 |
| |
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:23
|
|
quote:
Yea, sure... But wait, in this case I must be also anti-Russian. While I like Russia as country, have a lot of Russian friends, have a Russian wife... |
You have a Russian wife?
It explains why you know Russian so well. (I russkie rugatelstva tozhe )
quote:
... and lived in Russia for years, I heavily criticized Yeltsins policy in the 90s. And before you respond that Yeltsin is gone, yes, Putin is a bit better, |
In that case i'm anti-Russian too. Because I consider times of YeltSin, as disgrace and greatest tragedy in our history.
quote:
but not much (menja ne povesjat na chlene za eto, pomnish?  ) |
Konechno net. And there is no 100% support of Putin's actions. A lot of dudes here screams a lot of bs about dictatorship, cult of personality, incoming apocalypse, etc. I nikto ih za eto, za chlen ne veshaet.
quote:
But does that make me a Russia-hater? No. |
Of course, not. It makes you pro-Russian.
quote:
As for Ned insulting me for my opinion about the american government, oh well... He just outed himself as one of the dudes I avoid to meet in the streets. Not a big deal. |
Btw, the October is already started? I'm just curious, because few barrels of special brend beer were delivered in local pub. Those guys tells that this beer created specialy for October fest (I don't remember how it calls). I don't trust them, but going to test it anyway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
"The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military
Efforts, 1941-1945" by BORIS V. SOKOLOV
Hmmm...written by a Russian....any more comments, serb? |
Are you sure that it is writen in Russia? More likely its writen on West, by Russian desident, who wanted to make some $$$ and write a story for western, how they wanted to hear it?
Actualy I don't know. Perhaps you will enlighten me about this?
As for comments, why you replaced part of text with word "further"? Perhaps you wanted to hide smth?
Anyhow, I could always comment it like you done about my quote of Rosevelt. Something like this:
But in any case, Zhukov was a strategist, a soldier, not an economist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
For example, the US produced something like 30 million tons of merchant shipping, 28 aircraft carriers, over 100 escort carriers, 8 battleships, over 40 cruisers, and over 300 destroyers during the war. |
We didn't need those thing. We fought on land, not on sea.
quote:
And what exactly was the Soviet Union shipping the US? I can't think of any natural resource, and they certainly weren't shipping us military equipment or food. So what was it, precisely? Air? |
I'll give you a list tommorow. I have to check book.
quote:
Believe me, even a single destroyer takes a lot more effort than a tank, or even a bunch of tanks. |
Oh really? Are you serious? No, It's just can't be.
You think here should be people who don't understand this?
quote:
In spite of this concentration on shipbuilding, however, the US outproduced the Soviets by a ratio of greater than 2 to 1 in aircraft production, and this total included around 90,000 strategic bombers, of which the Soviet Union had virtually none. |
Give me a TOTAL number of aircrafts in both armies to compare. T O T A L in 1945.
quote:
Of course, this assumes that Moscow would have been retaken. I don't necessarily agree that it would have been, especially if Typhoon succeeded in wiping out all of the defenders, rather than just most, leaving the new conscripts no veterans in their ranks. |
You still don't understand. Germans lost about ONE MILLION soldiers in Moscow battle. You portray Moscow battle as -" the winter has come and Germans start to run away". It's bs David, B S.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Are you sure that it is writen in Russia? More likely its writen on West, by Russian desident, who wanted to make some $$$ and write a story for western, how they wanted to hear it? |
No, it was said by Zhukov in the 1960s.
quote:
As for comments, why you replaced part of text with word "further"? Perhaps you wanted to hide smth? |
No, they are two separate quotes.
quote:
But in any case, Zhukov was a strategist, a soldier, not an economist. |
First of all, using that argument validates my argument against FDR.
Second of all, saying that one of the highest ranking generals in the Red Army (who was later defense minister under Khrushchev) is not qualified to talk about the effects of Lend Lease upon the military forces he controlled is preposterous. Further, it isn't propaganda because it was said privately.
quote:
We didn't need those thing. We fought on land, not on sea. |
Again you miss the point. The US put so much effort into shipbuilding, sacrfices were made in other areas. If they were concentrating on ONLY LAND AND AIR POWER, as the Soviet Union was, you can't deny that the US would have far outproduced the Soviet Union.
quote:
Give me a TOTAL number of aircrafts in both armies to compare. T O T A L in 1945. |
I'd have to look that up, but it isn't really relevant to the point that the Soviet Union was far outproduced by the US.
quote:
You portray Moscow battle as -" the winter has come and Germans start to run away". It's bs David, B S. |
Yes, the Germans lost a lot of men. But the fact remains, if they had launched the attack on Moscow earlier instead of going for Kiev, they probably would have taken it. Everyone else here admits this, why won't you?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:23
|
|
For Che:
quote:
Sandman, every history of the Russian revolution discusses the German occupation of Western Russia. While the occupations proved a tar baby for the Germans, the Germans didn't leave the Russians unpunished. They allowed Tsarist generals to establish new armies in the occupied territories, and they areas provided a base of operations for the Whites against the Reds. It took the Russians years and millions of lives to retake the formerly occupied areas. |
I don't dispute this. What I dispute is your suggestion that if the Germans had withdrawn all their troops they would have flattened the Western Allies.
