Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

Allied aid to the Soviets was ongoing as of 1940 (to build them up for an eventual war) and continued into 1945.


http://sturmvogel.orbat.com/SovLendLease.html


Lend-Lease as a Function of the Soviet War Economy
by Jason Long

Soviet historians have typically denigrated the Allied efforts to supply the Soviet Union with war material as paltry in comparison with her own production and that it was not essential to the Soviet victory. In armored fighting vehicles this is somewhat true, in aircraft less true and in raw and semi-finished industrial materials this is a bold-faced lie.

Information has appeared recently that put the lie to that old communist claim. Based on Soviet data on war production and Lend-Lease records it is now possible to show just how critical Lend-Lease was to the Soviet war effort. And, in short, the answer is that Lend-Lease allowed the Soviets to focus their own production almost solely on the production of weapons and ammunition. I'll show just how critical was the Lend-Lease connection below.

A number of commodities will be shown below. The totals derived do not include 1940 data and only 1/2 of 1941 and 1945 production. All weights are metric.


-charts/tables follow-






Beaumont, Joan. Harrison, Mark. Accounting For War: Soviet Production, Employment, and the Defense Burden, 1941-1945
Ibid. Soviet Planning in Peace and War Jones.
Sokolov, B. V. "The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military Efforts, 1941-1945"; Journal of Slavic Military Studies, Vol. 7, No. 3, Sept. 94

Soviet historians may have shied from emphasizing Lend-Lease, but frankly that can be understood in light of repeated Western effors, to this day, to downplay the fact that the war was fought and won in the east.

I have seen that link before, and it doesn't back up the claims you made earlier, at least the most outrageous ones.
No respected WW2 historian (like some serious Russian works by Military Historians, or a respected western author like Glantz) would agree that the USSR was screwed without allied aid, or that they had no war economy.

Jason Long's conclusion that the "system would have collapsed" ignores that even his data shows most of the deliveries were well past the "critical" stage of the war, when the USSR survival was all but assured (barring military catastrophe).

TR1 wrote:Soviet historians may have shied from emphasizing Lend-Lease, but frankly that can be understood in light of repeated Western effors, to this day, to downplay the fact that the war was fought and won in the east.

I have seen that link before, and it doesn't back up the claims you made earlier, at least the most outrageous ones.
No respected WW2 historian (like some serious Russian works by Military Historians, or a respected western author like Glantz) would agree that the USSR was screwed without allied aid, or that they had no war economy.

Jason Long's conclusion that the "system would have collapsed" ignores that even his data shows most of the deliveries were well past the "critical" stage of the war, when the USSR survival was all but assured (barring military catastrophe).

I believe Germany was at the least capable of forcing a stalemate in the East up until August 1944 with Operation Bagration and the destruction of Army Group Center.

They had done very well at Second Kharkov and even Third Kharkov. If they could have repeated Second Kharkov a few times, and conducted a full fighting withdrawal, destroying over-extended Soviet Corps and Tank Armies where the opportunity presented itself, they could have easily forced a stalemate.


I think people over-emphasis the impact of Stalingrad. The surrender/destruction of the German forces in North Africa in Tunisia in 1943 resulted in the instant loss of no less than 300,000 of their most seasoned and battle-hardened men. Kursk was yet another blow, and Operation Bagration was, in my opinion, a mortal wound.

Stalingrad was a major blow, but it did not leave them "down for the count" it was something from which recovery was capable, but the necessary steps for recovery were not taken.

In the East, major victory was possible as late as mid 43, and a stalemate was possible as late as mid-44 (August 1944 to be precise). After Operation Bagration all that was possible was retreat after retreat and conducting the best possible fighting withdrawals given local conditions/unit strengths.

GarryB wrote:
I have a book on Soviet tactics from about the 1970s from a guy called Sokolovski or something similar... who was in the general staff. The Soviets certainly remember the painful losses of WWII and were in no hurry to repeat those losses... that is why stalin hung on to Eastern Europe... it was his buffer from the west and was intended to ensure if there was a land battle for WWIII that it would not take place on Soviet Territory like most of WWII did.

