Well appart from that and the other 6 types of canned meat, making a grand total of 1,549,195 tons of canned meat alone! But what the information on the website provided by Gerry does show, is that despite being on a war footing themselves the US (As well as Canada and Britain) were still able to provide a very substantial amount of supplies. Anyone who says that they did not make a substantial contribution to the Soviet war effort has to be living in another world, no matter what the films say! I'm not sure what brainwashing went on in the west during the cold war, but I'm assuming that it's not as much as it was in the east. The difference of a 'free press' in the west managing to topple major political leaders while in the Soviet Union the press followed the party line or closed. Zhukov has yet to come up with any real evidence to support his assertions that the Soviet Union could have done everything on it's own and the rest of the allies were purely secondary. I agree that they had their successes and applaud their achievments, but without the support of lend lease from the rest of the allies, the masses of German troops held away from the eastern front by the mere threat of invasion and the drain on the German war effort once the invasion had been successful, I believe that the story in the east could have been very very different.
Shall I mention the massive French financial investment in Russia pre-1914, which arguably precipitated the outbreak of European conflict in 1914 and also allowed the Russians to survive to fight the Germans for over 3 years before their surrender?
Originally posted by DirtyDick@Jan 8 2005, 09:51 PM Shall I mention the massive French financial investment in Russia pre-1914, which arguably precipitated the outbreak of European conflict in 1914 and also allowed the Russians to survive to fight the Germans for over 3 years before their surrender? [post=30545]Quoted post[/post] You could mention it, but I'm sure that Zhukov will tell us that he saw in a russian film that it didn't happen and we are still brainwashed by the western press. Or is that me being a little cynical?
From: http://www.battlefield.ru/library/lend/intro.html "In general, military aid to the Soviet Union offered a great help in the 1941-43 but becomes insignificant at the end of war with the Soviet industry growing." And of course before you even finish reading the post, you will begin typing "... but the Soviet industry would not begin to grow if it wasn't for the aid, and the Soviet Union would be defeated in the first place if it wasn't for the aid, etc etc etc". Wrong! Shortly after Operation Barbarossa, the backbone of the Soviet industry, moved deep into Siberia (it was the only logical thing to do). Any attempt by the Nazis to destroy it would not be possible for the simple and obvious reasons of stretching the lines beyond safe and efficient measures would quickly become vulnerable to ambushes and the overall timing of re-supplying would become a tragedy of its own. Would that result on more casualties and defeats [on both sides]? Sadly Yes. Will that affect the outcome of the war? No. In terms of obsolete, the fact is that aside from the Sherman and a few other land vehicle, most vehicles that were shipped could not withstand the harsh Eastern Front conditions and were not only inefficient but also broke down at times too fast. Now of course it is not in US’s interest to adapt to “Russia’s War”. But the question “Were they shipped because that's all the USA could provide?” with the answer of “No” also brings up the question of “Why didn’t the US enter the war and provide troops?” Whatever the answer maybe, it should be directed to millions who were killed before the United States entered the war.
Originally posted by Zhukov@Jan 9 2005, 01:25 AM In terms of obsolete, the fact is that aside from the Sherman and a few other land vehicle, most vehicles that were shipped could not withstand the harsh Eastern Front conditions and were not only inefficient but also broke down at times too fast. Now of course it is not in US’s interest to adapt to “Russia’s War”. But the question “Were they shipped because that's all the USA could provide?” with the answer of “No” also brings up the question of “Why didn’t the US enter the war and provide troops?” Whatever the answer maybe, it should be directed to millions who were killed before the United States entered the war. How can something be obsolete when it was being used by the rest of the allies until the end of the war? Just because it wasn't suitable for conditions in a Soviet winter doesn't mean it wasn't any good. Are you suggesting that the US should have designed a tank for arctic conditions specially for sending to the Soviet Union for the lend lease program? They were sending the best they could when there were plenty of other fronts they needed equipment. It was supposed to be providing aid, helping out, not doing it all for you. And as for the suggestion that they should have sent troops to the Soviet Union to fight there? They were fighting in the Middle East, the Far East and Preparing for the invasion in the west, that seems to be enough commitment when you have to agree, that one resource that the Soviets had plenty of was manpower. I have to agree that the Soviets suffered terrible losses, but you have to agree that it was much to do with the human wave attack tactics as anything else. Had Stalin not eliminated most of his better Generals ther might have been more scope for a better outcome. You really should try to use valid and logical rather than schoolboy like argument if you wish to get some of your more valid point across. If originally you wanted to point out that the Soviet Union's part in the victory over the Axis Powers was understated, it was lost in the angry anti american retoric and the sugestion that D Day was not a significant event in history. Nobody is putting the Soviet contribution down. All I would ask is that you recognise the contribution made by ALL the other allies.
