 |
| |
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Vagabond
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? |
 This what I always was tried to say. Case is closed, no matter what David think.
All this **** reminds me this situation:
A house of one man is on fire. He run to his neighbor and scream "I need help"
N: Sorry it is not my problem. I don't have to risk my life in fight for your house.
M: But, your house is close. If we will not stop the fire now, your house will be next.
N: I doubt this.
M: Fight with fire alone.
*later*
The fire is growing, and there is a real threat that next house will fire too*
M: *Again begging for help* Look, I told you if you will not help me, your house is next.
N: It is not my house. I don't have too.
M: At least, give me a fire extinguisher.
N: No, I can't. What if you are right? I would need it for myself.
M: GIVE ME SOMETHING!!!
N: Ok, take this buker of water.
M:*runs away to fight the fire again*
*few hours later when the fire is almost over*
N: *Apears in shining fire-fighter uniform.* Ok, I come to save you and our street from the horrible disaster. Don't worry, everything is under control now. I'm a proffesional. I will stop this fire within few seconds.
M:*almost totaly exhaused after hours of fight* Thank you ****** freind.
N: Drops a glass of water on fire.
Reporters arrived.
M: Drops on ground senseless.
Reporters: Who stoped this terrible fire?
N:Well, at the beggining it was M., I have supplied him with all nessecary equipment and training. Later I finished it myself.
R: Sir, you are so gentle, without you our street would be in ruins now.
N: It was my duty.
End of story
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:23
|
|
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. |
It seems that many of you don't have any idea wtf they are talking about.
Stalingrad as city has no importance. The city of Stalingrad WAS ENTIERLY DESTROYED within first months of battle. There were less then half of dozen undestroyed houses in Stalingrad. This clash could happen anywhere, the clash between the major forces of opposing sides. Stalingrad has more importance as symbol, (the city of Stalin), not as strategic city. So, there was no benefit to owe this city, the much imortant thing was to destroy more enemy forces then your own losses.
Aside 99% of you, my statements based on words of alive witness of those events, The men who went throught Stalingrad and was awarded there- my grandfather.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
See Serb, what it means to have Americans as allies?  Every of your victories they try to turn into theirs, and if they delivered you field kitchens, they'll say after, that "the victory is ours, because a hungry soldier can't fight". You can't blame them on that, it's part of the big propaganda machine. They need this to create and support this "We are the greatest" feeling.
You are also influenced by former Soviet and now Russian propaganda. The former I remember well from my years in the USSR, and I must say, your "We are the greatest" propaganda was no less than theirs is. The latter I don't know, I haven't been in Russia for 8 years, but I suspect it's not less than it was then, rather more, because Russia hasn't got a lot of other things to make people proud these days.
So Torch made the victory in Stalingrad possible? Well, Torch surely had some influence, although I think it's importance is rather overestimated, just like El Alamein. Rommels Africa corps was only one of many German armies and a large part of it were Italian forces. IIRC, it had only 5 panzer bataillons. Nice "tank army", no? But doesn't all that mean, that without Stalingrad the "Torch" could have been doused, and pretty quick, if it would have been possible at all?
When will people understand, that none of the sides "saved the other side's ass", and that all sides put their weight in the victory. Without the 2nd front the Soviet bloodtoll would have been a lot bigger, even though I think they would have finally won the war in all cases. And without the Eastern front the invasion force in the Normandy would today be on the ground of the English channel. That simple.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
Vagabond,
quote:
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. |
That $11 billion in Lend Lease, though, was actually in many cases natural resources the Soviets could not produce in large enough quantities because the Germans overran their supplies. It was also things such as complex machine tools which the Soviet Union probably couldn't manufacture on its own either.
And in any case, imagine how much weaker the Soviet armies would have been if all that money had to go to buying domestic made Soviet equipment for logistics, rather than just tanks and planes.
quote:
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. |
Very true. But two points. First of all, I have never really argued that US military help in Lend Lease turned the tide of the war. Secondly, the AFVs (armored fighting vehicles) provided by Lend Lease were definitely much more reliable than Soviet models, and get keep going for longer. Perhaps this is the reason Western light tanks were requested up to the end of the war, and the entire 1st Guards Mechanized Corps was equipped with Shermans in 1945.
quote:
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. |
Well, Dieppe was a fairly major raid, not to mention German troops tied down in France, and those troops that had to be put together to invade Vichy France.
quote:
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. |
No, it's certainly not ridiculous, considering the fall of Africa led to the fall of Sicily, which knocked Italy out of the war. Because of this, by the end of the war, Germany had 1 million men in Italy, and they were also forced to put 27 divisions in the Balkans. Those are not inconsiderable forces.
serb,
Ah I knew you'd show up 
quote:
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. |
Well, I'll look for a source on that.