I have documentary evidence from the 1920s-1940s (original documents) that demonstrate and show that nations such as Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc, had undertaken extreme anti-Jewish measures/laws. I believe that those nations were handed over to the Soviets, to become part of the Com-Bloc, so that they could be punished for raising their fists against their Jewish populations.

Basically the Red Army was brought in to put down Romanians who wanted Romania to be kept for Romania, Hungary for Hungarians, Bulgaria for Bulgarians, etc.


The Jews (Lenin, Trotsky, Uritisky, Zinovieff, Kamenev, etc) who hijacked Russia, killed the royals, massacred a huge portion of the Russian/Ukrainian/Polish/European Christian population, established a massive state that was able to operate as an enforcer to enforce Communist/Jewish will in Eastern Europe.

This state used its forces, the Red Army, to crush Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc, and other patriotic Eastern nations. If Romanians had not risen up against the usury oppression of the bankers, but had instead willingly gone along with socialism-communism, it would not have been invaded. But the Romanians cast their lot in with those who were in favor of national sovereignty.


No doubt a controversial theory, but one for which a great deal of evidence exists. It is prett well-established that Stalin was likely a Jew from Georgia (an area with a high Jewish population), it is known that all three of his wives were Jewish, his children married Jews, his top advisers such as Lazar Kaganovich were Jews, the NKVD elite (Yagoda, Beria, etc) were Jews or probably Jews.



My basic view of WW2 is that it was a conflict between those who favored national sovereignty, the idea of a nation being for the volk who inhabited the nation and for their benefit, not the benefit of capitalists and internationalist bankers, and those who wanted a globalist New World Order. The New World Order won.

It speaks volumes that at least one MILLION Eastern Europeans, be they Soviet/Russian POWs, Ukrainian Cossacks, etc, willingly signed up with the Germans. I only wish that there had been more German officials who were in favor of extending friendship and kindness, and building a genuine free and anti-communist Russia and Ukraine, instead of those who wanted to conquer, exploit, and take resources.

In Deutsche Soldaten sehen die SOWJET-UNION, letters written from German soldiers in the Soviet Union, written from June 1941 to December 1941 (during the war, from hundreds of different soldiers in different units in different locations- not post-war propaganda revisionism after the fact), the picture/theme is clear. Everywhere the Germans went they were hailed as liberators and found people who had suffered miserably under the Soviets. Several dozen letters tell the same general theme (but with different details/experiences/perspectives) of what happened in Lemberg. In Lemberg the NKVD was driven out just as the Germans began to arrive due to a massive uprising of armed Ukrainian civilians. However, before the NKVD left they massacred at least 5,000 people, nailing children to walls, stuffing people into small rooms (think the Black Hole of Calcutta) to be suffocated, chopping of arms and legs of those who refused to fall back with the NKVD so as to be recruited into the Red Army.

If Germany had conducted a mass recruitment effort in July-August of 1941, with the sincere promise of creating a free Russia and a free Ukraine, run by Russians and Ukrainians, they would have had seen several million people sign up within weeks of the announcement being made.


Controversial indeed, but we can discuss this at length if you wish.

1.) How could it have forced a stalemate, when the trend post Kursk was retreat retreat retreat? Repeating Khrakov is easy to say between us, almost impossible to achieve in reality, at that point in the war. Repeating those defensive successes against the invigorated RA of 1943 would have been a total order indeed, easily is the LAST word that comes to mind. The Germans tried, they commited the majority of their and allied forces to the east, it did no good. Soviet Union was too mobilized, and its army too competent.

2.) Stalingrad overemphasized? I disagree. First of all, take a look at total numbers and vehicles exerted by the Germans in the offensive and relief operations at Stalingrad. North Africa PALES in comparison to this.
The German losses @ Tunis were 1.) Not all Germans. Consider how many were local troops and Italians. 2.) What basis is there for calling them the most hardened and seasoned? The North African front, in truth, was a tiny German sideshow compared to their real efforts in the East.

