Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Contribution of allied armies

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

  • Contribution of allied armies

    By the same token, the Soviet armies did not "defeat Hitler" - they fought against the German armies. In fact, the Soviet armies did not defeat Hitler or Germany - they were part of a very large alliance that fought hard to obtain victory. For example, had not Britain and America lost hundreds of aircraft and thousands of aircrews in order to maintain around-the-clock bombing of German held territories and critical war industries, the Soviet armies could not have advanced. Had not the Allies agreed to stop their advance into Germany, Russian forces would not have been first to reach Berlin. Germany was not defeated by any one country, but by all of the Allies working together.

    The Soviets lost an enormous number of people, but that was because Stalin and his generals threw away lives without thought, and Stalin killed millions more with his purges and his constant pogroms. Not all of the WWII deaths of Soviets can be blamed on the Germans; a lot of those deaths can only be blamed on the Soviet leadership itself.

    Funny, but I remember reading a history of the Murmansk convoys from Britain, and the fact the Soviet armed forces kept the sailors, who had risked their very lives to bring those vital supplies to their Russian allies, confined to a very small area near their ship, as if they were enemy prisoners. The moment the shuip was unloaded, the crew were ordered back on board and made to move out of the harbor. Many merchantmen felt that their sacrifices were not at all appreciated by the Soviets.

    Lend Lease also supplied hundreds of telephone switchboards and thousands of miles of field telephone wire, as well as trucks, food, medicines, textiles, construction materials, fuel and a multitude of other critical items. Most importantly, Lend Lease allowed the Soviet Union to concetrate on manufacturing weapons, instead of having to produce all of the critical items it needed to fight the war. America and Britain, on the other hand, had to feed, clothe and equip their nations and their armies, air forces and navies, and STILL manufacture enough extra to send to Russia - a lot extra because allowance had to be made for the estimated losses to U-boats and raiders.

    Lend Lease was an incredible accomplishment, which could not have been accomplished by any other nations, and without which the Soviet Union would have probably lost their part of the war, and yet, immediately after the war, Stalin defaulted on well over $90 million dollars of war debt to the United States alone. That's certainly a strange way to repay allies.
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

  • #2
    Originally posted by MountainMan
    By the same token, the Soviet armies did not "defeat Hitler" - they fought against the German armies. In fact, the Soviet armies did not defeat Hitler or Germany - they were part of a very large alliance that fought hard to obtain victory.
    It was not me who wrote the name of the article -

    For example, had not Britain and America lost hundreds of aircraft and thousands of aircrews in order to maintain around-the-clock bombing of German held territories and critical war industries, the Soviet armies could not have advanced. Had not the Allies agreed to stop their advance into Germany, Russian forces would not have been first to reach Berlin. Germany was not defeated by any one country, but by all of the Allies working together.
    Agree.

    The Soviets lost an enormous number of people, but that was because Stalin and his generals threw away lives without thought, and Stalin killed millions more with his purges and his constant pogroms. Not all of the WWII deaths of Soviets can be blamed on the Germans; a lot of those deaths can only be blamed on the Soviet leadership itself.
    you are right in some scale but...

    Only an example - in 1942 the Germans had 10 division in Africa and 200-250 divisions in USSR. And it was the German Army of 1942, not the German Army of 1944. Isn't it enough? May be it is the explanation of the huge Soviet losses in comparison with the Allied casualties?

    Yes, Soviet generals made mistaks but the Western generals also not all were genius and they also made mistakes. It ios possible only to recall how Rommel with small forces fought against numerous British forces in Northern Africa.

    Ohh, it was OK for Westerners when Rommel with 5 divisions beated the main Allied forces. But when 200 German divisions beated the Soviets so it was, according the opinion of the Westerners, because the Soviet commanders were bad.

    Funny, but I remember reading a history of the Murmansk convoys from Britain, and the fact the Soviet armed forces kept the sailors, who had risked their very lives to bring those vital supplies to their Russian allies, confined to a very small area near their ship, as if they were enemy prisoners. The moment the shuip was unloaded, the crew were ordered back on board and made to move out of the harbor. Many merchantmen felt that their sacrifices were not at all appreciated by the Soviets.
    Do you know what was the Soviet Murmansk region in that time? It was unexplored region. Imagine, that you have a small town with 10,000 habitants and with a small goods station where suddenly a few tens of ships arrived with a large amount of sailors who need to eat, to sleep and so on. And imagine that the enemy aircraft bombs the town very often. And imagine that the main task of the town was to unload cargo and to send it in other places as soon as possible.

    Murmansk region in 1942 was not like San-Fransisco, Leningrad or Sevastopol.

