphibious transport capacity to make good on their rapid-fire victories over the USN in 1941 and early 1942 (nor did they ever feasibly have anything close to the capability to outright defeat the US strategically). The Kaigun was primarily suited to smashing the USN in a decisive battle, and thereby forcing the Americans into negotiation. That, however, was largely bluff. The Americans could rapidly regenerate combat losses. Japanese losses were irreplaceable. The Japanese were realistic enough to understand this.

2) Midway was a disaster of unparalleled proportions for the Japanese. The three carriers' pilot complement was the single most elite in the Japanese air force/naval air. The pilots lost were to be badly missed in the battles that followed. The loss of the power projection afforded by those three carriers was the single most disheartening for Japan's High Command. Outright defeat was now something the Americans could inflict on the Japanese at relative leisure.

3) You mention 'one' operational carrier on the American side after the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway. I don't think I have to remind you how many carriers the Americans ended up building, in comparison to the Japanese. The picture is anything but strategically favourable for the Japanese.

Now, if the Japanese had of focuses on the Indian Ocean as opposed to the Pacific, and isloated India, do you seriously think, the US and UK would of been in a position to supply Russia with the all important, Iron Ore, AVGAS, Aliminum ect?

1) The Soviet Union (of which Russia was but one republic) received LL shipments through Murmansk, Arkhangelsk, Vladivostok and Iran. None of those routes required the use of the Indian Ocean.

2) How could the Japanese have 'focused on the Indian Ocean, as opposed to the Pacific'? In what universe is this a feasible scenario, based on Japanese limitations and capacities?

All I am asking is for you to sit back, and realise that WW2 is/was not just about Russia.

Of course not. But it is most certainly not about the British Empire and the Commonwealth, either. I will be the first to defend Australian military achievements throughout history. But I will not play a part in degrading those achievements by comparing them to the scale of the overall struggle in Western and Eastern Europe.

Regards,
Lokos

[Minardiau]

See thats your problem mate.

You look at the scale of the battle. And nothing more. From what I have seen of your posts.

Talking about the shipments through Iran to Russia. Look where Iran is? What ocean does the supplies go through to get to Iran?

3) You mention 'one' operational carrier on the American side after the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway. I don't think I have to remind you how many carriers the Americans ended up building, in comparison to the Japanese. The picture is anything but strategically favourable for the Japanese.

I'm fully aware of how many carriers eventually were in place in 45. 26 fleet carriers on the us. 6 British and over 60 escort carriers. Fact remains that, the Japanese had the chance to atleast knock the US military out of the war for a long time. America played a huge game of bluff in 43.

This is where Australia's involvment was of utmost importance. Australia managed to tie down quite alot of Japanese forces in SE Asia. The numbers might only be in the thousends as opposed to the millions on the eastern front. None the less, It was forces that Japan needed in other parts of her war effort.


Based on evidence at hand, and the lack of co-ordination between Japan and Germany (the total lack of co-ordination, rather), my personal analysis of the Pacific War is that it was a self-contained conflict which was not truly (albeit technically it was) a part of the WW2 that began when Germany invaded Poland in September 1939.

And this is where the big problem lies.

Australia, UK and the US paid little significance to the Pacific initially because less was at stake. However, they payed enough attention to keep the Japanese away from Russia and the Indian Ocean.

As I said Lokos. I agree with alot of what you say. And it's very insightfull. I fully respect and trust your opinion. All I'm saying is, is to look back and look at the larger overview of the war.

[Lokos]

You look at the scale of the battle. And nothing more.

When we discuss the powers that took part in the war, we cannot put the first tier combatants (USSR, USA, Germany) on the same dais as the second-rate powers (Italy, Britain, Japan, France). The difference in means is not simply a matter of scope and scale, but of technical means. I have already outlined the example I have used in support of this thesis.

It is, in short, as follows: You place a great deal of strategic emphasis on the Japanese and their geo-strategic capacities for warmaking. Yet, in each of their encounters with comparable first-tier power ground forces (Lake Chasan, Nomonhan, Manchuria, the island-hopping campaign as a whole etc) they were, to put it blithely, minced. We do not speak merely of a difference in numbers - but a whole different level of technical capability. The Japanese economy could not support the military-industrial complex required of a first-rate power.