Now of course German loss did not seem inevitable to everyone post Stalingrad, so in essence I do agree that is is incorrect when people look at the war post Stalingrad as a "given".

3.) What is basis for major victory being possible in late to mid 1943? If anything, the absolute opposite is true- by late and mid 1943 the initiative turned sharply away from the Germans (across the board, not just in the USSR), and they could only offer partially effective, time delaying responses to Soviet offenses.

4.) I similarly see no basis for assuming stalemate was possible in 1944. In fact, I don't think any (save the most deluded + optimistic) German high commanders would agree with you - in their memoirs most were aware of inevitability of defeat by this point. There were also many strategic operations that led up to, and without which Bagration was not possible. You can't look at Bagration alone, but within the context of Soviet large offensives post 1943. Even well before Bagration the Germans lost any ability to launch a major counter offensive in any sort of depth.

BTRfan wrote:


I only wish that there had been more German officials who were in favor of extending friendship and kindness, and building a genuine free and anti-communist Russia and Ukraine, instead of those who wanted to conquer, exploit, and take resources.

I am not going to respond to the rest of your Jewish tirades, but be very very carefull what you say - that line itself is bullshit, offensive, and would get your nose broken if you said it to any Russian.

Keep your friendly German officials to yourself please. I find your characterization of the Soviet struggle against Germany to be absolutely offensive.

Can't believe people actually believe this nonsense - there is a reason no accredited, respected ww2 historian has this outlook.

I don't want to get banned, so thats the last of my replies in this thread.

TR1 wrote:1.) How could it have forced a stalemate, when the trend post Kursk was retreat retreat retreat? Repeating Khrakov is easy to say between us, almost impossible to achieve in reality, at that point in the war. Repeating those defensive successes against the invigorated RA of 1943 would have been a total order indeed, easily is the LAST word that comes to mind. The Germans tried, they commited the majority of their and allied forces to the east, it did no good. Soviet Union was too mobilized, and its army too competent.

2.) Stalingrad overemphasized? I disagree. First of all, take a look at total numbers and vehicles exerted by the Germans in the offensive and relief operations at Stalingrad. North Africa PALES in comparison to this.
The German losses @ Tunis were 1.) Not all Germans. Consider how many were local troops and Italians. 2.) What basis is there for calling them the most hardened and seasoned? The North African front, in truth, was a tiny German sideshow compared to their real efforts in the East.

Now of course German loss did not seem inevitable to everyone post Stalingrad, so in essence I do agree that is is incorrect when people look at the war post Stalingrad as a "given".

3.) What is basis for major victory being possible in late to mid 1943? If anything, the absolute opposite is true- by late and mid 1943 the initiative turned sharply away from the Germans (across the board, not just in the USSR), and they could only offer partially effective, time delaying responses to Soviet offenses.

4.) I similarly see no basis for assuming stalemate was possible in 1944. In fact, I don't think any (save the most deluded + optimistic) German high commanders would agree with you - in their memoirs most were aware of inevitability of defeat by this point. There were also many strategic operations that led up to, and without which Bagration was not possible. You can't look at Bagration alone, but within the context of Soviet large offensives post 1943. Even well before Bagration the Germans lost any ability to launch a major counter offensive in any sort of depth.

If the Gestapo and SD had been able to vigorously root out the traitors, such as Oster and Canaris, in 1942-1943, things would have improved. It is hard to achieve major victories when the leaders of Abwehr (Army/Military Intelligence) are traitors who are trying to bring down the government.

Germany could have used a purge of the intelligence agencies, it would have greatly helped things.


In Tunisia some excellent German paratrooper units were destroyed/surrendered, along with portions of the Herman Goerring Fallschirm Panzer unit.

