It would not with Churchill, however, during the debacle at Dunkirk there was one last attempt by a group of appeasers who coalesced around the figure of Lord Halifax to seek terms and exit the war. This all happened at a two day stormy cabinet meeting in May 1940. Halifax lost and would become British ambassador to the US later that year, a typical British maneouvre where Halifax would not lose face in being givien this post but at the same time be far enough away from any other attempts to be used as a focal point for the remaining appeasers. thnx smc, so, we became to point where we can say that UK could not accept the truce with Churchill wich means for me that UK could not accept the truce at all. Can we put in this question a dot?
i knew there were lots of trucks sent via lend-lease,i have been looking at my lads old school atlas today,although its metric.difficult to work out how far stalingrad to berlin is,but i reckon the soviets were very glad they got those trucks.i never knew they were given that many,my god.yours,lee.
Well said., with one exception. In 1941 the spring was an unusually wet one. The invasion would have been caught up in the Spring thaw in which roads were mud rivers etc. It couldnt have gone any earlier than it did. But a fine post nonetheless!!! I believe that March and April were wetter, but May and June were typical, is this correct? Hitler had originally planned an invasion about 2 months earlier, it was the Balkans affair that disrupted this. I think an invasion even 6 or 7 weeks earlier would have been devastating, as with more troops & aircraft the first 3 months would have been even worse for the Russians. It took about 4 months for the Germans to approach Moscow/Leningrad/Rostov, (late June - late October) so if the Germans could get this far in 3 months, (with the extra troops etc), if they launched early May, they could approach Moscow/Leningrad/Rostov in mid August instead. Big difference!
First of all guys I am becoming to idea to consider such threads like provocation and u know what have been done with provokers at war. Sorry if I have offenced someone but I'm little bit tired of this discussions that have no end and have no future. The second is that how could UK accept the truce with Churchill, ah? Please explain me. Yes I believe his attempt may have been provocation, however most of us do not get offended easily (I hope). I have asked him how he thinks Russia could have survived with No help from UK/US, including tying down a 40% of the German/Italian divisions in 1941. He seems to be unable to answer me.... It would not with Churchill, however, during the debacle at Dunkirk there was one last attempt by a group of appeasers who coalesced around the figure of Lord Halifax to seek terms and exit the war. This all happened at a two day stormy cabinet meeting in May 1940. Halifax lost and would become British ambassador to the US later that year, a typical British maneouvre where Halifax would not lose face in being givien this post but at the same time be far enough away from any other attempts to be used as a focal point for the remaining appeasers. thnx smc, so, we became to point where we can say that UK could not accept the truce with Churchill wich means for me that UK could not accept the truce at all. Can we put in this question a dot? No Db_t, it is not the same in UK as in Russia, (or even in the USA). In the US the President stays in power for 4 years (barring impeachment). In the UK (Canada, Australia, NZ too) if the Prime Minister (ie Churchill) loses a confidence vote in the house even by one vote that is the end of the Government. It does not seem possible now, but at the time Churchill's position was far from secure. There are at least 3 scenarios that could result in a neutral UK in 1941 1.) {worst case} The Nazi's successfully invade Britain in 1940, removing them as a threat to Nazi Europe (perhaps UK might have a "vichy" government, Churchill flees to Canada) 2.) The Commons votes to accept a truce with Germany, even over Churchill's objections. 3.) A German attack against the south coast is repulsed, however with huge losses to the Royal Navy. The House might realize that the Germans could try again, but the Navy can't be easily replaced. Many in the Commons would not want to fight it out with Hitler, if it meant an end to Britain's Navy & colonial empire.
The thought that has been going through my head as I read on this thread , is that I heard someone say somewhere , that Churchill and the British generals , because of their WW1 experiences , couldn't bring themselves to contemplate the sort of casualty numbers that the Russians suffered . Yet there were still so many men lost , for example , on the Arctic convoys . And throughout the world . Just everlasting gratitude to everyone who did fight and prevail .