Whilst they were in possession of a fine navy in 1941, you must understand that their strategic position was untenable as early as 8 December 1941. They had to make do with what war materiel they had. And, because of their limited means of waging land warfare, especially, they could not actually follow up naval victories (marginal naval victories, to be precise) with taking control of strategic bases outside of their immediate sphere of influence.

This boils down to one very simple fact:

They could have destroyed the ENTIRE US Pacific Fleet, and it would still have been a hollow victory. The US government knew this, the Japanese ministries knew this, and it's the bottom line. The US could - and did - divert resources to the secondary Pacific theater when it suited them to do so.

act remains that, the Japanese had the chance to atleast knock the US military out of the war for a long time.

No. They couldn't. They could knock out a PART of the US Navy (not the US military) for some months - and they would still be strategically impotent upon doing so. They couldn't blockade the US, they couldn't invade it, they couldn't force it to accept terms. It was an unwinnable situation.

Australia managed to tie down quite alot of Japanese forces in SE Asia. The numbers might only be in the thousends as opposed to the millions on the eastern front. None the less, It was forces that Japan needed in other parts of her war effort.


Compared to the Japanese commitment in China, their land forces in the rest of SE Asia were a drop in the bucket. Regardless, the Japanese land army was an ineffective force when faced by firt-tier power forces fielded according to doctrine.

Talking about the shipments through Iran to Russia. Look where Iran is? What ocean does the supplies go through to get to Iran?

Look at the globe. What's the closest route to Iran from Britain? If you said 'the Indian Ocean', you're mistaken.

The Iran route did not utilise the Indian Ocean to a great extent.

However, they payed enough attention to keep the Japanese away from Russia and the Indian Ocean.

Just FYI: The Soviets kept sufficient forces in the Far East to neutralize any potential Japanese land-based offensive against the SU.

Lokos

[Minardiau]

And the UK as a 2nd tier power in WW2?

Tell me how you came to that conclusion?

They alone defeated the Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine. And the UK alone virtually made the Italians redundant.

Not only did the UK build up enough forces to counter any possible German Invasion of the UK. They still managed to have huge forces in Africa, India/Burma.

I ask you this. If the British significance is of unimportance, then why did the Germans not defeat just an insigificant power?

Russia I admit played the largest role in the defeat of Germany. I can't agree more.

But to label, the British/Japanese as 2nd rate. They definitly were not.

[XShipRider]

And the UK as a 2nd tier power in WW2?

Tell me how you came to that conclusion?

They alone defeated the Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine. And the UK alone virtually made the Italians redundant.

Not only did the UK build up enough forces to counter any possible German Invasion of the UK. They still managed to have huge forces in Africa, India/Burma.

I ask you this. If the British significance is of unimportance, then why did the Germans not defeat just an insigificant power?

Russia I admit played the largest role in the defeat of Germany. I can't agree more.

But to label, the British/Japanese as 2nd rate. They definitly were not.
Must agree UK was 1st rate power, especially naval power, up to and
into WW2. Most historians agree the island nation had the world's
dominant navy throughout the 18th and 19th centuries with near total
domination into the mid 20th. The US assumed that title in the
latter years of WW2.

Japan knew the US naval forces Achilles heel was the Pacific fleet.
They broke the paradigm of battleship dominated forces by
building, assembling and using carrier forces to temporarily knock
the US down at the outset of WW2. Did they have a 1st rate
navy? I guess history answers that with a big "yes."

[Lokos]

And the UK as a 2nd tier power in WW2?

Tell me how you came to that conclusion?

I came to that conclusion because of a number of factors:

1) The force contribution of the UK to the war effort.
2) It's industrial might (or lack thereof).
3) Its inability to strategically influence the conflict on its own terms.

They alone defeated the Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine.

The Kriegsmarine was largely irrelevant to the war as a whole - while the UK certainly did not 'alone' defeat the Luftwaffe. Where do you get that from? Compare the number of Luftwaffe a/c and personnel liquidated by the USSR and the US to the British.

