15-10-2002 09:58									#31
	Tired of ads?

quote: Its true heroism and courage alone won't win you a war but all the equipment in the world won't save you either if you don't have them.

True enough, but if I have to choose between enough equipment and resources and supplies and heroism to the degree of disregard for human life, I'll take equipment every time.

quote: The Russian people rose to the occasion magnificently and paid a huge price in blood. That should never ever be forgotten.

Granted.

quote: The whole war in the West was a sideshow by comparison.

The presence of the Western Front was, along with Lend Lease, one of the top two reasons the Germans lost in the East.

	15-10-2002 10:03									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Possibly, German efforts to relieve the 6th Army were for the most part, quite laughable.

Well, Manstein's force drove a huge wedge in the forces in front of him in his attack to relieve 6th Army, punching to within 30 miles of the city.

According to Manstein, the attack failed because, of "the preponderance of the enemy's forces and the deficient strength of our own."

With more ground and air forces available, this could have been very different.

	15-10-2002 10:10									#33
	Remove this text

Okay here's a quick quiz : How many German units were in North Africa t the time Torch was launched and how many were in Russia? How many armoured divisions?

How many in France for DDay in 44 versus those in Russia?

	15-10-2002 10:14									#34
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Okay here's a quick quiz : How many German units were in North Africa t the time Torch was launched and how many were in Russia? How many armoured divisions?

That's not as relevant as you think it is.

What's relevant is that Germany did not have the forces available AT THE CRITICAL PLACE AND MOMENT, as a result of Operation Torch.

quote: How many in France for DDay in 44 versus those in Russia?

I'm not even gonna argue that Germany had a chance after the US invasion of France. But that's sorta the point, isn't it? US intervention in the form of Lend Lease and the invasions of Africa, Italy, and France (none of which would have gone off without the US) defeated Germany, not Russians charging into German defenses and being killed en masse until the forced a local breakthrough.

	15-10-2002 10:16									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Furthermore, it's not the German forces in Africa at the time of Torch that I'm talking about, it's those forces that were transferred to the Mediterranean theater immediately after and as a result of Torch.

	15-10-2002 10:27									#36
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well, what we see after the US gets actively involved is serious over-extention of the German forces in the East. They simply didn't have the manpower or industry to fight and win on two fronts at the same time.

This is why I suggest one has to focus on the effect of Lend Lease prior to America's active involvement in the war - when Germany could effectively concentrate the bulk of her forces on the Easter Front.

David (sorry), but without Lend Lease, would the Soviets have lost Lennigrad or Stalingrad? Either one may have tipped the balance of the war in the East in the Germans favor.

	15-10-2002 10:36									#37
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I dont think Lend Lease was the deciding factor, but it was important. A couple things not yet pointed out.

1. Lend Lease supplies also came in by rail from Iran, so the Archangel and Murmansk convoys were not the only routes.

2. Prior to June 41 the Russians were trading the Germans large amounts of food stuffs and raw materials for equally sizable amounts of machinery to build up their industrial area in the Urals. When these flows stopped, Lend Lease filled the gap. The industrial machinery, especially at the time it arrived, may have been more important than some of the military supplies.

3. Dont underestimate the importance of locomotives and rails supplied through Lend Lease. Fighting on the Eastern Front was a logistical nightmare for the Germans given the distances involved and the condition of the infrastructure. Yet the Russians were able to mount huge operations, like the January 45 offensive, which involved moving hundreds of thousands of men and their equipment over hundreds of miles where the track and rolling stock had already been destroyed at least twice before. Lend Lease clearly helped with this.

	15-10-2002 10:36									#38
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: David (sorry), but without Lend Lease, would the Soviets have lost Lennigrad or Stalingrad?

I would say yes.

Leningrad probably would not have falled in 1941 - almost certainly not. However, without Lend Lease supplying the Soviet Union, a Soviet collapse in 1943 was very possible. Without Lend Lease, the large counteroffensive in 1942 would not have been able to be launched on such a large scale, in my opinion.

I think that without huge Soviet military successes in 1942 (made possible by Lend Lease AND Operation Torch), Leningrad would certainly have fallen, because the Soviets couldn't have gotten there quick enough.