By 1943 Hitler had grown to distrust many of the generals because a number of them had been exposed as turn-coats and deceivers. In 1941 he had wanted Leningrad to be the main priority, believing that the capture of Leningrad was the most important, Leningrad and Kiev were to be the two primary objectives for the summer of 1941, with a drive on Moscow (via Minsk-Smolensk road) to follow only after Kiev and Leningrad were taken. The third stage of the campaign was to be the drive to the Volga at Stalingrad and the move into the Caucuses. However the generals were able to sway him into going for broke against Moscow, even though Leningrad was arguably more important than Moscow. The capture of Leningrad no later than say October 1941, instead of the costly siege, would have freed up 400,000 to 600,000 German soldiers for deployment elsewhere to aid in operations for October-December.

As far as I can tell, there are two main campaigning seasons in Russia. The first is from May to August, or maybe May to September, or basically "whenever summer begins and the muddy roads/paths dry up after having been turned into seas of mud from the spring melting of the winter snows/ice" and the second is December/January to March, or whenever the muddy roads from the autumn raids freeze to where they are hard enough to move equipment/vehicles men over them.

Taking Russia in a single campaign, by a western approach, is greatly difficult. The two blow/two campaign method is likely what is needed. All the first blows need to fall between May and August, then forces on both sides will use the next 6-12 weeks to recover and rest and prepare for phase two. Phase two is the winter phase.

The job begins in May, goes on hold in August/September, and then resumes in December/January, and is completed in March.

Taking Moscow in a single operation is hopelessly optimistic. Moscow should be a target for the second phase, the winter campaign. The summer campaign needs to see the capture of Leningrad (above all), followed by Kiev, Minsk, and as an added bonus, Smolensk and Kharkov.

A lot of generals went out of their way to sabotage Operation Barbarossa by convincing Hitler to go all-out for Moscow when his original thoughts were on Leningrad.



Anyway, as for the situation in 43-44, I believe that Germany could have given ground for time and consolidated their forces into a smaller area, instead of having 1 division covering 10-20 miles (as was the case in some areas of Belarus and Ukraine) they could have abandoned large tracts of land, or conducted fighting withdrawals, back into Poland, while constructing massive fortifications along rivers and other natural terrain features/obstacles. Along the way they would have conducted well-organized rear-guard actions and even engaged in localized counter-attacks and envelopments of over-extended Soviet forces.

But that didn't really happen, so it is all just speculation...

TR1 wrote:

BTRfan wrote:


I only wish that there had been more German officials who were in favor of extending friendship and kindness, and building a genuine free and anti-communist Russia and Ukraine, instead of those who wanted to conquer, exploit, and take resources.

I am not going to respond to the rest of your Jewish tirades, but be very very carefull what you say - that line itself is bullshit, offensive, and would get your nose broken if you said it to any Russian.

Keep your friendly German officials to yourself please. I find your characterization of the Soviet struggle against Germany to be absolutely offensive.

Can't believe people actually believe this nonsense - there is a reason no accredited, respected ww2 historian has this outlook.

I don't want to get banned, so thats the last of my replies in this thread.

I'm not so sure a Russian would attack somebody over such statements...


Russia is one of the few European nations where nationalists can openly gather, speak their minds, and wave whatever flag they wish.

It is a very strange world where we find thousands of Germans waving the Red Flag in May to celebrate their defeat in a war, and then they go on to re-enact the surrender ceremony, while hundreds of thousands of young Russians talk about Mein Kampf and carry banners/flags that are clearly influenced by the Swastika.

Russia seems to value genuine free speech while Western Europe only values gov't approved speech.


Unless my understanding is very flawed, in Russia you can find all sorts of political parties, all sorts of political newspapers, with views on just about everything, many views that would result in a long prison sentence if you tried to promote them in Germany or Britain.

Allied aid to the Soviets was ongoing as of 1940 (to build them up for an eventual war) and continued into 1945.

Why would the western allies send aid to a country that invaded half of Poland?

Lend lease started in 1940 to help anyone who was fighting the Germans, which did not include the Soviet Union till the middle of 1941, and even then decisions about extending lend lease to include the Soviet Union were not made till August or September. Most of the first material to arrive in the Soviet Union was indeed material from the 1940 period as it was stuff the Brits weren't using so they passed it on to the Soviets.

They certainly accepted it, but it was hardly critical to their survival.