I would actually like to post my two cents worth..... Looking at the figures of vehicles and weapons, raw materials and supplies that went to aid the Spviets, I can come to no other conclusion than that it was a team effort.....just look at the number of willys Jeeps (63,000....fully 10% of total war output)....and 465,000 six wheeled prime mover trucks......amongst others.....What these prized equipment consignments did was to allow Russian factories to pull out all stops and continue to produce armoured fighting vehicles at the eventual rate of over 2,000 units a month (the T-34)....This is production on a scale that German factories, lacking fully automated production techniques at this stage, just could not match, (something Speer tried to rectify without succeeding.).. It is highly questionable whether Russia's industrial output could have coped with having to build all these other ancilliary vehicles as well as the massive amounts of tanks and SP guns they turned out....highly questionable... And that leads me to conclude that Soviet victory was NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT LEND LEASE.......you may throw tomatoes, but the figures speak for themselves....and don't forget, the Allies were supplying Russia in the Winter of 1941, when their own factories were being relocated and turning out NOTHING...... SO...CONCLUSION......TEAM EFFORT to beat the Germans.....This was a scenario that Imperial Russia tried to see to conclusion in the Great War....Failure at Gallipoli changed all that, and resulted in Russia's surrender....in fact Norman Dixon in his book attributes Russian Great War collapse and Revolution to a failure to provide sufficient rolling stock to tranport food for the civilian population, taken up as it was by the immence FODDER consumption for the many cavary units the old Imperial Army operated....and they were a spent force by late 1916.... TEAM EFFORT FOR WWII....maybe some of you have other figures for numbers of tanks and vehicles delivered mto Soviets, and raw materials....and the 150 TONS of officers Gold Braid that they requested in early 1943.....all these things could NOT be supplied by native Russian industry......comments?
Firstly, Hello again to everybody :P Secondly as a bulgarian, and a man who LOVE russian people and Russia, i should say that soviet red army did the biggest damage to the german army. The Reich didn't like slavianinc race at all so they killed, rape etc. while there advance deeper in Soviet Union.So the war betwen Russia and Germany become personal. But the other allies have fought really hard and pay with millions of human lives.I aways hate when somebody says someting a bit like that " We won the war not our allys, they just fight there but we were the main power", T-34 such words are disrespectful to any of the veterans in the forum who risked there life, its offending for people who have grandfathers or fathers who were fighting against the nazis. Dani
The 465.000 six wheeled prime mover trucks included as I have seen the statistic as "over 400.000 US General Motors 24 ton lorries supplied to the Soviet Union under Lend Lease.This vehicle became the mainstay of supply logistics of the Allies on the Western and Eastern fronts. The German thrust into Russia depended on the usual road supply lines but there was a distinct lack of metalled roads in prewar Russia. Moreover the use of the Russian railway system had a disavantage to the invader in that the Russian railway gauge was wider than the German, meaning that conversion operations had to be introduced in order for German forces to use the railways as part of a supply chain. But these are single elements in the overall contribution to the defeat of German forces on the Eastern Front. Incidentally Speer 's reorganisation of German war industry on his intial appointment of liaison between German industry and the High Command exceeded US output at one stage.
I think I did emphasize the word TEAM effort.....One of Stalin's comments provided by an earlier person have already made the point..... But TEAM EFFORT , in my view, is the key...
As to German production, it had to exceed Soviet as well as American/British production figures to have any chance at all, and consistantly too, not just for a one month or two of the war....
This quotes sources as from the writings of Zhukov. Taken from: Lend-lease (C.C. Jordan) and Yevgeniy could be T-34 it sounds so similar. "Let's go to sources"??!! Why do you repeatedly ignore Richard Overy? Why do you repeated ignore the writings of Zhukov? Once again Yevgeniy chooses to ignore that it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that the USSR would have folded in 1943 without Lend Lease. Marshal Zhukov freely admitted this. I have previously posted portions of "The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military Efforts, 1941-1945" by BORIS V. SOKOLOV, which clearly states that the USSR was all but done for without Lend Lease. Quoting Zhukov: "Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic], we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of American deliveries." Moreover, Zhukov underscored that `we entered war while still continuing to be a backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany. Simonov's truthful recounting of these meetings with Zhukov, which took place in 1965 and 1966, are corroborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov, recorded as a result of eavesdropping by security organs in 1963: "It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and ***could not have continued the war*** . . . we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance." >Most contribution US did for USSR is selling Soviets factories in 1930's. >All large Soviet tank factory were designed and build with American help >in 1930's. As one can see nothing change sense then. Americans would >cooperate with any menace that would pay top dollars. However in this >case, Thanks A Lot! I can dig out the exact contribution by America, these numbers are from memory, but are still very close. These are the percentages of the total available to the Soviet military and industry that were supplied by America: 80% of all canned meat. 92% of all railroad locomotives, rolling stock and rails. 57% of all aviation fuel. 53% of all explosives. 74% of all truck transport. 88% of all radio equipment. 53% of all copper. 56% of all aluminum. 60+% of all automotive fuel. 74% of all vehicle tires. 12% of all armored vehicles. 14% of all combat aircraft. The list includes a high percentage of the high grade steel, communications cable, canned foods of all types, medical supplies, and virtually every modern machine tool used by Soviet industry. Not to mention the "know-how required to use and maintain this equipment.
