Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump rattles NATO, questioning its value, assailing Germany

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ljadw View Post

    1 Yes , besides the question was not about the Red Army but about the Ostheer .The truth is that more trucks would not have helped the Germans in the East .It is even more than possible that more trucks would have created more problems for the Germans and for the Soviets .
    2 Absolutely no : winning the Battle of the Atlantic would not prevent the Soviets to go to Berlin .Besides :what means winning the Battle of the Atlantic ? The only thing we know is that if British imports were reduced to 0, Britain would have given up .But we know also that this scenario was impossible .

    The truths are that
    more operational U Boats does not mean more sinkings
    more sinkings did not mean less imports :British imports were lower in 1944 than in 1940 ,while the sinkings were higher in 1940 than in 1944
    less imports does not mean starvation : there were less imports in 1944 than in 1940, but no starvation :1940 :41,9 million ton,1944 : 25,1 million ton.
    Britain was less dependent on imports during the war than before the war .
    There is no realistic scenario possible where Germany could win the Battle of the Atlantic and where this victory would result in the surrender of Britain .
    I maintain that, had the Axis allocated more resources into the Battle of the Atlantic, thereby strangling all seaborne communication between the Eastern and Western hemispheres. then the war might have been lost.

    They didn't:-so it wasn't.

    The trucks were bound for the Soviet Union, by the way, and such were their value that Stalin himself sent a letter of appreciation to the Studebaker company. There were,of course, many other warlike stores sent via Murmansk and through Persia. Whether they were critical in the winning of The Great Patriotic War we have no means of knowing, just as we have no means of knowing exactly how crucial the strategic bombing of Germany was to the achievement of final victory.
    "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
    Samuel Johnson.

    Comment


    • The Blockade affected Germany badly. There was a severe food deficit in Germany. The first year the Germans slaughtered most of their farm animals they had fed grain before. The second year Germany still could not feed her people. Mobilizing the male population affected the harvests and getting the harvest to the rail centers. The grain that did grow, rotted in the fields. There was nowhere to buy grain for the civilians. The British made sure no excess food went to Holland, Denmark, Norway or Sweden. Even if the German Army seized food in occupied territory, people starved. The food deficit continued into 1917 and 1918. The Troops also began to be affected as the food shortage. Health declined and the troops began to get ill easily. The Spanish Flu Epidemic hit both sides and many died. My Great Grandmother also died in this plague.

      In WWII the Blockade also affected Germany badly. There was still a food deficit. Seizure of countries helped ease it a bit as the food went back to Germany. Farm workers were also shipped in and that helped. By 1944 there was starvation in Germany.

      The USSR also had problems. The rail transport system was severely upset. The good news is the rail system went into the direction of Moscow. The USSR lost much of its best farm land, and it was hard to send food from the unoccupied areas to feed every area. The Germans replaced the rail system rails. The Red Army had to fix them back to the Soviet standard. The Canadians and Americans sent SPAM and Wheat to help feed the Red Army. In a number of stories I read about the Red Army invading Germany, there was mention that the troops could get ammunition, but had problems getting food to the Front. The Front Line soldiers talked about living off the land. As long as the troops kept moving forward, this worked. If they stayed long enough the food caught up to them.

      Pruitt
      Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

      Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

      by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post

        I maintain that, had the Axis allocated more resources into the Battle of the Atlantic, thereby strangling all seaborne communication between the Eastern and Western hemispheres. then the war might have been lost.

        .
        Your mistake is
        1) assuming that by allocating more resources into the Battle of The Atlantic,Germany could strangle all seaboard communications between the Western and Eastern hemispheres
        2) assuming that strangling these communications would result in a German victory in the East .


        Comment


        • Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
          The Blockade affected Germany badly. There was a severe food deficit in Germany. The first year the Germans slaughtered most of their farm animals they had fed grain before. The second year Germany still could not feed her people. Mobilizing the male population affected the harvests and getting the harvest to the rail centers. The grain that did grow, rotted in the fields. There was nowhere to buy grain for the civilians. The British made sure no excess food went to Holland, Denmark, Norway or Sweden. Even if the German Army seized food in occupied territory, people starved. The food deficit continued into 1917 and 1918. The Troops also began to be affected as the food shortage. Health declined and the troops began to get ill easily. The Spanish Flu Epidemic hit both sides and many died. My Great Grandmother also died in this plague.

          In WWII the Blockade also affected Germany badly. There was still a food deficit. Seizure of countries helped ease it a bit as the food went back to Germany. Farm workers were also shipped in and that helped. By 1944 there was starvation in Germany.

          The USSR also had problems. The rail transport system was severely upset. The good news is the rail system went into the direction of Moscow. The USSR lost much of its best farm land, and it was hard to send food from the unoccupied areas to feed every area. The Germans replaced the rail system rails. The Red Army had to fix them back to the Soviet standard. The Canadians and Americans sent SPAM and Wheat to help feed the Red Army. In a number of stories I read about the Red Army invading Germany, there was mention that the troops could get ammunition, but had problems getting food to the Front. The Front Line soldiers talked about living off the land. As long as the troops kept moving forward, this worked. If they stayed long enough the food caught up to them.

