Nazi's & Western Allies Combine Forces Against Russia - Page 8

Sloniksp · #**176** (**permalink**) August 23rd, 2007, 01:09 AM

T.A. you are correct and I do not despute what you are saying.

Yes lend lease was very helpful and the Russians till this day are very thankful, in fact even during communist times, the Russians never deminished the amount of help they received from the US. According to soldiers the Jeeps and trucks were the most significant.

However, as helpful as it was, it was not the winning factor in the war and battles like Moscow, Stalingrad the failed siege of Leningrad and Kursk were won with out this help.

With all said and done, im sure that you will agree that rubber, cans of food and trucks etc. is a small price to pay in comparison with blood spilled by 30 million people.

For this reason Stalin refused to pay for the Lend Lease when asked to do so by the US... His response was " We paid for it with our blood "

Hawkerace · #**177** (**permalink**) August 23rd, 2007, 01:19 AM

Russian tanks verse Shermans and a few Pershings.. maybe a hand full of Panzers? I'll give that to Russians. But the Western Allies have I assume better air capabilities. It would be a matter of time that the Russians would be over extended themselves from there early gains. I would say the Western allies would eventually succeed due to the Manpower reserves and resources. Even though all nations are morally wounded from the lack of morale. I think if America could some how knock out Japan with a cease fire or the classical nuke love

. And eventually could bomb the East and West. With small bombers attacking via interdiction(?) and the larger more long range bombers like the B-29 or maybe '17 to hit the industrial hearts or ammo deposits.

lwd · #**178** (**permalink**) August 23rd, 2007, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sloniksp

T... in fact even during communist times, the Russians never deminished the amount of help they received from the US.

I have heard otherwise. It may very much depend on who and when one talks to.

Quote:

According to soldiers the Jeeps and trucks were the most significant.

They were perhaps the most visible to the troops. The explosives, fuel, and rail road equipment were probably of roughly equal value.

Quote:

However, as helpful as it was, it was not the winning factor in the war and battles like Moscow, Stalingrad the failed siege of Leningrad and Kursk were won with out this help.

Clearly it was inconsequential during the battle of Moscow. I suspect by Stalingrad it was having some effect. As far as Leningrad goes the effects would be indirect and moral only. By Kursk the logistics impacts were certainly no longer inconsequential. Especially given the level of effort there.

Quote:

With all said and done, im sure that you will agree that rubber, cans of food and trucks etc. is a small price to pay in comparison with blood spilled by 30 million people.

You'll get no argument from me on this part.

Quote:

For this reason Stalin refused to pay for the Lend Lease when asked to do so by the US... His response was " We paid for it with our blood "

On the other hand he was quite scrupulous about living up to the letter of the agreements. A lot of lend lease equipment was either given back to the US or demilled when he could have just told the US "tough". I suspect the "unpaid for" equipment was shipped under the understanding "we'll settle up for it later getting it to the front is the most important thing right now". Given the damage the Soviet Union suffered not just in dead but in wounded, displaced, sick, damaged property, etc I can not fault him at all.

Sloniksp · #**179** (**permalink**) August 23rd, 2007, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lwd

What could be more demotivating than looseing hugh numbers of troops continuously over the years. Or living off of limited rations for extended periods. Or having leaders that were willing to sacrafice huge numbers of troops as the price for tier victory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lwd

That ellation at defeating the enemy does not necessarily translate in to general motivation or motivation to fight their former allies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lwd

Talk of moral and motivation without discussing the circumstances is arguing with opinion instead of fact.

You are absoluetly correct and I agree with you....

Wait, we are talking about Iraq right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by lwd

I have heard otherwise. It may very much depend on who and when one talks to

You can talk to me, I speak, read and write both languages.. I have read school books in Russian written during communist times and have never stumbled upon what you have claimed as lend lease has always been mentioned.

I can however make the same claim you made about the school books in the US as I had the privilege reading them while at my studies.

Hawkerace · #**180** (**permalink**) August 23rd, 2007, 03:35 AM

I wish I could read Russian.

~~Roddoss72~~ · #**181** (**permalink**) August 23rd, 2007, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

Holy shit, this film was made in 1966. Haven't you evolved even a little bit since then? "Its a plot to make the world die laughing!"

You know what i have tried to be nice even apologising to you over several comment i have made but every time i post something you go out of your way to run me down and make it personal, i feel very sorry for you, you obviously have it in for me because i dare to say the MIGHTY SOVIET UNION could be DEFEATED, it seems to me that you have never have gotten over the fact the MIGHTY SOVIET UNION broke up thus ruining you perfect little utopia, it seems to me that you are the one that hasn't evolved.

Za Rodinu · #**182** (**permalink**) August 23rd, 2007, 09:03 AM

You display a typical Stalinist lack of sense of humour.