And the UK alone virtually made the Italians redundant.

The Italians were virtually redundant with or without the UK's involvement.

I ask you this. If the British significance is of unimportance, then why did the Germans not defeat just an insigificant power?

Because the German navy was insignificant. How does Germany's inability to attack a relatively insignificant island, and Britain's total inability to affect the German strategic position without the leadership of the US in any such endeavour put Britain in any position but one of irrelevance?

But to label, the British/Japanese as 2nd rate. They definitly were not

Germany/USSR/USA -> First tier powers. Singular effect on the war. Massive forces in the field, huge industrial capacities, and the capability to alter strategic situations through direct intervention.

Japan/UK/Italy -> Second tier powers. Bilateral effect on the war. Limited forces in the field, limited industrial capacities, and unable to affect first tier powers strategically.

Hungary/Romania/Finland/NDH/Commonwealth/Greece/Yugoslava/Poland etc. -> Third tier powers. Very limited effect on the war. Extremely limited forces in the field, very limited industrial capacities, and unable to affect first tier powers more than tangentially.

assembling and using carrier forces to temporarily knock
the US down at the outset of WW2

They did not 'knock the US down'.

They failed to do so; they lost the war.

Lokos

[XShipRider]

They did not 'knock the US down'.

They failed to do so; they lost the war.

Lokos
They knocked the US out of the Philippines as well as most of the Western
Pacific. I'd say that knocked the US down. It wasn't a fatal punch but
easily could have been.

The battle of Midway did nothing more than buy time for the US to
boost production to full wartime capacity. Yes, Japan lost. But it
took almost four years of chopping away by the Allies to do it.

As pointed out by others, the Australians played a major role in the
Pacific theater. A role I don't think the Japanese appreciated until
it was too late. Had they made a blow against the Australians
immediately after Pearl Harbor it could have denied the Allies use
of bases there. Also, due to Australia's geography, it would have
tied up Allied resources for many more months.

The global conflict winners [sic] were determined by logistics. You pointed
out that Germany had major industrial capacity. I agree but still see
the logistics of keeping the iron furnaces burning and oil supplied as
Germany's Achilles heel. The Allies knew if they could decrease Germany's
capacity to supply the war it would push the Germans back to eventual
defeat.

[Lokos]

I'd say that knocked the US down. It wasn't a fatal punch but
easily could have been.

How would you say that 'knocked the US down'? Was its strategic capability reduced significantly? Was its warmaking capacity diminished? Was the will of its people destroyed, or lessened? And how could it have been a 'fatal punch', pray tell?

The battle of Midway did nothing more than buy time for the US to
boost production to full wartime capacity.

That's like shooting someone in the face, and then saying that the act only allowed you more time to 'boost production', so that you could then drop a tonne of HE on them. In the meantime, the poor sod is still rolling on the ground, clutching at his bleeding, mangled face.

The loss of three carriers at Midway didn't just 'slow' the Japanese down. It tore the heart out of their power projection capability, and destroyed the cream of their pilot corps, too.

Yes, Japan lost. But it
took almost four years of chopping away by the Allies to do it.

It took almost four years because, for all but the last six months, the Pacific War was a secondary theater of operations, receiving far fewer resources and materiel than the primary ETO. Dispute this, if you can.

Had they made a blow against the Australians
immediately after Pearl Harbor it could have denied the Allies use
of bases there. Also, due to Australia's geography, it would have
tied up Allied resources for many more months.

LOL. And had the Martians chosen to strike on 7 December 1941, who knows how the war could have turned out. HOW could the Japanese have struck against the Australians immediately after Pearl Harbour? WHY would they have done so? HOW could this tie up Allied resources for many months?

Assertions without a basis in some form of fact are irrelevant. You make a number of claims vis a vis Japanese capabilities and the operational and strategic possibilities open to them. Now justify how your suggestions would be feasible.

The global conflict winners [sic] were determined by logistics.

A great and terrible oversimplification.