Stalingrad is a question. It is certainly a fact that the Germans DID capture most of the city, and it is indisputable that the German defeat was due to the massive Soviet counterattack and the inability of Manstein to relieve the city. But I would hold that the Soviet counterattack, while still possible, would not have been possible on the same scale, and without that massive victory, 6th Army would not have been destroyed - and indeed, there might not have even been a great need to evacuate Stalingrad, had Zhukov's counterattack been stopped.

In 1942, had Germany stopped a counteroffensive, their mobile forces still possessed a significant tactical advantage, and a further battle of encirclement and annihilation could have been possible.

	15-10-2002 10:39									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Adam Smith,

quote: 1. Lend Lease supplies also came in by rail from Iran, so the Archangel and Murmansk convoys were not the only routes.

Very true. Also, a trickle came in via Vladivostok.

quote: The industrial machinery, especially at the time it arrived, may have been more important than some of the military supplies.

To underscore that point, Lend Lease accounted for 28% of all Soviet machine tools. While this amount may not seem too massive, it should be remembered that the Western machine tools were much more complex and versatile than Soviet-produced ones.

quote: Yet the Russians were able to mount huge operations, like the January 45 offensive, which involved moving hundreds of thousands of men and their equipment over hundreds of miles where the track and rolling stock had already been destroyed at least twice before. Lend Lease clearly helped with this.

Lend Lease more than merely "helped" with this - it made it possible. Look at the numbers - 90% of Soviet railroad tracks, rolling stock, etc., were delivered via Lend Lease.

	15-10-2002 10:41									#40
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I doubt that lend-lease had much of an effect on the nature of the battles of Leningrad or Stalingrad. Leningrad, an ill-conceived near-encirclement which lasted only because of the sheer grit of the Soviet people. One million citizens of Leningrad died during the siege, and they still never gave up. 2/3 of the buildings in Leningrad were damaged. Imagine if 2/3 of the buildings in New York were ever damaged in a war! No ammount of Lend-lease is going to affect that kind of determination.

Also Stalingrad wasn't affected much by lend-lease either, it was largely a battle of tactics. With Soviet tactics far outclassing those of the Germans. Even a certain percentile of less supplies won't change that.

There are likely points in the war that are effected in a critical way by lend-lease, but those particular battles aren't examples of them.

	15-10-2002 10:43									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: I doubt that lend-lease had much of an effect on the nature of the battles of Leningrad or Stalingrad. Leningrad, an ill-conceived near-encirclement which lasted only because of the sheer grit of the Soviet people. One million citizens of Leningrad died during the siege, and they still never gave up. 2/3 of the buildings in Leningrad were damaged.

I have never argued that Lend Lease allowed Stalingrad to hold out in 1941. My argument is that Lend Lease allowed the Russians to launch the necessary counterattacks which relieved the city.

quote: Also Stalingrad wasn't affected much by lend-lease either, it was largely a battle of tactics. With Soviet tactics far outclassing those of the Germans.

Stalingrad was decided as a result of the Soviet counterattack, and the German inability to relieve 6th Army. The Russian ability to launch a counterattack on that scale in 1942, following the MASSIVE losses of 1941, certainly had a great deal to do with Lend Lease.

	15-10-2002 10:47									#42
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd What's relevant is that Germany did not have the forces available AT THE CRITICAL PLACE AND MOMENT, as a result of Operation Torch.

Perhaps, though the point is whether the forces taken away from the Eastern Front would make a difference. You have to remember the losses on the Eastern Front were huge. A division here or there wouldn't make a bit of difference in the least.

	15-10-2002 10:49									#43
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Perhaps, though the point is whether the forces taken away from the Eastern Front would make a difference.

You certainly can't argue that additional resources would have HURT the Germans.
Further, considering how close Manstein came to Stalingrad (30 miles, and von Paulus would have broken out if he'd gotten to within 20 or so), it is certainly plausible to state that the reinforcements sent to invade Vichy France and to Africa as a result of Torch could have been effectively used in the relief operation.

	15-10-2002 10:53									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

30 miles is a big deal in that circumstance David, since I imagine it would be 30 miles of pure resistance. The Germans got within 6 miles of Moscow in December 41 and they still weren't able to ever take it.
Plus, if Manstein did have a larger relief force, you can never know how the Soviets might have reacted accordingly. All in all, it is still highly unlikely that these extra divisions would have tipped the scales enough to save the sixth.