As for "you have never have gotten over the fact the MIGHTY SOVIET UNION broke up thus ruining you perfect little utopia" again you resort to insult without knowing anything about me. I don't have to justify myself, I'll just let you know that I usually vote on the Right, and I have had more than enough people stopping talking to me when I defended the invasion of Iraq, for instance, or when 30 years ago I defended the deployment of Pershing II and Cruise Missiles, if anyone remembers what that was. Is this still commie enough? Besides, obviously you haven't seen the last book review I posted in From The Economist . This is pretty excoriating of the communist regime in the USSR. If I were "like them" would I publish this? Ridiculous, when you make your little jibes like the one in italica above, obviously you are speaking of the wrong guy.

Now I'll interfere no more, you can go back to your dreams of a 1000 Year Reich.

Von Poop · #**183** (**permalink**) August 23rd, 2007, 01:51 PM

"We've had the coordinates of this thread for a while sir, ready to fire!"
"Nein! we must wait for General Patton's approval to use the Nuclear Rounds.
Der Flying Panzers must be allowed to prove their worth!"

Didn't uncle Joe have a rather good sense of humour? Maybe a little black, but...

Cheers, (and apologies again)
Adam.

lwd · #**184** (**permalink**) August 23rd, 2007, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sloniksp

You are absoluetly correct and I agree with you....

Wait, we are talking about Iraq right?

The first quote clearly indicates that we are not.

Quote:

You can talk to me, I speak, read and write both languages.. I have read school books in Russian written during communist times and have never stumbled upon what you have claimed as lend lease has always been mentioned.

I never claimed that they denied LL existed. However its effects were downplayed especially in the late 40s and 50s from what I recall. Have you read school or history books from this period?

Quote:

I can however make the same claim you made about the school books in the US as I had the privilege reading them while at my studies.

During the same period I mentioned above the Soviet contribution to WWII was often downplayed or completly ignored in the US.

~~Roddoss72~~ · #**185** (**permalink**) August 24th, 2007, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sloniksp

T.A. you are correct and I do not despute what you are saying.

Yes lend lease was very helpful and the Russians till this day are very thankful, in fact even during communist times, the Russians never deminished the amount of help they received from the US. According to soldiers the Jeeps and trucks were the most significant.

However, as helpful as it was, it was not the winning factor in the war and battles like Moscow, Stalingrad the failed siege of Leningrad and Kursk were won with out this help.

With all said and done, im sure that you will agree that rubber, cans of food and trucks etc. is a small price to pay in comparison with blood spilled by 30 million people.

For this reason Stalin refused to pay for the Lend Lease when asked to do so by the US... His response was " We paid for it with our blood "

The lend lease was very helpful to the Soviets and it aleviated critical shortage of essential supplies, but the winning factor with the war in the east was the incompitence of Adolf Hitler who interfered in every decision pertaining to the eastern front right down to battalion level, some even joked that a soldier couldn't take a dump unless he got permission from the Fuhrer. Stalin may have used that quote but what of the many thousands of individuals that died trying to get the convoys through (PQ 17) as an example. No Stalin welcomed the aid but turned on his allies as soon as he could.

Sloniksp · #**186** (**permalink**) August 24th, 2007, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lwd

During the same period I mentioned above the Soviet contribution to WWII was often downplayed or completly ignored in the US.

I was referring to the to the books written from the 60's and up. As for the US school books I was referring to the ones written after the cold war

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roddoss72

the winning factor with the war in the east was the incompitence of Adolf Hitler who interfered in every decision pertaining to the eastern front right down to battalion level.

I believe this point has already been discussed no? Hitler listed objectives, however the way they were accomplished was up to the Generals.

Quote:

No Stalin welcomed the aid but turned on his allies as soon as he could.

And once again this is where I say prove it!

As for your singnature, at least your last one was more accurate

Sloniksp · #**187** (**permalink**) August 24th, 2007, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lwd

Ok lets use those (the numbers I've seen are similar). You've got to figure that at least 30 and perhaps as many as 50% of those are not productive ie too young, too old, infirm, or disabled) given the privations and losses of the previous years it would likely tend to the larger number. But lets take the smaller number and say 120,000,000 are productive. Preindustrial agriculture required about 10 farmers to support 1 man at arms. Due to the battles fought over most of the European Soviet Union including a lot of the best agricultural land and attendant loss of horses, machinery, and misc animals they probably aren't going to be a whole lot better off but let's assume that it takes 1 farmer to support each soldier and non farm worker. (We'll ignore the fact that half of the 120,000,000 are women). Now you are down to a labor pool of 60,000,000 but from this labor pool you have to provide your industiral workers, your transportation workers, and all the other necessary labor as well as soldiers. According to Wikiopedia (I'll take better sources if you have them) the REd army had a strength of around 20,000,000 at the end of WWII (with almost 2,000,000 still held by Germans at the end). That means they'd have to strip thier industiral and transportation sectors almost completely to come up with another 30-40M. The effective strength of many Soviet divisions at the end of the war is a clear indicator of this.