I agree but still see
the logistics of keeping the iron furnaces burning and oil supplied as
Germany's Achilles heel. The Allies knew if they could decrease Germany's
capacity to supply the war it would push the Germans back to eventual
defeat.

And yet the Allies failed to keep the Germans from increasing production month-on-month from June 1943 until December 1944. Did anyone doubt, however, that the Germans were well on the way to losing by December 1944? Perhaps you should realign your thoughts in this regard.

Lokos

[XShipRider]

Assertions without a basis in some form of fact are irrelevant. You make a number of claims vis a vis Japanese capabilities and the operational and strategic possibilities open to them. Now justify how your suggestions would be feasible.

Lokos

One could say the same for your posts... lots of baseless claims backed up
by your personal assertions.... no facts to back them up. You claim
Germany's capacity went up, up, and away until near the very end. I
don't see any facts to back that up. I guess two can play this silly game
of yours.

You seem to believe you have all the answers, as I'm finding many on
this board do.

[Atlantic Friend]

LOL. And had the Martians chosen to strike on 7 December 1941, who knows how the war could have turned out.

Read Harry Turtledove's trilogy about that : Upsetting the Balance, Tilting the Balance, and Striking the Balance.

Pretty silly, but funny.

[Lokos]

You claim
Germany's capacity went up, up, and away until near the very end.

1) I claim it went up until December 1944 - not May 1945.

2) I believed this was common knowledge. My mistake.

Aircraft Production:

1939 8.295
1940 10.247
1941 11.776
1942 15.409
1943 24.807
1944 39.807
1945 7.540

Munitions:

1940 865.000
1941 540.000
1942 1.270.000
1943 2.558.000
1944 3.350.000
(tons)

Artillery (over 37mm):

1939 ?
1940 5.000
1941 7.000
1942 12.000
1943 27.000
1944 41.000
1945 ?

Automatic Weapons:

1940 171.000
1941 325.000
1942 317.000
1943 435.000
1944 787.000

Tank Production:

Pre-war 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Wartime Total

Panzer I 1,893 - - - - - - - - 1,893
Panzer II 1,223 15 99 265 848 803 151 - 2,181 3,404
Panzer 38(t) 78 153 367 678 652 1,008 2,356 1,335 6,549 6,627
Panzer III 98 157 1,054 2,213 1,564 5,435 4,752 1,136 16,311 16,409
Panzer IV 211 45 268 467 994 3,822 6,625 1,090 13,311 13,522
Panzer V Panther - - - - - 1,849 4,003 705 6,557 6,557
Panzer VI Tiger I, II - - - - 78 650 1,069 140 1,937 1,937
Elefant - - - - - 90 - - 90 90

Total: 3,503 370 1,788 3,623 4,136 13,657 18,956 4,406 46,936 50,439

(Sorry about the formatting of the above. 18,956 is the 1944 figure. 13,657 is the 1943 figure)

From:
'The Historical Atlas of the Third Reich' by Richard Overy

If there was anything else you need backed up, just let me know. But first, without any further redirection, back your assertions up.

Lokos

[California Joe]

Minardiau cracks me up.

[Lokos]

Read Harry Turtledove's trilogy about that : Upsetting the Balance, Tilting the Balance, and Striking the Balance.

Pretty silly, but funny.

Oh, bruvva, I have read and thoroughly enjoyed ALL of Turtledove's series - including Colonization and those that came after. The latest book in that series was Homeward Bound.

His writing isn't particularly inspiring, but the stories he tells are very addictive.

Although... sometimes he tries a little too hard to find analogues for real-life occurences. Like the Confederate States turning into an almost exact replica of Nazi Germany in the Victorious Opposition.

Minardiau cracks me up.

Not just you! He's a funny guy, he is. :)

Lokos

[Kilgor]

Im actually reading another of Overy's books now.. "Russia's War"
Hes definately my fav ww2 author, busting my myths....


Page 195

And Quoting...

Marshal Zhukov in a bugged conversation in 1963 whose contents were released only thirty years later, endorsed the view that without aid the soviet union "could not have continued the war" .