I DO, however, have a source on an entire Soviet corps equipped with Shermans in 1945, so the Red Army obviously wasn't adverse to the idea.
quote:
This what I always was tried to say. Case is closed, no matter what David think. |
Unfortunately not. However, you never really listen to my arguments anyway, so it might as well be case closed.
quote:
It seems that many of you don't have any idea wtf they are talking about.
Stalingrad as city has no importance. The city of Stalingrad WAS ENTIERLY DESTROYED within first months of battle.(etc. etc. etc.)[quote]
None of that has anything to do with what I said.
Nowhere did I say Stalingrad was important - 6th Army was important, and that's why the relief operation was launched in the first place.
[quote]WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR VICTORY? Durring only one, SINGLE Berlin operation Soviets lost about 300 000 soldiers.(Shut up David, Nazi lost about 470 000) Almost the same number Americans lost during ENTIRE WAR.
And you think, you should have been in Berlin first? |
Without Eisenhower forcing them to stop, General Simpson's US Ninth Army could have been in Berlin easily before the Russians, and Patton's Third Army could have taken Czechoslovakia and much of Austria.
This assumes that Patton's supplies are still cut off in 1944 to prepare for Operation Market Garden - if those supplies are NOT cut off, there is nothing between Patton and Germany, and it's conceivable the war could have ended in 1944.
AH,
quote:
And Floyd, your analysis of Stalingrad is completely flawed. The reason the Sixth Army was lost was Hitler ordered them to stay there. |
Of course this is correct. I'm arguing from the standpoint that this order would not have been changed, and thus the only way to save 6th Army was to relieve it. If Manstein's force had come to around 20 miles away from Stalingrad, von Paulus probably would have violated orders and broken out anyway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheStinger
The reason for the massive losses in berlin was because the sovs rushed to take the city without adequatley preparing their attack. Stalins fault but then he wasn't one renowned for the welfare of his troops or indeed the general population |
Bullsh*t.
It was well prepared. It started at night and first time in history large light projectors were used there. Before April 16 1945 humanity never saw such large scale night offense. The reason was a feirce resistance and well prepared defensive fortifications.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Ralph
See Serb, what it means to have Americans as allies? Every of your victories they try to turn into theirs, and if they delivered you field kitchens, they'll say after, that "the victory is ours, because a hungry soldier can't fight". |
Yes I see, they can't be trusted.
quote:
You can't blame them on that, it's part of the big propaganda machine. They need this to create and support this "We are the greatest" feeling. |
Why I can't? They twist history as they wish and create myths. Almost 60 years ago their president said that:"... courage, fortitude and devotion of defenders of Stalingrad will inspire forever in hearts of all free people. Their glorious victory stemmed the tide of invasion and marked the turning point in war of Allied Nations against the forces of aggression." Roosevelt was mistaken. After 60 years David f.e. beleive in general shitness of Russian army.
quote:
You are also influenced by former Soviet and now Russian propaganda. The former I remember well from my years in the USSR, and I must say, your "We are the greatest" propaganda was no less than theirs is. |
Yes, I know. Thank you
quote:
The latter I don't know, I haven't been in Russia for 8 years, but I suspect it's not less than it was then, rather more, because Russia hasn't got a lot of other things to make people proud these days. |
A lot of changed here since 1994. Anyhow today we have much more different sources of information. And modern view on WW2 is different from Soviet times.
quote:
So Torch made the victory in Stalingrad possible? Well, Torch surely had some influence, although I think it's importance is rather overestimated, just like El Alamein. Rommels Africa corps was only one of many German armies and a large part of it were Italian forces. IIRC, it had only 5 panzer bataillons. Nice "tank army", no? QUOTE]
Exactly, I read the same in his dairy.
[QUOTE]When will people understand, that none of the sides "saved the other side's ass", and that all sides put their weight in the victory. Without the 2nd front the Soviet bloodtoll would have been a lot bigger, even though I think they would have finally won the war in all cases. And without the Eastern front the invasion force in the Normandy would today be on the ground of the English channel. That simple. |
Not for David.
In accordance with David, Russians saved their asses because of weather and American trucks, because Russians are shity warriors. And American victorious army could single handenly defeat nazi, because US military is the best military force in human history.