My main reason is that their conquests were held by poor quality divisions. These divisions would not have been much use for the offensive, led as it was by elite stormtrooper divisions. These elite units took heavy casualties attacking average Allied units, and they were trained and equipped for attack. The old men of the Eastern divisions could scarcely be expected to attack Allied lines and achieve anything of note. Furthermore, they would have consumed resources which could have been given to the stormtroopers, such as food, ammunition and rail transport.
For Floyd:
Context:Anyone without a patriotic axe to grind knows that it was the SU's industrial base which was the key factor in their victory. This stuff about lease-lend is pure fantasy.
quote:
If you want to talk about a massive industrial base, look at the US, not Russia. Russia was puny in comparison. Russia's victory was more due to America's industrial and economic base rather than its own. |
What a silly response. This is akin to me replying to someone talking about American naval victories by saying 'yes, but Britain had a bigger navy'. At a long stretch I'd say that the SU's war production was half of America's, but that is certainly not 'puny'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
What a silly response. This is akin to me replying to someone talking about American naval victories by saying 'yes, but Britain had a bigger navy'. |
But Britain didn't have a bigger navy, or at least not a more powerful one.
Further, it wasn't a silly response. It made the point that no matter how big you think Soviet industry was, US industry was much bigger, and it was US industry (and agriculture) which, through Lend Lease, sustained the Soviets and allowed their eventual victory.
quote:
At a long stretch I'd say that the SU's war production was half of America's, but that is certainly not 'puny'. |
No, not puny in absolute terms, but puny in relative terms.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
Sandman,
quote:
My main reason is that their conquests were held by poor quality divisions. These divisions would not have been much use for the offensive, led as it was by elite stormtrooper divisions. These elite units took heavy casualties attacking average Allied units, and they were trained and equipped for attack. The old men of the Eastern divisions could scarcely be expected to attack Allied lines and achieve anything of note. Furthermore, they would have consumed resources which could have been given to the stormtroopers, such as food, ammunition and rail transport. |
You're absolutely right on this point, in my opinion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
US industry was much bigger, but the lend lease program was not the critical factor for the soviet victory. |
Then I suggest you re-read the thread. Pay particular attention to the two quotes by Zhukov.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
It sure has come up just as you said. But it's just another person battling for lend-lease like you. It's not particularly convincing. |
Fortunately I'm quoting a book with an author, not some random guy on the Internet.
quote:
Alternatively, we could accept that Zhukov didn't know that in a severe situation, the SU could have started using less efficient fertiliser derived explosives, like the Germans actually had to do. |
Yes, they could have done that. And they could have also done without Lend Lease food, and eaten grass and mud. And marched a thousand miles through the snow without boots, without Lend Lease boots or locomotives or rail lines. And used wood to build their tanks and airplanes, instead of high quality aluminum and steel supplied by the US. And used poor quality substitutes instead of the over 100,000 tons of natural rubber sent by Great Britain.
But I think that in any case, you are making my point for me. Germany was defeated economically and industrially, and was forced to use poor substitutes for various raw materials they couldn't get enough of. Germany also lost the war.
Go figure.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
War supplies from the West were important to Russia but I intensely dislike this idea that somehow this undercuts the Russian achievement in driving the Germans out of their country, liberating Eastern Europe and taking Berlin. |
Yeah, most Russians don't like the idea either. "Liberating" Eastern Europe my ass - just another form of brutal dictatorship in reality.
And as to Berlin, the US and British could have been there first, it was political considerations that forced them to allow the Soviets to take Berlin.
quote:
It is one of the greatest feats of arms of all time, a heroic event and at the same time a tragedy of epic proportions. 20 million dead. |
Yes, it was a great feat of arms. That great feat was made possible because of Lend Lease, though, more than anything else - without US resources, which the Soviet Union simply did not have enough of, especially after having their agricultural areas in the Ukraine and the Donets Basin overrun, I fail to see how it would have been possible for them to defeat Germany.
quote:
So shut up Floyd, you amateur expert
There are so many dimensions to this which you clearly are simply not mature enough yet to see |
Yeah, OK. This coming from the guy who's post basically consists of "Russian achievement...liberating Europe...greatest feats of arms....heroic event....I'm moved by it..."