[Kilgor]

Lokos, you should also Read Overy's Dictators book. It is quite expensive, nearly 70 dollars but it is so well referenced and written and it will shatter many of the myths and sympathies you hold for stalin.

[Lokos]

That's Marshal Zhukov's view. It does not make it an objective truth, by any means.

Lokos

[Lokos]

LOL.

'Myths and sympathies'.

I do not have sympathies for Stalin. I have a great sympathy for an objective narration of fact. In the endeavour for truth, ideology, distaste and political bias must take a backseat. Stalin was not an inhuman monster. Far from it. In Nietzsche's words, Stalin was Ecce Homo. Human, all too human. A flawed being who caused great suffering on a terrible scale. Yet I refuse to equate him with the Soviet Union - something you patently cannot seem to aspire to.

Lokos

[Kilgor]

You have said here yourself that you refuse to accept that stalin was worse than hitler in some ways.

[Kilgor]

That's Marshal Zhukov's view. It does not make it an objective truth, by any means.

Lokos

Id say its a pretty reliable viewpoint, wouldnt you ?

[Lokos]

No, not particularly. Zhukov had his own set of biases, limitations and a very egocentric agenda. It is just his view. Marshal Konev did not share it, for example. Neither did Vassilevsky. Nor did Rokossovsky.

The fact is, Zhukov did not make any serious enquiry into the infrastructural/logistical support system of the Soviet war effort. He did not have access to the pertinent information. Therefore, anything he has to say on the subject is merely conjencture and supposition.

And, considering his postwar posting, damaging the achievements of the Soviet wartime administration by giving undue credit to LL is not exactly uncharacteristic of a man who flew into a fit of jealousy when Konev nearly 'took his glory' by suggesting he should enter Berlin first, due to his more rapid advance on the capital.

Lokos

[Kilgor]

And, considering his postwar posting, damaging the achievements of the Soviet wartime administration by giving undue credit to LL is not exactly uncharacteristic of a man who flew into a fit of jealousy when Konev nearly 'took his glory' by suggesting he should enter Berlin first, due to his more rapid advance on the capital.

Lokos

This was a private conversation that was bugged. And it wasnt released for 30 years. I dont see how he could be in your typically stalinist euphemism "damaging the Soviet wartime administration by giving undue credit .." If he came out and said it publically... that might be different.

Sounds like something you could be shot for saying because it didnt fit the party line. Which was of course that lend lease played no major part in the war. Which of course... was bull****.

Jealousy amonst generals.?!?!.. No.. say it aint so.

Look at monty and patton.... Dont make out his behaviour to be anything out of the ordinary.

[Kilgor]

Another passage.. Same book page 195

"The significance of Western supplies for the soviet war effort was admitted by Khrushchev in taped interviews used for his memoirs, but the following passage was only published in 1990s: "several times I heard stalin acknowledge (lend lease) within the small circle of people around him. He said that ... if we had had to deal with germany one to one we would not have been able to cope because we lost so much of our industry"

Lokos- you are obviously intelligent and well read, but you are doing your interest in history a great diservice by not admitting to the obvious facts and following the soviet line to the letter.

[Lokos]

This was a private conversation that was bugged.

So? Was Zhukov less an egotist in private, in your opinion?

I dont see how he could be in your typically stalinist euphemism "damaging the Soviet wartime administration by giving undue credit .."

... By not giving it the lion's share of the credit for the victory. I don't see the difficulty in comprehending this, but you persist.

Jealousy amonst generals.?!?!.. No.. say it aint so.


Zhukov, whilst being a talented battlefield commander and organizer, was an egotist. His primary objection to Konev's entry into Berlin was that it was 'his' operation - there was no other practical concern. It is characteristic of a prideful individual, who was then spurned by Stalin's relegation of his previous national significance into an out-of-the-way posting where he was no threat politically.

It doesn't seem much of a stretch that, privately or publically, he would seek to downplay the role of the administration in the victory, and heap praise on factors outside their sphere of influence: generals, troops and, incidentally, LL.