*goes to throw-up*
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheStinger
The attack was massive, but as the soviets lost more soldiers in the space of 3 weeks than they has in the last 6 months then something was wrong.They could have seiged berlin and waited for it to surrender, which it would have done. Stalin wanted Berlin and therefore sacrificed his own men needlesley |
Oh really? A seige?
Does it describe Russians as bad warriors?
Perhaps Germans acted in different way?
In 1941 Hitler ordered to TOOK Moscow, not to seige it. And they lost about 1 million of soldiers and didn't acheived their goal. Now compare it with Russian 300 000 and completed goal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:23
|
|
After reading these posts, let me say that my original thinking that the Soviet stands at Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad had little to do with Lend Lease. Thereafter, Lend Lease certainly helped the Soviets roll back the Germans primarily due to the locomotives, rails and trucks. But, as I suggested, it would have been sufficient simply for the Soviets to tie the German Army up deep in Russian territory, while the Allies landed in France and took Berlin. A rollback was not necessary. Think of how the world would have been different if the USSR had never even come close to Poland, let alone Berlin.
As to casualties in taking Berlin, I doubt the US would have taken so many as the Russians. The way we fought battles even then was to rely heavily on airpower. Besides, the German army really wanted to surrender to American forces and may not have fought so fiercely.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Very true. But two points. First of all, I have never really argued that US military help in Lend Lease turned the tide of the war. Secondly, the AFVs (armored fighting vehicles) provided by Lend Lease were definitely much more reliable than Soviet models, and get keep going for longer. Perhaps this is the reason Western light tanks were requested up to the end of the war, and the entire 1st Guards Mechanized Corps was equipped with Shermans in 1945. |
Do you know how Russians called your Shermans? "Zazhigalka" Which means 'lighter". Do you know which the first thing Russian tankists do when they received new Sherman? They remove leather interior out of tank. Because your Shermans fire like lighters if were hit and ther was no chance for crew to survive.
quote:
Ah I knew you'd show up |
As always.
quote:
Well, I'll look for a source on that. |
Do me a faivour, please.
quote:
I DO, however, have a source on an entire Soviet corps equipped with Shermans in 1945, so the Red Army obviously wasn't adverse to the idea. |
In 1945. [/QUOTE] 1945 Not in 1941 on Moscow front.
quote:
Unfortunately not. However, you never really listen to my arguments anyway, so it might as well be case closed. |
You too.
quote:
Without Eisenhower forcing them to stop, General Simpson's US Ninth Army could have been in Berlin easily before the Russians, and Patton's Third Army could have taken Czechoslovakia and much of Austria.
This assumes that Patton's supplies are still cut off in 1944 to prepare for Operation Market Garden - if those supplies are NOT cut off, there is nothing between Patton and Germany, and it's conceivable the war could have ended in 1944. |
You are quite a dreamer David. your theories sometimes are very funny. Americans could have won war in 1944? Americans could easily won war vs. Red Army in Europe in 1945? USA could wipe the floor with Russia?
Btw, if so, then why did you stoped? Why you didn't finished war in 1944, if you could. Don't have balls for that?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
After reading these posts, let me say that my original thinking that the Soviet stands at Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad had little to do with Lend Lease. Thereafter, Lend Lease certainly helped the Soviets roll back the Germans primarily due to the locomotives, rails and trucks. But, as I suggested, it would have been sufficient simply for the Soviets to tie the German Army up deep in Russian territory, while the Allies landed in France and took Berlin. A rollback was not necessary. Think of how the world would have been different if the USSR had never even come close to Poland, let alone Berlin. |
Then what you was waiting for? Stalin asked about this since the beggining of war. Why you jamped in war only when it was absolutely clear that nothing could stop Russians? Why you just seat and watch how millions of people killing each other, if you could stop this and save those people?
Perhaps you was just afraid and didn't want to participate in bloodbath? Perhaps you just waited for moment when Soviets and Nazi will weaken each other enough and then jump in war and took all glory for yourselves?
quote:
As to casualties in taking Berlin, I doubt the US would have taken so many as the Russians. The way we fought battles even then was to rely heavily on airpower. |
How brave. you think Soviets didn't have air superiority during Berlin offence?
quote:
Besides, the German army really wanted to surrender to American forces and may not have fought so fiercely. |
It's true.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
****. Another pissing match over who saved who's ass?
This is ridiculous. Both sides were dependent on the other. Allies are allies because each side perceives that it needs the other's help. If Nazi Germany had concentrated on one front at a time w/o intereference, the outcome of the war would most likely have been different.