Originally posted by plant-pilot+Jan 8 2005, 11:56 PM-->(plant-pilot @ Jan 8 2005, 11:56 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by Zhukov@Jan 9 2005, 01:25 AM In terms of obsolete, the fact is that aside from the Sherman and a few other land vehicle, most vehicles that were shipped could not withstand the harsh Eastern Front conditions and were not only inefficient but also broke down at times too fast. Now of course it is not in US’s interest to adapt to “Russia’s War”. But the question “Were they shipped because that's all the USA could provide?” with the answer of “No” also brings up the question of “Why didn’t the US enter the war and provide troops?” Whatever the answer maybe, it should be directed to millions who were killed before the United States entered the war. How can something be obsolete when it was being used by the rest of the allies until the end of the war? Just because it wasn't suitable for conditions in a Soviet winter doesn't mean it wasn't any good. Are you suggesting that the US should have designed a tank for arctic conditions specially for sending to the Soviet Union for the lend lease program? They were sending the best they could when there were plenty of other fronts they needed equipment. It was supposed to be providing aid, helping out, not doing it all for you. And as for the suggestion that they should have sent troops to the Soviet Union to fight there? They were fighting in the Middle East, the Far East and Preparing for the invasion in the west, that seems to be enough commitment when you have to agree, that one resource that the Soviets had plenty of was manpower. I have to agree that the Soviets suffered terrible losses, but you have to agree that it was much to do with the human wave attack tactics as anything else. Had Stalin not eliminated most of his better Generals ther might have been more scope for a better outcome. You really should try to use valid and logical rather than schoolboy like argument if you wish to get some of your more valid point across. If originally you wanted to point out that the Soviet Union's part in the victory over the Axis Powers was understated, it was lost in the angry anti american retoric and the sugestion that D Day was not a significant event in history. Nobody is putting the Soviet contribution down. All I would ask is that you recognise the contribution made by ALL the other allies. [post=30552]Quoted post[/post] [/b] You misunderstood my last post completely. But I I don't have the time to reply to everything (after all I am the only person posting one opinion against a number of induviduals posting the other, I hope that you understand that). I will just quickly mention that the I clearly stated in my original post the following: ... of course it is not in US’s interest to adapt to “Russia’s War”. With that leading to the question: "Why didn’t the US enter the war and provide troops?” to which you gave a rather strange response: "they should have sent troops to the Soviet Union to fight there". You can ship equipment for use by the Soviet Forces, you don't ship American troops, for crying out loud. What I was talking about was the opening of the much awaited "Second Front". And merging with the rest that you mentioned, yes it is sad as far as human life goes. But speaking of "schoolboy" arguments, you are insulting all surviving Eatern Front veterans by using the term "human wave", as is it is a false term, and is the common idea that most Westerners have about the Eastern Front, and often shows that they know nothing about the Eastern Front. May I ask you to define such term (the way you see it) and provide me with a source that confirms the vast usage of it on the Eastern Front. Originally posted by plant-pilot@Jan 8 2005, 11:56 PM Nobody is putting the Soviet contribution down. Assuming that you leave in the United States, ask as many random pedestrians on the street as possible (another assumption is that they care to comment and know nothing about World War 2 history), and you will prove yourself wrong. <!--QuoteBegin-plant-pilot@Jan 8 2005, 11:56 PM All I would ask is that you recognise the contribution made by ALL the other allies. I already have, re-read my very first post (the last paragraph).
Originally posted by Zhukov@Jan 9 2005, 01:32 AM after all I am the only person posting one opinion against a number of induviduals posting the other, I hope that you understand that Zhukov I wouldn't say that. From what I've read before on this thread there have been others backing you in some of your opinions. However the manner in which you have been replying to posts may have lost you some support and may have discouraged others from backing you up. I don't know what internet forums you have used before but this has always been a friendly one with very little argument between users. Although you may feel you are being targeted by others because you hold different views it is probably the case that people were provoked into replying by the way you phrased your posts. You have mentioned in a couple of posts that you don't have time for a full reply. If you don't mind the suggestion perhaps you should take some time before replying for two reasons: 1. You can provide a full reply which would help your argument. 2. You can read over your post to see if you have written anything which although seem perfectly reasonable to someone from the former Soviet Union may unintentionally irritate someone from the 'West' Regards Adam ps quite a few western sailors went through a lot of hardships to deliver some of the lend-lease equipment previously discussed so I'd rather you weren't so disparaging about it.