    Lend Lease also supplied hundreds of telephone switchboards and thousands of miles of field telephone wire, as well as trucks, food, medicines, textiles, construction materials, fuel and a multitude of other critical items. Most importantly, Lend Lease allowed the Soviet Union to concetrate on manufacturing weapons, instead of having to produce all of the critical items it needed to fight the war. America and Britain, on the other hand, had to feed, clothe and equip their nations and their armies, air forces and navies, and STILL manufacture enough extra to send to Russia - a lot extra because allowance had to be made for the estimated losses to U-boats and raiders.
    Yes, while the Soviet soldiers fought in Smolensk, Moscow, Kharkov, Sevastopol, Leningrad, Stalingrad and so on, the British were making the hard work for preparing of the cargoes to the Russians (it is my IRONY statement). How can you compare it?

    Lend Lease was an incredible accomplishment, which could not have been accomplished by any other nations, and without which the Soviet Union would have probably lost their part of the war, and yet, immediately after the war, Stalin defaulted on well over $90 million dollars of war debt to the United States alone. That's certainly a strange way to repay allies.
    If the Soviets didn't stop the Germans in Moscow and Stalingrad what was the modern world? How many Lend-Lease cargo is the price of the life of a Soviet soldier? The US were prepared its Army in 1942, 1943 and in a half of 1944 while the Soviets fought against the Germans.

    To the point, Lend-Lease was not a gratuitous help, US made money on it. I read that even NOW Russia is paying off a debt of Lend-Lease of WWII-time!!!
    Last edited by Andrey; 22 Mar 05, 03:20.

    Comment


    • #3
      A couple of comments, I will write more this morning as I am tired. Didn't the US actually want to land in 1942 in France but were talked out of it by the Brits? A second front in France might have been possible in 1943 instead of going into Italy and may have helped the Soviets more?? Plus the US Lend-lease was sent to other countries, like the UK itself and China.

      I am very amazed at how the Soviets moved their factories to the Urals...and Central Asia too if I am correct. I am curious if the Germans ever tried bombing the rail-lines to the front, I asked this before I think. The Luftwaffe couldn't interdict these supplies.

      More later....

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by joea
        I am curious if the Germans ever tried bombing the rail-lines to the front, I asked this before I think. The Luftwaffe couldn't interdict these supplies.
        The Germans bombed railroads very furiously.

        Comment


        • #5
          Well I wanted to write some thoughts but having done a search on hte site many of the issues were already brought up, plus having read Andrey and Amvas' posts I know they are aware of these issues. I just wanted to clear up...the US Army/Brit Commonwealth was fighting before D-day. Italy was a hard slog for Allied forces in 1943, even if possibly a mistake...yes I know for sure the number of soldiers involved was far smaller than for the Soviets. The war against the U-boat had to be won as well as the Luftwaffe, plus even if it was second priority there was a war with Japan which took resources from Europe. So the western allies paid a price in blood too...


          but much less than the Soviets... and what is worse is, while the Brits had some bombing, the US and Canada had no real civilian causalties. The Russians had their cities, bombed occupied, villiages and inhabitants destroyed, slave labour, and POWs. We must not forget also I have a Serbian friend whose father was in a forced labour camp...westerners were treated better even in the same camp than Eastern European or Soviets.

          Good discussion, I am glad the Cold War is over if nothing else for this free exchange of information and views...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by joea
            Well I wanted to write some thoughts but having done a search on hte site many of the issues were already brought up, plus having read Andrey and Amvas' posts I know they are aware of these issues. I just wanted to clear up...the US Army/Brit Commonwealth was fighting before D-day. Italy was a hard slog for Allied forces in 1943, even if possibly a mistake...yes I know for sure the number of soldiers involved was far smaller than for the Soviets. The war against the U-boat had to be won as well as the Luftwaffe, plus even if it was second priority there was a war with Japan which took resources from Europe. So the western allies paid a price in blood too...
            I know what the Western Allies did in 1941, 42, 42 and 44 - :-).

            In the last years of USSR I tried to prove for others that the Western Allies fought and didn't "sit and wait who will win" like the Soviet propaganda spoke - ;-).

            but much less than the Soviets... and what is worse is, while the Brits had some bombing, the US and Canada had no real civilian causalties. The Russians had their cities, bombed occupied, villiages and inhabitants destroyed, slave labour, and POWs. We must not forget also I have a Serbian friend whose father was in a forced labour camp...westerners were treated better even in the same camp than Eastern European or Soviets.
            Correct.

            Comment


            • #7
              Ok, of course there were some westerners in the US for example (a senator??) who wanted to let "Hitler and Stalin" kill each other off...