The problem with the western view was Soviet secrecy... for most of the post war period most in the west knew of the eastern front from west german military men... who claimed it was numbers and the winter and hitlers orders that prevented them from winning in the East. All the same ignoring that the Soviets had to fight in the same winter conditions too and Stalin made rather more stupid mistakes than Hitler ever did.

Most westerners thought the best Soviet fighters of the war were kittyhawks and hurricanes and that the only main Soviet fighter was the Polikarpov... which they thought was based on an American trainer aircraft.

All of course wrong.

And, in short, the answer is that Lend-Lease allowed the Soviets to focus their own production almost solely on the production of weapons and ammunition. I'll show just how critical was the Lend-Lease connection below.

When your daughter is getting married and you are organising... if you pay someone to do the flowers do you grow some of your own as well, or do you focus on all the other things?

Lend Lease was Paid for, it wasn't aide or charity. There was very little good will involved.

If the west truly wanted to help the Soviets they should have opened a second front in Europe instead if killing old men and children in air raids.

No respected WW2 historian (like some serious Russian works by Military Historians, or a respected western author like Glantz) would agree that the USSR was screwed without allied aid, or that they had no war economy.

The people of the west don't get it... 20 million Soviet civilians dead wasn't incompetance by the red army, it was an attempt at extermination, but the only extermination you hear about in the west is of the jews because they have a loud voice.

The Soviets fought and won not because of lend lease, or Stalin, they fought because the Germans gave them no other choice... there was never going to be an occupied Soviet Union... the people would be eliminated except a few to work the land for the new German land owners.

Jason Long's conclusion that the "system would have collapsed" ignores that even his data shows most of the deliveries were well past the "critical" stage of the war, when the USSR survival was all but assured (barring military catastrophe).

Echos the western and german belief that if Germany had just taken Moscow that the Soviet resistance would have collapsed. The strange thing is that Napoleon captured Moscow... and it didn't do him much good.

If Hitler had gone into the Soviet Union and treated the locals with a bit of respect like he did in France then I am sure many Soviets would have preferred German rule to Stalins rule, but Hitler was just as big an ahole as Stalin.

Ironically the Germans and Soviets were friends till Hitler took power... before 1933 most of the Blitzkreig tactics that both the Germans and Soviets developed (Zhukov displayed them in Mongolia before the fiasco in Finland that largely overshadowed his achievement) were developed and largely based on the fluid moving battlefield experience on the eastern front in WWI where unlike the static trench warfare of the western front was much more mobile.

Ironic that German experience in the trenches and experience against tanks made them realise they make trenches ineffective, combined with the experience on the eastern front probably taught them about the shock of a fast mobile attack and they put it together and created a force that defeated western europe in a couple of weeks.

Actually my appraisal of the situation is that Russia will probably say, "enough is enough, we cannot permit this to continue" and will do something major if the USA blasts their way into Iran, especially if the USA uses nuclear weapons against Iran...

I really don't know... after their reaction to the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia and the Russian reaction to that aggression I really don't think I could guess the US actions regarding Iran. Just to say that an attack on Iran by Israel or the US would be very very counter productive and most likely lead to Iran striving to get what they think they are trying to get now. If Iran really did want nukes there is very little israel and the us can actually do about it. Attacking Iran will only make things much worse... especially if they use nukes themselves... because once that line is crossed I am sure Iran will do everything it can to return the favour.

Pakistan launches major nuclear attacks against Israeli population centers. It is also possible the Pakistani government will refuse to help Iran or go after Israel, in which case it will be toppled by radicals who will then launch the attacks.

Pakistan, like Saudi Arabia are Sunni muslim countries and would rejoice at Iran being attacked because it is a Shia muslim country. The majority of the population in Iraq is Shia and will likely kick US personel out or just murder them, and Iranian aide to the Taleban will likely start which will result in US forces leaving immediately with Afghanistan falling to the Taleban fairly quickly without outside interference.

If things get to this point, there's little reason to believe that Russia won't intervene in a nuclear war going on just south of its borders.