Originally posted by Zhukov@Jan 9 2005, 01:32 AM Assuming that you leave in the United States, ask as many random pedestrians on the street as possible (another assumption is that they care to comment and know nothing about World War 2 history), and you will prove yourself wrong. [post=30554]Quoted post[/post] If you ask random pedestrians on the street in any country about WWII, you may be lucky and find someone who knows some history. You are much more likely though to find someone whose knowledge falls somewhere between clueless and not interested on one extreme and vague interest, but little knowledge on the other. Unfortunatly, I know plenty of people whose eyes will sort of glaze over at the mention of anything other than the latest TV soap episodes or the football scores. By the way, Zhukov, I take it that you realise that this site is based in the UK, not the US, as are most of the members, not that a member's nationality or location is something many of us worry about.
Dear Zhukov, I'm sorry you believe that I misunderstood your post. I read through it carefully several times before writing and posting my reply, I can only hope that you will assume some of the blame in not ensuring the clarity of your points as ambiguity cannot be blamed on the reader. I agree the final paragraph or post script of your first post stated When I thank veterans, I thank them all along with the civilians who died for the war effort and the partisans. While a typical American for instance only thanks his own countrymen, sometimes managing to forget even the British and the French. Shame! But despite those sentiments you have insisted to be scathing on the contribution of the US, whithout which many very prominent (and unbrainwashed!) histroians agree that the war may not have been won. You belittle the lend lease program when the US, Canada and Britain were sending a vast amount of arms food and equipment at a time they also required it and at a great loss to shipping and the sailors of the Arctic fleet. This aid, and remember that is what it was, not a replacement for the Soviet industrial output, helped while the Soviets moved their heavy industries to Siberia out of the reach of the German airpower and enabled the Soviet arms industry to get back into full production. My comments on 'human wave' attacks was not in any way meant to have been an insult to the many brave soldiers who lost their lives in them, but more as an indication that if many of the fine Generals who were purged between the wars by a despot dictator, had been around it is quite possible that other more conventional tactics may have been employed with a lower casualty rate. As a soldier I know that supressing and out flanking a position is always the best option, getting up and charging it, no matter how brave, is always the last. You asked me for my definition and any proof of the Red Army using human wave attacks? DefinitionWilker was a veteran of Stalingrad and had witnessed Soviet attacks like this before. He personally held out against 14 human-wave attacks. The fighting was very similar to that at Stalingrad, with the Soviets seemingly unconcerned by their heavy losses. Wilker commanded a battalion of Hitler Youth and Volkssturm, augmented by Gottlieb's soldiers and newly arrived paratroops. The Soviet tanks halted when they entered the minefield and began to reverse their course. Wilker's boy soldiers attacked the remainder with Panzerfausts and Molotov cocktails. Still, the German defense buckled. Konev's weight of numbers--rather than any grand strategy--was winning the day. From the site There are many instances of Human Wave Attacks where line after line of troops with arms linked and singing advanced against machine gun fire. When the first 3 lines had been slaughtered the 4th or 5th lines sometimes fled only to return next day in fresh, doomed lines. Slaughter on this scale could continue for days leaving piles of bodies to be climbed over and the cries of the wounded. It is no wonder that German soldiers were psychologically affected by such terrible and pointless carnage. From this site A few examples and I can remember the pride expressed by a Soviet veteran on the award winning documentary "A World At War" how on some assaults the 'brave Red Army heros followed the first couple of waves without weapons and picking them up off the fallen'. I think you'll agree that that sort of action is only for the very brave, but it's not a tactic employed by a general who is in any way worried about the number of casualties. Finally I would like to say that I'm sorry if you feel that everyone's ganging up on you. I have said it a few times, that the people in the west apreciate the Soviet contribution, and the people on this site more than most, yes, even the americans. But you should read and take note of the comments made by Brownag. The replies and the support you get from other posters depends as much on how you say something as to what you actually say.