Post some facts, not rhetoric.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
 |
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Yeah, most Russians don't like the idea either. "Liberating" Eastern Europe my ass - just another form of brutal dictatorship in reality.
|
quote:
And as to Berlin, the US and British could have been there first, it was political considerations that forced them to allow the Soviets to take Berlin. |
That's utterly preposterous, if the Americans/Brits faced even half the troops the Soviets were up against on the Eastern front they would have been stopped dead in their tracks. Look at how bad the battle of the bulge set back the westerners. And those troops were just a drop in the bucket compared to the numbers on the eastern front.
quote:
That great feat was made possible because of Lend Lease, though, more than anything else - without US resources, which the Soviet Union simply did not have enough of, especially after having their agricultural areas in the Ukraine and the Donets Basin overrun, I fail to see how it would have been possible for them to defeat Germany. |
I thought we established long ago in this thread that the American supplies were only 5% of the Soviet total, therefore an inconsequential footnote to the Soviet's victory. Moreover, there has been some talk that the Soviets didn't actually start recieving shipments until '42, when the most critical threat had already passed. Come on Dave, you know I love you, but stop beating this dead horse.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
That's utterly preposterous, if the Americans/Brits faced even half the troops the Soviets were up against on the Eastern front they would have been stopped dead in their tracks. Look at how bad the battle of the bulge set back the westerners. And those troops were just a drop in the bucket compared to the numbers on the eastern front. |
You are arguing two separate things. First, you say that it is "preposterous" to state the US could have been in Berlin first. Then, you support that with another argument - that if the US faced the number of troops the Soviets did, they would have been stopped.
That argument does not refute my position in the least.
The validity of that argument itself is also doubtful. Volkssturm and tank-hunters on bicycles weren't gonna stop the US any more than they stopped the Soviets. US and British air power also dominated the battlefield, and could rip up any large concentrations of armor the Germans wanted to put together.
Further, the US Army of 1944 was not the US Army of 1942 - they were certainly capable of defeating the Germans. As to your specific Battle of the Bulge example, part of the reason the Germans went so far at first was due to weather grounding Allied airpower and the fact that they were initially only facing relatively new US infantry divisions, and managed to retain the element of surprise.
But come on - launching a counteroffensive by scraping together the last of your reserves against vastly superior, well-supplied forces with air supremacy and numerical superiority is too monumentally STUPID to be considered a possibility to begin with. So I guess you have the US on the fact that they shouldn't have underestimated the depth of Hitler's stupidity.
quote:
I thought we established long ago in this thread that the American supplies were only 5% of the Soviet total, therefore an inconsequential footnote to the Soviet's victory. Moreover, there has been some talk that the Soviets didn't actually start recieving shipments until '42, when the most critical threat had already passed. Come on Dave, you know I love you, but stop beating this dead horse. |
The 5% figure had to do with the overall dollar amount, not overall production. If you look over the figures I already posted, you'll see that Lend Lease shipments of AFVs and (to a lesser extent) aircraft were not all that decisive, but that is not the case at all in terms of things such as raw materials/resources, locomotives, railroad track, food, etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Therefore, the Battle of Moscow was won solely by the Soviets. |
I can buy that, as long as you concede that the weather at the time had at least as much to do with the German defeat as Soviet resistance did.
quote:
The Germans achieved no major successes in 1942, while the Soviets built up many new armies for the winter counter-attack. When those newly built armies entered the battle, German troops were in almost constant retreat, enomously outmanned and outgunned, with every counterattack easily defeated. |
A few points. First of all, the SU's ability to transport troops up and down the front and to various locations depended to a large degree upon locomotives and railroad tracks - of which well over 80% of each were supplied by the US.
Secondly, the SU's ability to supply these armies depended to a significant degree upon Lend Lease. US food shipments throughout the war were enough to feed an army of 12 million for five years, for example. Lend Lease also provided much of the ammunition and explosives for these armies.
Third, the SU's ability to build these armies in the first place depended to a significant degree upon Lend Lease, particularly in Lend Lease raw materials. As I've pointed out before, large percentages of coppor, steel, aluminum, etc., were given to the Soviet Union. Also, Lend Lease accounted for most of the SU's complex and versatile machine tools.
Fourth, the SU's ability to operate these armies depended to a significant degree on Lend Lease. Hundreds of thousands of trucks were provided - trucks of a much higher quality than domestically produced ones. Further, large percentages of aviation fuel were provided by Lend Lease.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-10-2002 15:07
|