Except Pakistan will not get involved and therefore India probably wont either. Iran will block traffic in the persian gulf which will mean the US will have to send in vessels to keep it open which makes them targets for Iranian forces, but otherwise there will be a lot of international talk, which mostly controlled by the west will mostly be about how Iran no complying led inevidibly to this situation... damn those persians for making us attack them... you know the BS.

Basically Israel has the potential to start the next world war. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Iran's leaders want to develop a handful of nuclear weapons so they can immediately use them against the West.

I don't fully agree... I think the most plausible reason for Iran to actually want nukes is so they don't have to use them... nukes aren't something you use, they are something you have that gives you bargaining power so you are treated with respect at the table. A kid comes to the table with a slingshot and you give him a clip around the ear... he turns up with a handgun and you pull the chair out for him to sit down and offer him a drink.

I don't believe the media that a nuclear armed Iran will be an existential threat to any nation, let alone the USA (or even Israel for that matter, a nation I regard as a "bandit state" and a truly "rogue state" but one which is kept afloat and in power by the king of rogue states, the USA). A nuclear armed Iran will be a positive force for peace in a region rife with conflict and strife.

If we look at recent history it has been the US undermining democracy in Iran with the Shah in the 1970s, and all the embargoes and BS since. The way the US acts you'd think they were the victim of all that crap.

Russia is one of the few powers that can draw a line and enforce it. I think Russia and China should communicate to America, in very simple terms, "if you invade or otherwise attack Iran it will require a nuclear response against the continental United States."

But that is the problem. Russia sees the west as something it needs to deal with... even if they will never be friends, they still need to get along. Russia doesn't want the wests white cowboy hat and shiny star. They don't want to rule the world... they just want to live in it. They see the west breaking rules left right and centre for their own selfish needs, but don't see it as their business or their problem except when it effects them directly.

Russia doesn't want to be world policeman... the US has taken that job itself and it can have it.

Israel is the greatest threat to world peace.

Israel would be nothing without the unwavering support it gets from most of the west. It is in many ways a mini US in the middle of the Middle East. Such a small country would be very vulnerable to WMD attack however, unlike the US.

In the event of an invasion of Iran along the lines of what was done to Iraq, Iran would be morally justified in doing whatever it could do wreck America's ability to wage war against it.

I agree, but there are a few problems... first... if they actually had nuclear weapons they could prevent any risk of an attack simply by withdrawing from the NPT and then detonating a nuke and then work at developing their own nuclear potential... the problem is that they don't want nuclear weapons, they want stable reliable electricity supplies that don't use their main source of export income, and having nuke weapons means they have to withdraw from the NPT which means no more Russian built civilian nuclear reactors to help them develop as a country.

Nothing damages a growing economy like power cuts 5 times a day.

The other problem is that even if the Israelis attack or the US attacks they can easily claim Iran blew something up or in some way started it. Look up the Gulf of Tonkin incident from a non American source. I mean how long was it that Russia invaded South Ossetia and then Georgia according to the western media?

Even if they call for the death of the US government or burn the American flag, think of it this way, the USA government has stated that it has not removed the option of a NUCLEAR STRIKE against Iran from the "table of options." If somebody has stated they are not averse to the idea of hitting your country with nuclear weapons, why wouldn't you hate their government?

I agree... the US gets a chip on its shoulder over countries that didn't actually do anything against the US, and it demonises them to the point where the fight becomes rather irrational.

Iran, Cuba, North Korea are just three countries I can think off that have been cornered and isolated and squeesed by economic, political, and military pressure from the US and her allies.

The huge irony is that with economic prosperity and growth the people of these countries are more likely to demand more rights and priviledges and the creation of a consumer society is the likely result.

Like it or not, but the best way to defeat a communist government is to give the average joe public a taste of wealth and the opportunity to achieve it. I would say a free market economy, but we know a properly regulated economy is much better because a free market economy is like having a 12 year old kid planning the meals for the family... there are only so many weeks you can survive before the scurvy sets in.