Dear Zhukov, Your quote from an excellent site: "In general, military aid to the Soviet Union offered a great help in the 1941-43 but becomes insignificant at the end of war with the Soviet industry growing." Note, the emphasis is on "military aid." With the building of facilities east of the Urals, the priority of needs to assist the Russian war effort (as expressed in meetings preparatory to the Teheran Conference - November 1943) changed more to the supplying of raw materials, for example the need for substantial quantities aluminium, and less on the delivery of finished products. I respectfully suggest you take time to read (and digest) the correspondence exchanged between Stalin/Churchill/RooseveltTruman, before continuing to argue the indefensible. For example: http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/LendL.html At the D-Day 60th Anniversary ceremonies in Caen last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin described American lend-lease to the then-Soviet Union as the first stage of a "second front." This was a remarkable admission. A quote from an article by a Russian historian, "It is not necessary to minimize its importance in our victory in the Great Patriotic War." Also remember that Marshal Georgi Zhukov was not allowed to say publicly what he said privately — that without American lend-lease, Russia's triumph over the Wehrmacht would have been impossible. It would be useful (to what could and should be an exchange of informative postings to the Forum) if you would consider accessing previously closed Soviet archives and new research by Russian scholars. These documents doubtless influenced President Putin's judgment at Caen. Finally, it not the intention of those who have responded to your postings to "gang-up" on you - there are many fora where this may be experienced, but this is not one of them. Cordially, Gerry Chester
Originally posted by laufer@Jan 19 2005, 07:02 PM Damn! I've miss such a discussion. [post=30770]Quoted post[/post] Just curious, but do you agree with Zhukov's comments? Or do you think that he over did it a bit?
Very nice debate about Russian war and Allied forces contribution in general... Now it is kinda sad people do not really talk in numbers, to have a better aprehension of what really happened in the tranches. So, as far as we know, about 26M russians got killed all together, soldiers, women, children, everything, this being more than Romania's population all together, that's quite a number though... Now the operation Overlord came up really late, for Stalin at least, this is another reason for Stalin to claim on eastern Europe countries they took over later on at Yalta's conference... At which Churchill and Roosevelt too have less to dispute on it. Because Stalin always pressed west side to open the other front, while the so called allies where not so prepared to engage German strong machine at that moment, as we talk about 1942, 43, etc ... They were able to do it after 3 years of serious push overs made by Moscow. Now at some point, Overlord operation was quite decissive, in spliting Axis forces over continent, so russians to really get a major advantage on theirs side. it is difficult to say that Germany could have really conquer UK "Tanks don't really float" though - and Germany was not so developed on Sea, except for subs part. It is also difficult too, in saying that without western support, russians could have really pushed so strong axis forces, this is due to the fact, no matter how many guys got on the eastern side, Germany was still a fierceful force, and they could have end up in a stallmate at most, up to a point, but with greater casualties for russians part. It is somehow certain that Germany was not to win the battle in Russia, considering the wide indepth front they opened there, proven by clear documents and proves, this being caused mainly by stupid interference of politics into Wermacht business. There is also a common fact that on eastern front we faced up mainly a battle in between egos of Stalin and Hitler, that cost life of uncountable people. See battle for Stalingrad, Leningrad, etc, then for Berlin, irronically funny. While Cold War wouldn't have been developed without stupid usage of A Bombs, this is clearly. Now common saying is that those had to be used to save many americans lifes, but few people know that US gov had to use it, to not let russians take over Japan at that time. Because russians indeed primarily took over Kamchatka region, in the famous 6 days campaign, that stormed a teritory the size of Europe, from japanese forces, then they started to occuppy "nicely" and steady Kuriles islands, coming from the north, and if US would have pressed the sign of surrender with them, probably in about 2 weeks, we would have seen there the famous workers flag flying in the wind, and this would have been a terrible blow for all Pacific War. Funny how history evolves ...
Originally posted by laufer@Jan 19 2005, 01:02 PM Damn! I've miss such a discussion. [post=30770]Quoted post[/post] That's what you get for missing staff meetings! Anyway, Zhukov hasn't re-appeared lately. Such is life.
Funny! From Eastern European (but not Russian) point of view Soviets and/or Russians importance is often overplayed. I don't mean just WWII. It is probably like Angie wrote (by the way: I’m sorry for your Marxist traditions :P ): “I think that there is a tendency in all countries to talk up the part played by their own forces. After all, most people do not give a hoot for the details of history, but they know that "we won the war".” It’s understandable tendency but what makes me sad is that we can’t agree about some basic facts. For instance: number of casualties. I thought it was c. 22 M of Soviet citizens (which is enormous number anyway), someone else 26 M. I’m not going to comment Zhukov’s opinion about value of Lend-Lease or educational role of Soviet cinematography . I can only say that many people in Poland can’t imagine Red Army during WWII without American trucks and jeeps or cans of tushonka. I’m also sorry that European Allies couldn’t offer a small part of this help to Poland before Sep. 1939. Yeah, I know what you’ll tell me. Another national point of view… regards
Originally posted by laufer@Jan 24 2005, 04:59 PM I can only say that many people in Poland can’t imagine Red Army during WWII without American trucks and jeeps or cans of tushonka. I’m also sorry that European Allies couldn’t offer a small part of this help to Poland before Sep. 1939. Yeah, I know what you’ll tell me. Another national point of view… regards [post=30863]Quoted post[/post] I'm not too sure about the Americans, but I know that the first British soldiers to see action in WW2 were in training teams assisting the Polish Army in Poland. It may not have been enough help, but there was help there.