Britain and the US knew that keeping the USSR fighting was crucial to their prospects for success, based on what happened in WWI, when Russia surrendered. The Germans were then able to unleash their eastern forces on the western front, and damn near won the war. Keeping the bulk of the Nazi war machine engaged in Russia was the key to being able to turn the tide. Hence lend-lease. It wasn't altruistic. If Hitler had managed to win in the East, the UK & US would have faced a much stronger "Fortress Europe" assuming Hitler didn't manage to successfully invade Britain.
From the Soviet perspective, meanwhile, Stalin needed the UK & US to open another front to relieve pressure on the USSR. Of course, getting all our stuff across the Altantic and in position to invade a fortified Europe wasn't easy, and took some time. Torch was, AFAIK, intended to shut Stalin up for a bit while Overlord came together. It had the additional benifit of knocking Italy out, and tying down German forces down there. Once Normandy was invaded, the Germans were fighting on 3 fronts.
As usual, certain US posters put up speculation about just how important our contributions were to Allied victory, and Serb shows up frothing at the mouth.
-Arrian
ps Sir Ralph: as for the US "we are the greatest" propoganda, please bear in mind that anyone who actually studies WWII in depth ("in depth" being the key here) will draw their own conclusions. So I would hope that you would not immediately discount a post which argued lend-lease was crucial simply because it was from an American.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
|
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
Arrian, I don't negate that lend-lease was important, even very, although I wouldn't call it crucial. But I mind if any of the sides (Russia and America) says about the other "We saved your butts", "You'd have lost without us" or "if we hadn't won in <battle1>, you would have lost <battle2>". This is ridiculous, just like the opinion I once heard from an UK guy, that "the Britains won the war with a little help from the US and Russia". All allied powers put their weight in the victory.
And about the "we are the greatest" propaganda... See, I said the same propaganda thing to Serb. It seems to exist in every large power. Be it America, Russia, even UK, not to talk about France, le Grand Nation. We Germans are especially sensitive to this matter, even more since all this pride stuff is well toned down in our country, for a good reason. The last time we had this kind of propaganda, it came from Goebbels and all we know where it lead us. Don't get me wrong, this is not a comparison, because the methods and intents were different. But basically, it's the same effect, "We are better than everyone else, because...". A little national pride is ok. But understand, if I meet a dude on the street, who repeats to say "face it, I'm the greatest and you and all others are scum", I may not hit in his face because he's indeed stronger than me, but he hardly ever will be my friend. And that's the answer to all this why-does-everyone-hate-Americans stuff. Be nice to us and we'll be nice to you, that simple.
And finally: I'm not anti-american, not at all. The United States are a fascinating country, and although I would never move over the pond, I enjoyed my short staying and I have a couple of dear friends there. What makes some of my statements sound anti-american is, that I can't stand this pride stuff and that I'm consequently anti-war (except in civ games that is ) and therefor believe, that this fascinating country is led by, well let's say it not using bad words, a sick and greedy government.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Arrian, I don't negate that lend-lease was important, even very, although I wouldn't call it crucial. But I mind if any of the sides (Russia and America) says about the other "We saved your butts", "You'd have lost without us" or "if we hadn't won in <battle1>, you would have lost <battle2>". This is ridiculous, just like the opinion I once heard from an UK guy, that "the Britains won the war with a little help from the US and Russia". All allied powers put their weight in the victory.
And about the "we are the greatest" propaganda... See, I said the same propaganda thing to Serb. It seems to exist in every large power. Be it America, Russia, even UK, not to talk about France, le Grand Nation. We Germans are especially sensitive to this matter, even more since all this pride stuff is well toned down in our country, for a good reason. The last time we had this kind of propaganda, it came from Goebbels and all we know where it lead us. Don't get me wrong, this is not a comparison, because the methods and intents were different. But basically, it's the same effect, "We are better than everyone else, because...". A little national pride is ok. But understand, if I meet a dude on the street, who repeats to say "face it, I'm the greatest and you and all others are scum", I may not hit in his face because he's indeed stronger than me, but he hardly ever will be my friend. And that's the answer to all this why-does-everyone-hate-Americans stuff. Be nice to us and we'll be nice to you, that simple.
And finally: I'm not anti-american, not at all. The United States are a fascinating country, and although I would never move over the pond, I enjoyed my short staying and I have a couple of dear friends there. What makes some of my statements sound anti-american is, that I can't stand this pride stuff and that I'm consequently anti-war (except in civ games that is ) and therefor believe, that this fascinating country is led by, well let's say it not using bad words, a sick and greedy government. |
Sir Ralph, You almost had me until that last sentence. In fact I agreed with everything you said until then. But that last sentence is simply too much.
From one American to you, go **** yourself.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-10-2002 15:50
|