Miller,

I was quite impressed with this last post of yours. For someone in High School you definitely have a good grasp of a lot of this. Sorry if my earlier comments sounded harsh but I guess one of my pet peeves is the kneejerk reaction I see in a lot of people to WWII subjects, especially those involving Hitler. It is far too easy to just say Hitler was an idiot; I have no use for such uncritical thinking and some of your earlier comments sounded to me a little like that. In this last post of yours, however, you demonstrated understanding a fair bit more in depth than a lot of your elders. As the Aussies say, Good on you.

There is more than enough credit, and blame, to go around when it comes to the Germans losing WWII. Hitler certainly takes the lion's share of the blame for the simple fact that he threw Germany into offensive war after offensive war before it was ready for the long campaign. However, Hitler does deserve at least some credit for the earlier victories; even Hitler's own generals agreed to this, and one of the biggest reasons why the average German soldier supported him up to the end was the belief that because he had shown successful leadership earlier in the war that he should be trusted to figure things out at the end. Hitler's blood wasn't being shed, that is true, but neither was the blood of his generals and you are willing to give them credit. I recognize that Hitler was a very nasty character but that doesn't mean that we need to sink down to the level of neo-Nazi racists and refuse to give credit to those we personally dislike.

This is the one part of your past post that I really didn't care much for. It suggests your thinking, though at times enlightened, stumbles at the same point so many of your colleagues falter on. One of the most liberating things in the world is being able to give deserved credit to your enemies, even those you hate the most. Why? Because then no one can accuse you of having a narrow or closed mind. It demonstrates that you can indeed be objective. And don't we all want our own views to be considered objective? I know I wouldn't care for it if people thought I was never able to think above my own emotions.

Excellent paragraph, showing you can give credit, even to the enemy. A number of people here could do well to follow your lead.

Excellent summary statement; that last sentence really hits the nail on the head.

Anyway, I appreciate your comments, Miller. I think we now know where we both stand.

You'll have to explain how you see me contradicting myself. Can you clarify what your specific point was here? Thanks.

As I told Miller, it is a sign of an enlightened person, someone whose reasoning is not held in thrall to his emotions, when that person can give deserved credit to someone, even his worst and most hated enemy. If this really is all you think you can credit Hitler with you clearly will never properly understand WWII.

I agree with you on that; the Germans certainly overestimated themselves at the same time that they underestimated Russia and the Russians. And it cost them the war.

So you can come up with a bunch of reasons why the Russians were unprepared for war. In a similar manner, one can come up with a bunch of reasons why Germany was unprepared for a winter war in Russia. I don't think that this means that we should call either of these groups incompetent as their history through the war demonstrates solidly that neither side was incompetent. They both made mistakes and paid for them heavily. Russia could afford to take a lot more casualties due to its mistakes than Germany could, and ultimately that turned the tide in its favor.

If you are asking why I am not defending the competency of the Russians as much as the Germans here I would have to point out that I am responding to other people's portrayals of the abilities (and chances) of the Germans. In case you haven't noticed, you aren't the only one here effectively arguing for the Russian side. I'm just trying to even the playing field so to speak and point out that it isn't as easy as simply saying that the victors had more spirit and ability than the ultimate losers. The situation is more complex. It usually is.

The Germans did phenomenally well in France and I think upon reflection you'll agree that you can't call that a "small fish". The Germans also did very well in Russia until the bad weather arrived, another fact that undermines your position. I'm sorry Za Rodinu, but your argument just doesn't work.

I still fail to see what your original point was in making that comment about the two years not being characterized by continuous campaigning? I made the comment that Germany was continuously victorious for the first two years of the war over a number of different armies of Europe. What was your point in noting that there were breaks between the various campaigns? How does that undermine my position? My point was that since Germany won campaign after campaign for the first two years your claim that the German army was fundamentally incompetent doesn't stand up to scrutiny. How does the fact that the campaigns did not occur immediately one following the other with no break affect my point?

But surely you will admit they did pretty decently in the first months of Barbarossa. The large numbers of Russian soldiers and tanks and planes were not too much "for their ability". Only later on, towards the end of 1941 did they stop making progress and began themselves to suffer casualties on similar orders to what the Russians had been experiencing since the beginning. If the Russian campaign was truly beyond the ability of the Germans how do you explain the fact that the Germans were so successful in the first months of 1941? The task of finishing off the Russians indeed was too much for the Germans to accomplish, at least in the time that they had in 1941, before bad weather neutralized their advantages.

The rasputitsa provides time for the defence to prepare earth works and local, tactical defence. Earth works don't help offensively, I'm sure you realize. And you aren't such a novice as to fail to realize that a delay in an in-progress offensive is going to help the defence far more than the offense. But I know you're just being argumentative so I'll drop your charade.