Britain did help Poland.Along with France,they declared war on Germany.Britain declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939 after Hitler, declined by his silence to give assurances that German forces would be withdrawn from Polish Territory.This was also before Stalin's Red Army took their half of Poland. The background to Poland's plight, we now know lies in the Treaty of Non Aggression in late August 1939.Designed to establish German - Soviet friendship,it determined the territorial questions for Eastern Europe, namely the partition of Poland and the Soviet exclusive influence and freedom of action in Finland,Estonia, Latvia and Bessarabia.Germany were to be left unchecked in influence over Lithuania. The German-Soviet the trade agreement of the same time gave Germany assured supplies of food and raw materials until the invasion of Russia.It must have been hard for Britain to accept that two counter ideologies were "together in bed"for some mutual reason. It would be always difficult for any alliance to function across the terroritory of an enemy so from this point of view for Britain and France to assist Poland on their home battlefield would be rather difficult to accomplish. Where Britain and France can be criticised is that after the declaration of war, they sat on German's borders for nearly 9 months without taking Germany to task.Had the two Allies attacked at this time, the course of the war may have taken a different course.Of course at this time, France was said to have the best army in Europe but we know now that in comparsion the British Army had been neglected in terms of investment. This later point is not intended as an excuse and both armies failed in the test from 10 May 1940. After the fall of Poland,Britain was a safe haven for its people and provided a base for continuing the fight against Nazism.It has to be said here that Poles under Russian hands were not allowed to participate in the fight against Nazism until Russia was invaded by the Germans in June 1941.Poles in Russian hands choose to join Polish forces based in Britain after leaving Russia via Persia. Stalin was unprepared for the German invasion and refused to believe it had happened.He trusted Hitler more that his own subordinate leadership.His purge of the Red Army General Staff in 1937 has been reported to have contributed greatly to the inadequate state and readiness of the Red Army in the early stages of invasion.His action was one of self preservation of the leadership against what were probably imaginary opposition. What is the latest firm figure of Soviet civilian and military casualties? I have seen not 22 million,not 26 million but 30 million.It is an enormous total and reflects the Nazi ideology of the Slavs being sub human and the wholesale slaughter that went on for nearly four years on the Eastern Front.Regarding Poland, its intelligentsia were targets of both the Nazi and Soviet systems. It is going to be extremely difficult to agree with a total figure of Soviet casualties. Many sources differ but it does not alter the tremendous contribution that Russia played in Germany's downfall.However victory over Nazi Germany was not the result of one nation's efforts,it was a team effort (declared to be the "United Nations of the free world") with the winning side having the advantage in terms of superior technology and numbers coupled with the ability to protect their own war manufacturing base and homelands.Without US and British help providing war material, Russia would have found it very difficult to beat Germany in the long term.As it was Stalin only entered an Alliance with the Western Powers in 1942 when it looked as if Russia could not survive without additional help. For Poland, all the war achieved was that its borders were pushed westwards,its country was occupied and became part of a buffer zone which with along with East Germany gave Stalin some perceived security against the "Imperialists. Perhaps he was thinking of the last intrusion into White Russia and the north east Baltic, that of 1919.
Originally posted by Harry Ree@Jan 24 2005, 09:30 PM Britain did help Poland.Along with France,they declared war on Germany.Britain declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939 after Hitler, declined by his silence to give assurances that German forces would be withdrawn from Polish Territory.This was also before Stalin's Red Army took their half of Poland. I do know that we couldn't expect some British Expeditionary Corps landing on Baltic coast and I respect and appreciate what Britain has done for Poland :wub: . What I mean is rather material and financial support before the war. British-Polish alliance was too fresh to be "consummated”, but the France should be more generous. On the other hand, without these assurances Poland might not decide to confrontation. :ph34r:
My reading of the agreement between Poland and Britain and France was that the Poles would hold the Germans for at least a fortnight which would give the Allies time to launch an offensive in the West. That was the agreement made in the summer of 1939. The Poles consequently held out for 4 weeks whereas the British and French failed to move. In this case I'd highlight the malaise in the French command as the real culprit, France as well as Britain (particularly with Chamberlain in charge) was not psychologically ready for war in September 1939. Consequently, you could look at the guarentees given out to Poland and Romania in the summer of 1939, which was a very unBritish thing to do, and ask yourself how much the British and French actually believed they could honour these. In effect you could say that the British and French failed to hold to their side of the agreement and to a degree you can understand why the Poles retain some bitterness towards this.