"The significance of Western supplies for the soviet war effort was admitted by Khrushchev in taped interviews used for his memoirs, but the following passage was only published in 1990s: "several times I heard stalin acknowledge (lend lease) within the small circle of people around him. He said that ... if we had had to deal with germany one to one we would not have been able to cope because we lost so much of our industry"


I have dealt with this SPECIFIC argument in the past. In fact, YOU raised it previously. If you cannot muster new arguments, at least have the decency to not repeat ones already dealt with so blithely.

Khrushchev had a hugely relevant agenda: destroying the Stalinist personality cult, following IVD's death. This meant a) enormously exagerrating the failures of the Stalinist regime and b) enormously downplaying its achievements.

An interesting facet of your 'evidence' is that every bit of it involves 'he heard', 'he thought', 'he believed' - and not so much 'he knew because of factors a), b) and c) derived from the following data...'

Hearsay, supposition and conjencture are not and have never been considered evidence.

Lokos- you are obviously intelligent and well read, but you are doing your interest in history a great diservice by not admitting to the obvious facts and following the soviet line to the letter.

LOL. Don't appeal to my sense of objectivity. You don't know the meaning of the word.

Lokos

[Kilgor]

This will obviously go no where....

But the figures of stated previously, and the private comments of the highest ranking soviet officals show that lend lease was a vital factor in soviet victory.

[Kilgor]

Khrushchev had a hugely relevant agenda: destroying the Stalinist personality cult, following IVD's death. This meant a) enormously exagerrating the failures of the Stalinist regime and b) enormously downplaying its achievements.



Lokos

Would it actually occur to you that some aspects of stalins rule were so vulgar and terrible that even the truth of such attrocities would be called exageration ?

[GazB]

Lend lease was a program where the Soviets bought material from otherwise neutral countries. If they couldn't buy materials from the US then they could have bought them elsewhere, or simply done without.

To suggest lend lease won the war in the east is offensive. The US made money selling products to a country that was paying in blood to save the world from the Nazis.

To suggest the makers of trucks sleeping in nice warm beds thousands of miles from any enemy bombers somehow did more to defeat Germany than those who dodged bullets, slept in the open, and actually shot back at the Nazis is a joke.

The money the Japanese invested in Desert Storm was vital... but we don't hear the Japanese claiming their aide was vital and DS would never have been so certain if it wasn't for their money investment...

[Kilgor]

Lend lease was a program where the Soviets bought material from otherwise neutral countries. If they couldn't buy materials from the US then they could have bought them elsewhere, or simply done without.

...


This is probably one of the most brain dead arguments ive heard in a long time.

Tell me who had the industrial capacity to supply soviet unions needs at the time gaz ?

[Kilgor]

To suggest lend lease won the war in the east is offensive. The US made money selling products to a country that was paying in blood to save the world from the Nazis.



...

Now im truely going to stop bothering.

was the soviet union paying in blood staying out of the war until they were invaded ? or when they were trading oil and supplies and training officers on soviet soil ?
Get off your high horse, the soviet union was quite happy to watch the "capitalist" nations such as germany and france destroy each other and stay out of the war. Then of course install marxism in a destroyed europe.

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

Now im truely going to stop bothering.

was the soviet union paying in blood staying out of the war until they were invaded ? or when they were trading oil and supplies and training officers on soviet soil ?
Get off your high horse, the soviet union was quite happy to watch the "capitalist" nations such as germany and france destroy each other and stay out of the war. Then of course install marxism in a destroyed europe.

yeah i see russia appreciating german domination of the competing european powers...perhaps they figured that it wouldve opened up an opportunity for expansion? also i know that some german officers had training in the SU prior to the war...what materials were the soviets selling to the germans before barbarossa?

[Kilgor]

yeah i see russia appreciating german domination of the competing european powers...perhaps they figured that it wouldve opened up an opportunity for expansion? also i know that some german officers had training in the SU prior to the war...what materials were the soviets selling to the germans before barbarossa?

Mostly oil, metals, rubber.

Which of course made the British blockade of germany less effective. The soviet union was actually supporting the war effort against the Brits and french. The soviets only wanted to save the world from hitler when it was their necks on the line, until then they profited from hitlers bloodshed.