Try this,

In 1939 Germany had a poplulation of 80,600,000, by 1943 Germany's total armed forces amounted to 20,500,000. Not only was Germany able to mobilize 25% of her entire population, but at the same time increase her industrial output.

In 1946 SU 's poplulation was 170,000,000. 25% of 170,000,000 is 42,500,000. No talk of industry here as SU started outproducing Germany by large numbers in late 1942.

Germany could mobilize 25% of her population in 1943 ( appr. 20 million ). Russia could at the very least go for the same percentage having double the population.

lwd · #**188** (**permalink**) August 24th, 2007, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sloniksp

Try this,

In 1939 Germany had a poplulation of 80,600,000, by 1943 Germany's total armed forces amounted to 20,500,000. Not only was Germany able to mobilize 25% of her entire population, but at the same time increase her industrial output.

Hoever not all of the armed forces above were German. Also Germany's industiral output was heavily dependent on workers from other countries. I believe you will also find a fair amount of Germanies food production was based on forcible requisition from other countries and even so they did not have a surplus. Indeed from what I recall they were actually operating on a calary deficit overall though I could be wrong on this. Also consider that German agriculture and transport was pretty well untouched at this point. Are you taking the FLAK crews into account above by the way?
[quote]
In 1946 SU 's poplulation was 170,000,000. 25% of 170,000,000 is 42,500,000. No talk of industry here as SU started outproducing Germany by large numbers in late 1942.
[/quoe]
Hmm Germany movilised a higher percentage of her population and was out produced by the Soviet Union.... might there be a correlation here?

Quote:

Germany could mobilize 25% of her population in 1943 ( appr. 20 million ). Russia could at the very least go for the same percentage having double the population.

Actually the bigger you get the harder it is to mobilize the same percentage. Especially in the case of the Soviet Union which is so large. The fact that much of the more productive terretory of the Soviet Union had been fought over would also have a negative impact. Further more the previous 4 years of war would have squeezed much if not all the slack resouces out of the Soviet production and transport system. The need to switch over numerous factories would also create at least a short term drop in production.

Sloniksp · #**189** (**permalink**) August 24th, 2007, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lwd

Also Germany's industiral output was heavily dependent on workers from other countries.

No argument there...

Quote:

The fact that much of the more productive terretory of the Soviet Union had been fought over would also have a negative impact.

Soviet Union's main industry was moved far out of reach from the Germans into Siberia....

Quote:

The need to switch over numerous factories would also create at least a short term drop in production.

Factories were already producing war materials, what would they have to be switched to?

As Germany used slave labor or POW's for their industrial output, SU replaced the men with women.

lwd · #**190** (**permalink**) August 24th, 2007, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sloniksp

...
In 1946 SU 's poplulation was 170,000,000. 25% of 170,000,000 is 42,500,000. No talk of industry here as SU started outproducing Germany by large numbers in late 1942.

Germany could mobilize 25% of her population in 1943 ( appr. 20 million ). Russia could at the very least go for the same percentage having double the population.

Another thing to consider. If the USSR could do so why not her opponets? According to:
U.S. and Texas populations, 1850-2006 - Texas State Library
The US had a population of 132M in 45
And
World War 2 Casualties - Worldwar-2.net
Commonwealth population in 1939 was 452M

Without including any other allies thats just short of 600M even a 10% mobilization gives a pretty big numerical advantage. What's more that number is sustainable 25% over the long term is not.

Also if they mobilsed 25% as you state that's ~42M but as previously noted they had almost ~20M in the armed forces at the end of the war so that hardly leaves room for an additional 30-40M as you stated.

Sloniksp · #**191** (**permalink**) August 24th, 2007, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lwd

Another thing to consider. If the USSR could do so why not her opponets? According to:
U.S. and Texas populations, 1850-2006 - Texas State Library
The US had a population of 132M in 45
And
World War 2 Casualties - Worldwar-2.net
Commonwealth population in 1939 was 452M

Because Stalin was in charge. Its much harder to mobilize such a force in a democracy. Not to mention a war of Attrition 4 thousand miles away.

Look at current events

Quote:

Also if they mobilsed 25% as you state that's ~42M but as previously noted they had almost ~20M in the armed forces at the end of the war so that hardly leaves room for an additional 30-40M as you stated.

I was referring to the beginning of 1946, by which time SU had less then 10 million in operation.