              Andrey what do you know about the alliance the USSR proposed to Great Britain and France against Germany? I don't know much from the Russian side, but read that the rejection of this alliance, esp. by Poland who did not want to ally with Russia is what led to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact...I have read contradictory information about this period. Maybe a new thread.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by joea
                Ok, of course there were some westerners in the US for example (a senator??) who wanted to let "Hitler and Stalin" kill each other off...
                Yes, but it was not an ordinary senator. It was Harry Truman who became the president in 1945!!!!

                He said something like this:

                "It is good for America when the Russians and the Germans are killing each others. So we must to help for loosing side for the war weakened the both sides more and more".

                This phrase was very well known in USSR (at least in 80th years).

                Andrey what do you know about the alliance the USSR proposed to Great Britain and France against Germany? I don't know much from the Russian side, but read that the rejection of this alliance, esp. by Poland who did not want to ally with Russia is what led to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact...I have read contradictory information about this period. Maybe a new thread.
                Do you have "Russia at War" bu Alexander Werth? It is described in some scale in that book.

                May be, I'll translate it from one other (Russian) book but it'll be uneasy...
                Last edited by Andrey; 25 Mar 05, 21:12.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Andrey
                  Yes, but it was not an ordinary senator. It was Harry Truman who became the president in 1945!!!!

                  He said something like this:

                  "It is good for America when the Russians and the Germans are killing each others. So we must to help for loosing side for the war weakened the both sides more and more".

                  This phrase was very well known in USSR (at least in 80th years).



                  Do you have "Russia at War" bu Alexander Werth? It is described in some scale in that book.

                  May be, I'll translate it from one other (Russian) book but it'll be uneasy...
                  I will look for "Russia at War" .. I am sure it is in our library. Damn do I feel stupid...I thought it was Truman, but wasn't sure. It explains some of the changes in policy in 1945...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by danjon
                    Obviously given the numbers of germans and allies the russian casualty rate would be high, but as the germans used to say the russian way of putting out a fire is to throw bodies on it...
                    to be fair tho numbers was a soviet asset that the germans couldnt match
                    It is a German myth which is repeated by the Western propaganda...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Andrey
                      It is a German myth which is repeated by the Western propaganda...
                      So, what explains the incredibly high percentage casualty rate amongst Red Army troops when compared with other combatant nations?
                      Signing out.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Full Monty
                        So, what explains the incredibly high percentage casualty rate amongst Red Army troops when compared with other combatant nations?
                        You mean "all the other nations combined" don't you. This is being discussed in another thread already.
                        If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by danjon
                          ...As stated yes the Russians fought the bulk of the german army, but they had a massive army to start with on a large land border, the British on the other hand did not have either and its army was both stretched and had to be rebuilt and equiped. Whilst the Us also had to equip,train and ship over to europe whole armies and attendent supplies, as well as fight Japan.
                          Obviously given the numbers of germans and allies the russian casualty rate would be high, but as the germans used to say the russian way of putting out a fire is to throw bodies on it...
                          to be fair tho numbers was a soviet asset that the germans couldnt match
                          US mobilised Army+Air force= 11,260,000 and 4,183,000 Navy and 669,000 M.C. about 16.3 million altogether

                          UK 5.8 million

                          USSR (my estimate is about 21 million or plus 5 million)

                          Germany 17 million

                          So I think US+GB is about the same strength than the USSR alone.
                          a brain cell

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Full Monty
                            So, what explains the incredibly high percentage casualty rate amongst Red Army troops when compared with other combatant nations?
                            I made some math on the figures (damn statistics):

                            USA+GB lost (died) 600,000 on 11 months fighting against the 1/3rd of the German Army (which was NOT the original German Army)
                            (I didn't count the Free France forces, Polish, Canadian, Australian, etc... sorry)

                            SU lost (died) 9.6 million on the first 35 months (let's call it first phase) fighting against the 3/4th of the German Army

                            SU lost (died) 1.5 million on the last 11 months (let's call it second phase) fighting against the 2/3rd of the German Army (which was NOT the original German Army)
                            (I didn't count the Bulgarian, Rumanian, Yugoslavian forces)

                            So the monthly died rate recounted to count as if they fought against the WHOLE German Army.



                            USA+GB virtual monthly rate = 600,000/11 * 3 = 163,000

                            SU (first phase) virtual monthly rate = 9,600,000/35 * 4/3 = 365,000

                            SU (second phase) virtual monthly rate = 1,500,000/11 * 3/2 = 204,000

                            One more interesting the advance speed on the West and on the East was almost the same (so the steam was out many time on the West, too, not only the East).

                            Of course these are only statistics, but in the last phase the Soviet casualties seems a little bit high, but not so high as expected. In the first phase it is horrible, but it was the cream of the German Army. (Balck many times referred in the last year, that this Army is far not the same as the original one.)
                            a brain cell

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by freightshaker
                              You mean "all the other nations combined" don't you. This is being discussed in another thread already.
                              No
                              Signing out.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X