[Lokos]

This will obviously go no where....

But the figures of stated previously, and the private comments of the highest ranking soviet officals show that lend lease was a vital factor in soviet victory.

I have a brilliant idea. Next time I take the time and effort to respond to your 'posts' point by point, why don't you do the same, instead of simply ignoring what took the aforementioned time and effort to write up?

Now im truely going to stop bothering.

So stop bothering.

I'm not seeing arguments from you. Just moral indignation, and references to some deepseated hate of the Stalinist regime.

was the soviet union paying in blood staying out of the war until they were invaded ?

The Soviets weren't living under the pretense that they were on some sort of moral crusade against the Germans. Yet, when they attempted to collude with the Franco-British alliance to bring down the Reich in 1938, they were rather rudely rebuffed.

Do you think that waiting for the Germans to bleed themselves out against the Western powers was 'unjustified'? If so; why? It made sound military and economic sense. How could the Soviet leadership possibly have foreseen the rapid downfall of several major military powers during the 1939-1940 period, that would end in a strategic catastrophe for the SU?

The Soviets were only obliged to look after their own national interest. That you pretend there were powers who operated according to a different principle is stupefying.

world from hitler when it was their necks on the line, until then they profited from hitlers bloodshed.

Somewhat similarly to the WA approach of waiting until 1944 to open up an actual second front against the Germans? No, actually, my analogy is false. The WA did not wait until it was their necks on the line. They waited until they were good and ready, the Germans had been badly weakened, and the Soviets had done the vast majority of the bleeding before finally joining in on a grand scale.

Cry me a river.

Lokos

[Durandal]

I'm not seeing arguments from you. Just moral indignation, and references to some deepseated hate of the Stalinist regime.


And that is why I no longer "discuss" things with Lokos.

Kilgor, you are spot on in your discussion, nor have you said anything in regards to Stalin that is somehow coloring your opinion.

[foxtrot023]

[quote=GazB]Lend lease was a program where the Soviets bought material from otherwise neutral countries. If they couldn't buy materials from the US then they could have bought them elsewhere, or simply done without.

Really? were from? France? Italy? pray tell were could the USSR have gotten the money to buy it, and from whom? China? Japan?

To suggest lend lease won the war in the east is offensive.

But it did help...a lot

quote]

123456789000

[Kilgor]

Somewhat similarly to the WA approach of waiting until 1944 to open up an actual second front against the Germans? No, actually, my analogy is false. The WA did not wait until it was their necks on the line. They waited until they were good and ready, the Germans had been badly weakened, and the Soviets had done the vast majority of the bleeding before finally joining in on a grand scale.

Cry me a river.

Lokos

Once again, the truth comming out from a "historian"

Never mind the allied bombing campaign which cost thousands of brave airmen their lives in tours that would almost certainly claim their lives. It took thousands of flak guns, fighters, men and millions of shells away from the eastern front. 1944 ? What about also the allied landings in africa ? Or the brave men out fighting the Uboat menance so supplies could be sent to a needy soviet union ? Never mind the thousands of workers who toiled away in factories or mines to delivery aid to a dictatorship little better than the germans and therefore the choice of support.

But you never could accept the soviet union was quite prepared to profit and partner from the germans so long as they werent killing their own men.

The WA allies were not going to throw their mens lives into a ground invasion when they were far to weak to do so. Their leaders did not hold the contempt for human life as the soviet commanders did and knew that any premature invasion would be a senseless waste of blood. They had no reason to sacrifice lives to appease another dictator. Or would you have prefered more senseless wastes of mens lives such as the outcome of the Dieppe raid ?

Its attitudes like yours that make me glad the soviet union collapsed and Russia is no longer a serious threat


The Soviets weren't living under the pretense that they were on some sort of moral crusade against the Germans. Yet, when they attempted to collude with the Franco-British alliance to bring down the Reich in 1938, they were rather rudely rebuffed.

Totally laughable, I could throw up a number of quotes after the GPW to show what rubbish "they werent on