	15-10-2002 10:56									#45
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: 30 miles is a big deal in that circumstance David, since I imagine it would be 30 miles of pure resistance.

Actually he needed 10 miles to trigger a German breakout. 10 miles was not inconceivable.

quote: The Germans got within 6 miles of Moscow in December 41 and they still weren't able to ever take it.

So? I'm not saying that the Germans could have actually retaken Stalingrad and stabilized the line with those extra forces, I'm saying those extra forces could have at least gone far enough to relieve 6th Army and extricate much of it.

quote: Plus, if Manstein did have a larger relief force, you can never know how the Soviets might have reacted accordingly.

For example...?

	15-10-2002 11:00									#46
	Tired of ads?

I don't know, I'm not a high ranking member in the Red Army, believe it or not.

	15-10-2002 11:08									#47
	Support Apolyton

quote: I don't know, I'm not a high ranking member in the Red Army, believe it or not.

My point was, the Soviets diverted the entire 2nd Guards Army to stop Manstein's counterattack to begin with. I'm not sure what else they could have diverted, without sacrificing units from their overall offensive or weakening the forces encircling Stalingrad to such a degree as to permit 6th Army to easily break out.

	15-10-2002 11:11									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd You certainly can't argue that additional resources would have HURT the Germans.

Fair enough.

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Further, considering how close Manstein came to Stalingrad (30 miles, and von Paulus would have broken out if he'd gotten to within 20 or so), it is certainly plausible to state that the reinforcements sent to invade Vichy France and to Africa as a result of Torch could have been effectively used in the relief operation.

Assuming Manstein had the extra forces, would von Paulus have enough supplies to mount an attack? If not, could Manstein have gone all 30 miles? If so, and he was successful in the operation, would that make a difference in the final outcome, or merely postponing the inevitable?

	15-10-2002 11:18									#49
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Assuming Manstein had the extra forces, would von Paulus have enough supplies to mount an attack?

Well, first of all, the amount of transport aircraft would have been almost doubled, potentially, with several hundred additional fighter and bomber aircraft to support 6th Army. Further, units were stripped away from the forces directly encircling 6th Army to stop Manstein (such as 2nd Guards Army). This weakened the ring around 6th Army. 6th Army was certainly not capable of major offensive operations, but with adequate air support I think it's certainly feasible that they could at least have gone several miles, which would have drawn forces away from Manstein to stop the breakout, which could have led to further advances by the relief force.

quote: If not, could Manstein have gone all 30 miles?

I think it's possible that Manstein could have made all 30 miles, given additional air support and reserves. I think the most likely formula for success would be for Manstein to get within around 20 miles, at which point von Paulus would probably have ordered a breakout attempt.

quote: If so, and he was successful in the operation, would that make a difference in the final outcome, or merely prosponing the inevitable?

Final outcome of what? The war? Well, the presence of 6th Army would certainly have shored up Army Group Don's position, even though it would have required time to rest and refit. Let's assume that the best use for 6th Army is to take it off the line for a few weeks, and put it in general Army Group Don reserve. This means that the Germans are no worse off than they were in our time line. Remember, even after the destruction of 6th Army, the Germans won some significant tactical victories in the Ukraine. If the 6th Army was present for these attacks, even more could have been done, and I certainly don't think the German army would have been pushed back as much as it was.

	15-10-2002 11:21									#50
	Support Apolyton

Anyway, we're threadjacking. Let's stay to the primary point of Lend Lease

	15-10-2002 12:51									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Certainly lend-lease helped a lot, and thank you indeed for your help. Would the USSR have won without lend-lease? Nobody knows. Nonetheless, the absolute conviction of some of you that it wouldn't is disgusting and arrogant.

Just a couple of comments. It is not quite correct to illustrate the magnitude of lend-lease by singling out some specific area (e.g. trucks, locomotives) and pointing out an impressive percentage of lend-lease supplies versus the corresponding Soviet production. It is more correct to compare the gross numbers that include ALL products. Thus the total lend-lease to the USSR amounts to $11 billion (BTW it was $31 billion to Britain). At the same time, the USSR production is estimated at $190 billion. You see the point?

After all, what, you think the USSR was unable to manufacture trucks or locomotives by itself? Given the lend-lease supplies, it simply concentrated on other areas of production. If there had been no lend-lease, the USSR would have had to redistribute its manifacturing capabilities. Just remember it was 11 versus 190.