Typhoon started on September 30, before the mud or the frosts came into play, so you're factually incorrect. In fact, the Germans made considerable progress in Operation Typhoon until the rasputitsa set in and slowed movement down to a crawl. Then, when the cold set in and froze the mud solid, the cold was as much a hindrance as the German vehicles and weapons weren't designed to function in such conditions.

It was a serious miscalculation but as I have pointed out a number of times now, the German army did extremely well on all other fronts up to this point of the war so the claim of incompetence doesn't stick. Clearly the German army was not generally incompetent. On the contrary, they were one of the most competent and successful armies of the age.

Finally something we can agree on! Yep, the Germans were far too overconfident and their overconfidence almost certainly stemmed from the fact that they had been so successful in all of their other campaigns up to that point. They thought they could march over the Soviet Union and while they were quite successful early on, the Russian campaign finally did them in.

Winter always happens but in 1939 Germany finished off Poland before it became a factor in the campaign and in 1940 France was finished off before winter became an issue. The Germans planned on finishing off Russia before General Winter was mobilized against the invader.

The problem was that Hitler thought that his massive attack would simply overwhelm the Soviet Union and that by crashing in the door the "whole rotten edifice" would come crumbling down. It didn't, and so the war dragged on, and in any long war the bigger country has the advantage.

A fatal miscalculation. Hitler was wrong about the Soviet Union collapsing from the initial Barbarossa attack and Germany wasn't prepared for a drag out, long war with a nation twice its size. In this respect I do see a fruitful comparison with the American army in Iraq. The US army could (and did) defeat the Iraqi army. However, the political outcome of the campaign wasn't what the American politicians who took the country into the war had predicted. And so here we are over four years after the war ended and the insurgency hasn't been quelled. Bush and his hawks thought that the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms but they were wrong. However, this in no way means that the American army is fundamentally incompetent. On the contrary, it is the most lethal fighting force the world has ever seen. Likewise, with the Eastern Front in WWII, the German army was competent. However, Germany's singular politician, Hitler, seriously miscalculated the effect of his attack on Russia. The Soviet Union didn't disintegrate and so it took much longer to advance into Russia than predicted and that meant that the weather became a factor and allowed the Soviets to gather their forces in front of Moscow and defend the capital. And after that the greater Russian population and production was all in favor of the Soviet Union and spelled doom for Germany.

It is sad that you can't recognize your own propaganda for what it is, no more accurate than that of Goebbels but a lot less effective. The Germans weren't all a bunch of geniuses or supermen but their army was better than almost any other of the time. Their record for success early on in the war proves your claim of incompetence to be baseless. Bereft of evidential support for your biased claims all you're left with is rhetoric. In that, at least, your propaganda does resemble that of Goebbels.

Quoting Bible verses may impress some, but not me. If you want to claim that I'm a hypocrite then perhaps you can show how I have acted as one. I've never claimed that the Russians were incompetent; all I've done is counter the claims by you and a few others that the Germans were incompetent by pointing out how the facts don't support your argument. If you can prove me wrong with the facts and demonstrate fundamental incompetence on the part of the Germans, I'll accept your argument. Facts are primary, not rhetoric.

From Guderian's journal: ""the offensive on Moscow failed.... We underestimated the enemy's strength, as well as his size and climate. Fortunately, I stopped my troops on December 5, otherwise the catastrophe would be unavoidable."

You see now this seems odd to me, for someone who is defending the Germans to then point out that they attacked an enemy they were unprepared to deal with. I also like the reference to climate, a reflection of a popular misconception arising from the fact that in the west most people understand the eastern front from the accounts of disgruntled German officers who were convinced that they were stopped by winter, hoards of Siberians and well equipped Soviet troops.

The thing people often forget is that in 1941 many of the Soviet soldiers at the front were no better equipped than their German counterparts. Nore do Russians have some inate ability to survive the cold (contrary to the stupid ideas of being 'closer to nature' that appear on so many German memoirs and western intelligence resources).

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

You have said yourself, " there is a big difference in being aware of winter and being prepared for it "

The point that I was trying to make, is that the Germans were very familiar with the Russian weather, due to their own numerous experiences and the experiences of other European countries. The blame for Germany being very familiar with the Russian winter and not preparing herself for it, due to a belief that the country would crumble in 6 months lies solely with the German High Command.

Would you consider this as a simple miscalculation by the Germans??

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

"For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loseshis own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?"(Matthew 16:26)

"What profit a man if he bores others to tears by reciting religious tracts to them but contributes nothing of interest to the thread in question?" (Stefan 19:51 GMT)

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Please bear in mind that workers in Canada, USA and Britain and Sailors from many nations (including my close family) contributed on the Soviet side. It was not a simple slugging match between USSR and Nazi Germany.

The velocity and force of the attack might have done in the USSR if they were alone. There are plenty of accounts of what Ivan thought of this materiel. (although it was published after the war and viewed trough communist lenses) However this equipment was delivered to make up for the gaugantian losses in the early phases of the conflict.