          Pruitt
          About WWI : you are giving the blockade an importance it never had >Take wheat : in 1913 the domestic wheat production was 4,656,00 tonnes ,the imports 2,008,000 tonnes,thus the imports were only 30,1 % of the total consumption and not all imports were lost at the start of the war .Thus importance of the blockade ?
          Take copper :the imports were 196000 tonnes, the domestic production 45000,did the loss of the copper imports have any effect on the defeat of the Marne and the Tannenberg victory ?
          There is no proof that the food shortage was caused by the blockade, it is more than possible that it was caused by the mobilisation of the farmers .
          To know the results of the blockade ,one should calculate the % of food that was imported before the war and how much % of this could be replaced during the war by domestic production . This applies also for raw materials .
          This applies also for the UBoat blockade in both WWs and it applies also for the food situation in the SU during WWII,where a general starvation was prevented, not by LL, but by increasing the domestic production.
          PS : I like to see a proof for the claim that there was in 1944 starvation in Germany .

          Comment


          • Going wildly off-topic, but one of the reasons Finland sided with nazis was food. It's one of the most overlooked reasons, as without help from Germany Finland would have faced a certain famine. 1941-42 winter was the worst and for example POW mortality skyrocketed
            Wisdom is personal

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
              The Blockade affected Germany badly...
              But only in real world and history. We've reached the point when beliefs will be supported beyond any form of rationality

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ljadw View Post

                1 What effectiveness?
                2 The importance of the Atlantic battle is mostly a myth .
                So Churchill didn't know what he was talking about but you do. Got it, great!

                Minister Winston Churchill later wrote "The only thing that really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril.".

                Who should I believe?
                "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ljadw View Post

                  About WWI : you are giving the blockade an importance it never had >Take wheat : in 1913 the domestic wheat production was 4,656,00 tonnes ,the imports 2,008,000 tonnes,thus the imports were only 30,1 % of the total consumption and not all imports were lost at the start of the war .Thus importance of the blockade ?
                  Take copper :the imports were 196000 tonnes, the domestic production 45000,did the loss of the copper imports have any effect on the defeat of the Marne and the Tannenberg victory ?
                  There is no proof that the food shortage was caused by the blockade, it is more than possible that it was caused by the mobilisation of the farmers .
                  To know the results of the blockade ,one should calculate the % of food that was imported before the war and how much % of this could be replaced during the war by domestic production . This applies also for raw materials .
                  This applies also for the UBoat blockade in both WWs and it applies also for the food situation in the SU during WWII,where a general starvation was prevented, not by LL, but by increasing the domestic production.
                  PS : I like to see a proof for the claim that there was in 1944 starvation in Germany .
                  Ya, 1913 data, right in the middle of the war. IN 44 there was a shortage of food. My wife can tell you personally put I don't care to let her converse with just anybody.
                  "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                  Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                  you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post

                    Ya, 1913 data, right in the middle of the war.
                    2nd Balcan War ? It was the onlt war in Europe and Germany didn't participated in it.
                    There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

                    Comment


                    • So then it does or does not apply to pre war Germany imports and it isn't relevant on war shortages. Tow or three years later.
                      "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                      Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                      you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                      Comment


                      • I am going to try to provide a link to an article I found in a quick google search:

                        Food and nutrition (Germany), by Belinda Davis

                        It did not work for me but you should be able to call up the article.

                        Pruitt
                        Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                        Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                        by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post

                          Ya, 1913 data, right in the middle of the war. IN 44 there was a shortage of food. My wife can tell you personally put I don't care to let her converse with just anybody.
                          Shortage of food is NOT starvation

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post

                            So Churchill didn't know what he was talking about but you do. Got it, great!

                            Minister Winston Churchill later wrote "The only thing that really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril.".

                            Who should I believe?
                            He never heard of rhetoric: the same Churchill said also (in his memoirs ! ): the only thing that is important is to defeat Rommel .

                            Comment



                            • When Germans can't get Potatoes is it really a shortage?

                              Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                              Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                              by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                                I am going to try to provide a link to an article I found in a quick google search:

                                Food and nutrition (Germany), by Belinda Davis

                                It did not work for me but you should be able to call up the article.

                                Pruitt
                                I know the source, but it is not proving that the blockade caused starvation and that starvation caused defeat .
                                Ferguson ( and everyone knows where his sympathies are ) said in The Pity of War P276 :'Was Germany starved into defeat ?The idea is one of the most tenacious in modern European historiography,yet it is almost certainly wrong .''
                                Then there is the following fact : Britain was more depended on imports of food than Germany (70% against 30% ) ,but there was no starvation in Britain ,the reason being that British agriculture had a big reserve of non cultivated grounds and was thus able to produce as much as before the war, while the German agriculture had no reserves .
                                The same thing happened in WWII .
                                In both wars Britain was less dependent on imports than in the period before .

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X