... "The Role of Lend-Lease..." by BORIS V. SOKOLOV... in what year it was published ?... seems like - sometime in the early 1990's. at that moment - Russia was down and begging the West for mercy, so the self-humiliating publications like this were in abundance back then. as for me - i would never believe Zhukov ever had to say things Sokolov claims he said. at least, in his memoirs - Zhukov never falls into such a hysterical tone. .
Again i say that its disrespectful to say that the others have just help in the war.Most of the people in the forum are from England ,and they are proud by what they ancistors did, some of there familys were killed trying to save there country.As a russian (and even as a slavianian) you should know thats it's great honor to die for the motherland. Dani
in what year it was published ?... seems like - sometime in the early 1990's. at that moment - Russia was down and begging the West for mercy, so the self-humiliating publications like this were in abundance back then. as for me - i would never believe Zhukov ever had to say things Sokolov claims he said. at least, in his memoirs - Zhukov never falls into such a hysterical tone. . I have given you a source.....Don't say it is wrong....Prove it is wrong!
' ...thus the victor in WW2 was Russia - meanwhile the US and UK were merely a help providers. agreed ? No I don't think that is correct. T-34, it would have been very difficult if not almost impossible for UK/US to invade Germany without the Russians fighting on the Eastern front. (until the bomb?) Now let me turn this around - suppose that the UK had been invaded or had accepted Hiler's offer of a truce in 1940 and stayed neutral. Do you think that the USSR could have repelled a German invasion against the FULL Nazi resources? The Germans would have 40 - 50 extra divisions, (no need to guard Western Europe against the British) using ALL available airpower, (remember that a big part was tied down by the Commonwealth in France & Med theaters) The USSR would not get any aid from the west, but presumably the Germans could import oil and other resources from S. America, Africa etc, as the Royal Navy is not blockading them. But perhaps the most important point, without British "meddling" in Greece & the Balkans, the Germans could launch Barbarossa months earlier, so that they would be approaching Moscow, Leningrad & Rostov in the summer instead of late October. Do you really think the Russians could have prevailed? I have asked T-34 how he thinks Russia could have survived with No help from UK/US, including tying down a 40% of the German/Italian divisions in 1941. He seems to be unable to answer me.... Or was that just uninformed, provocative, arrogant, ramblings without any basis in fact? Even putting aside the question of material assistance, how do you think the USSR could have withstood the Nazi invasion without the UK & Allies tying down over a third of the Axis armies & air force? Did you take into account the effects of lack of fuel on Germany caused by the Allied blockade? I'll even give you a bonus - without the Royal Navy in the Med, the Axis could sent an army through Persia into the Caucasus, via (pro Nazi) Syria and Mesopotamia. (now Iraq, in April 1941 it had a pro-facsist revolution) Most of the Allied sailiors that died to bring supplies to Russia and to cut off resources from the Axis don't have a grave but they gave their lives for victory just the same. So can you explain haow you think Russia would have survived? I don't think you can.
I have given you a source...Prove it is wrong! then all i'm left with is to recommend you reading Zhukov's memoirs... simply accordingly to common sense Zhukov would never make a statement like that.
looking at my lads old school atlas,my rudimentry rule tells me that the approximate distance between stalingrad and berlin is 2260km,this i can imagine is a long way for the russian army to march,let alone fight whilst starving.imo impossible.yours,lee.
... a long way for the russian army to march,let alone fight whilst starving... but maybe, wars like this are won by those who have to fight in worse conditions ?