The Wehrmacht was a potent force. A prepared force. The only nation that had a clearcut commonly understood doctrine, and battleready units.
However they were not flawless. The doctine they used was not fitting with an attack on Russia. The infrastructure and space makes a quick and cheap victory difficult. Especially when you alienate the people living there with notions of them as sub humans.

The germans lost due to faulty doctrine, abysmal political skills on their own part, and that some of the greatest nations in the world rallied around the USSR. To add on that the political ruthlessness of the USSR pushed Ivan beyond the call of duty.

My personal view is that the Germans lost in the east from the start.
They lost the war when Britain did not surrender.

__________________
'We march. The enemy is retreating in transport. We follow on foot.' Lt.Neil McCallum 5/7 Gordons 19th November 1942

Interesting Jager, I am growing more and more dubious about the cold war idea that lend lease saved Russia just by looking at the statistics. Looking at truck production, the RKKA truck park in 1941 stood at 272k, by the end of the year with vehicles taken out of the civilian sector, new production and despite losses this had risen to 318k with 0.4% being imported models.

One year later on 1 January 1943 it was just short of 405k, non-domestic production (captured and Lend Lease represented just 6.1% of the total)

It was after that date that LL trucks started to flood in. Domestic production simply kept pace with losses while all growth came from captured and Lend Lease types so by 01/01/45 of the 621k trucks in the truck park 395k were domestic production, 191k were imported and 35k were captured.

All this info and more can be found at:

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlelendlease.htm

So lend lease didn't save Russia even in the beginning, it simply gave them an advantage as the war went on.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

Some figures I gathered back in 2003 from the books and net. This is in the earlier discussions on the lend lease.All are quotes from sites or books.:

The Soviet Union ended the Second World War by having over 650.000 trucks available for use. Of those, 58% were Soviet in origin, 33% British or U.S. and the remaining percentage captured from the Germans.

Lend-lease aid amounted to approximately 10-12% of the total Soviet war production effort. While this does not seem like a significant amount, having 10% more key supplies available could make the difference between holding the line to going on the offensive.

-----------------

Soviet historians have typically denigrated the Allied efforts to supply the Soviet Union with war material as paltry in comparison with her own production and that it was not essential to the Soviet victory. In armored fighting vehicles this is somewhat true, in aircraft less true and in raw and semi-finished industrial materials this is a bold-faced lie.

Railroad rails
Allied Proportion 92.7%

Aviation Fuel
Allied Deliveries 59%

Automotive Fuel
Allied Proportion 2.5%

Locomotives
Allied Proportion 81.6%

Rail cars
Allied Proportion 80.7%

Explosives
Allied Proportion 33%

Copper Ore
Allied Proportion 45.2%

Aluminum
Allied Proportion 55.5%

Tires
Allied Proportion 30.1%

Machine Tools
Allied Proportion 27.9%

Sugar
Allied Proportion 29.5%

Meat
Allied Proportion 15.1%

__________________

I remember the thread Kai.

I was reading up on the transport through Persia a few weeks back, and another thing popped up. The number of trained US personel involved in the logistics.

For me as a Norwegian, the Murmansk convoys come to mind when thinking of the support to the USSR. But the truth is that a lot of supplies came in the "other" end too.

Stefan.
Trucks alone is not sufficient to credit or discredit lend lease. The list that Kai puts forth is not enough either. But it shows enough.

Without aid the USSR would have been at a serious disadvantage. The list of various machine tools and rolling stock is interesting. Without it the USSR's own output would have suffered.

__________________
'We march. The enemy is retreating in transport. We follow on foot.' Lt.Neil McCallum 5/7 Gordons 19th November 1942

Without a doubt the Lend Lease was very helpfull, which saved lives and shortened the war. However out of the 10% which it accounted for, 7-8% came in after 1943, by which time the fate of Germany had already been sealed.

The bottom line is that from 1941 to early 1943 Russia pretty much fought by herself against numerous enemies which were at their prime and started winning after horrific looses. So to say that Russia won thanks to the help from Lend Lease may sound a little misleading.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Jaeger, Slon makes my point well, I am not saying that lend lease was not important at all. All I am saying is that if you look at the figures for when various materials began to arrive it becomes clear that lend lease kit did not 'save' the USSR as we are often led to believe.

The reason trucks provide a good example is that we have the breakdown over the whole war and since motor transport was so vital it provides a good indication for the extent to which supplies in general were getting through (i.e. if there weren't any trucks coming, it is probably safe to assume little of anything else was coming across either). Thus whilst lend lease materiel was of course important, the fact that it didn't arrive in 'war winning' quantities until at least after Stalingrad suggests that the emphasis placed on it in the west is, at least, a little exaggerated.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.