Also, some of you seem convinced that what the US supplied in lend-lease was necessarily better than the Soviet counterparts. While I wouldn't doubt this as far as trucks and locomotives are concerned, this is not quite true for the military equipment (tanks and airplanes). The reason is simply that the US didn't supply its best military equipment. In many cases it was an outdated and used equipment. Furthermore, even if we compare the best available equipment on both sides, the USSR by no means pales in such a comparison.

	15-10-2002 13:07									#52
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Soviet victory was due to a combination of Lend Lease, Western Allied activity in North Africa and France, the vastness of Russia, and the weather.

First off, until 1944 there was no activity whatsoever in France. When you landed in Normandie, the Soviet victory was already predetermined and imminent anyway.

As for the Allied activity in North Africa, it's ridiculous that you even mention it so seriously. Just compare the numbers of German troops committed there and there and their respective casualties.

	15-10-2002 13:16									#53
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Even if Hitler had taken Stalingrad and Moscow, the war wouldn't have ended there. The Russian people would still have faught on. I actually don't think. They would have adopted to their new masters . The commie propaganda might have been rooted still, but if things got better, there might have been a lot of Russian fascists.

You actually forget that that war was a war of attrition for Russia. It is well known what the Nazis used to do to 'inferior races'. Adopting to the new masters most probably meant death.

	15-10-2002 13:19									#54
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse Its true heroism and courage alone won't win you a war but all the equipment in the world won't save you either if you don't have them. The Russian people rose to the occasion magnificently and paid a huge price in blood. That should never ever be forgotten. The whole war in the West was a sideshow by comparison.

Well said, Horse.

	15-10-2002 14:04									#55
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

A Soviet victory was not needed to beat Nazi Germany. All that was needed is for the Soviets not to collapse and tie up a lot of the German army.

Perhaps Roosevelt misjudged, and gave the Soviets too much Lend Lease. They got to Berlin first.

	15-10-2002 14:48									#56
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by The Vagabond Thus the total lend-lease to the USSR amounts to $11 billion (BTW it was $31 billion to Britain).

Yes, but no.
100% agree with the number for UK, but the 11 billions to USSR is not the total amount of the lend-lease, it is the total amount of goods sent to USSR.
Real lend-lease to USSR started only in 42 (43? not sure). The first billions were NOT part of the lend-lease and had to be pay cash by USSR.
And don't forget those 11 bil have to be spread over 3 or 4 years. IIRC only 1 bil. (cash) in 42; 3 bil (?) in 43 and the rest (lend-lease) later.

Moscow was not saved by lend-lease, it was saved by an ordinary business contract, payed cash.
At the time of Stalingrad, I'm not sure, but I think yes, lend-lease was already active.

	15-10-2002 15:13									#57
	Support Apolyton

Yes. Without lend lease the Sovs would have been relegated to a few burgs east of the Urals.

It was a very close run thing. To think that victory would have been possible without one of those elements (German over-extention, Russian grit, Western material aid) is fairly simple as a view of what happened and all that went into winning the war in the east.

	15-10-2002 15:20									#58
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

What a thread! A real festival of bullsh*t theories and master-bullsh*ters.
But this one is super-mega Bullsh*t. One of the most stinking bullsh*t I read in my life. a words of man, who don't have any idea about war on Russian front.

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Even if Hitler had taken Stalingrad and Moscow, the war wouldn't have ended there. The Russian people would still have faught on. I actually don't think. They would have adopted to their new masters . The commie propaganda might have been rooted still, but if things got better, there might have been a lot of Russian fascists.

David, you post the same crap as always. Find some proof of your statements. I don't by a crap about Soviet regiments totaly consisted of American tanks in 1941.
AH

	15-10-2002 15:20									#59
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Oops, forget to post this:

	15-10-2002 15:33									#60
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Serb What a thread! A real festival of bullsh*t theories and master-bullsh*ters. But this one is super-mega Bullsh*t. One of the most stinking bullsh*t I read in my life. a words of man, who don't have any idea about war on Russian front. David, you post the same crap as always. Find some proof of your statements. I don't by a crap about Soviet regiments totaly consisted of American tanks in 1941. AH

I don't think DF has ever said soviet regiments consisted of us tanks, he may have said that the trucks and trains that brought them and the tropps to the fronts were US though