Anyway, I didn't mean to rant. I just hope Russia, China, and other nations assert themselves and stand up to the USA before the USA destroys the world.

I just hope the US realises it doesn't need to be the worlds policeman and moral centre of the universe and that growth and progress in other countries is actually a good thing.

I believe Germany was at the least capable of forcing a stalemate in the East up until August 1944 with Operation Bagration and the destruction of Army Group Center.

The German Army was seriously crippled in Stalingrad and was not the same army again. They were beaten in urban combat, which didn't suit their manouver and combined forces attacks (on open ground with airsupport they were formidible). By the time of Kursk they had all their best brand new uber weapons and they were still defeated in open combat and never really recovered.

I think people over-emphasis the impact of Stalingrad. The surrender/destruction of the German forces in North Africa in Tunisia in 1943 resulted in the instant loss of no less than 300,000 of their most seasoned and battle-hardened men. Kursk was yet another blow, and Operation Bagration was, in my opinion, a mortal wound.

Stalingrad was their first real defeat. The gates of Moscow was really an over reach problem, and north africa was a little excursion... a gamble to get oil supplies. Stalingrad was a real defeat... a trap in fact that the Germans walked into with their eyes open. It was carefully planned and baited trap where Soviet forces were fed into the city at a rate that was just enough to keep the Germans focused on the prize and when the reserves were ready they weren't wasted in an attack into the city, they were used to trap the enemy forces in a ring they could not escape from.

Stalingrad was a major blow, but it did not leave them "down for the count" it was something from which recovery was capable, but the necessary steps for recovery were not taken.

Before Stalingrad the Germans were cocky and undefeated. Afterwards they were still very skilled but much more wary.

In the East, major victory was possible as late as mid 43, and a stalemate was possible as late as mid-44 (August 1944 to be precise).

I disagree. German treatment of the locals meant by 1943 the resistance behind the lines was becoming more and more powerful and the Soviet air force had changed from ineffectual to a force of substance and was only going to become more and more of a problem. By 43 it was clear Germany was going to lose, the question was how long and how many lives they will take with them.

I have documentary evidence from the 1920s-1940s (original documents) that demonstrate and show that nations such as Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc, had undertaken extreme anti-Jewish measures/laws. I believe that those nations were handed over to the Soviets, to become part of the Com-Bloc, so that they could be punished for raising their fists against their Jewish populations.

I think it is rather more mundane that that... the Soviets were not projewish at all, so that wouldn't make much sense. It was Germany that had the "Jewish Problem" fixation and often accused the communists of being Jewish too. It is like saying lots of Nazis had white skin therefore Nazism is a white thing. There were people of all religions and races that were communist, that doesn't make communism jewish or any particular race either.

Eastern Europe became part of the communist block because Stalin was adamant that Germany be split in two to prevent its rise and a repeat of WWII. To keep Germany split the Soviets needed a presence there and also needed direct access so a Soviet presence in eastern european countries facilitated that. Later Stalin realised that would offer a buffer from what became NATO, but I doubt he wanted control of those countries because he needed more land... he had plenty. Churchill agreed because he needed the Soviet Union in the war fighting Germany and was in no position to change the deal. He also realised that fighting in Germany will be costly so the less fighting in Europe that Britain and her allies had to do the more western allied lives would be saved... and he knew the soviets would want revenge...

Basically the Red Army was brought in to put down Romanians who wanted Romania to be kept for Romania, Hungary for Hungarians, Bulgaria for Bulgarians, etc.

Well no, not really. When the Red Army moved to each of these countries they tended to change sides and help the Red Army fight the Germans and as the Soviets moved through they maintained forces in each of these places and didn't leave till the late 1980s early 1990s.

The Jews (Lenin, Trotsky, Uritisky, Zinovieff, Kamenev, etc) who hijacked Russia, killed the royals, massacred a huge portion of the Russian/Ukrainian/Polish/European Christian population, established a massive state that was able to operate as an enforcer to enforce Communist/Jewish will in Eastern Europe.

There might have been people of jewish descent that were involved, but I am sure there were just as many christians and athiests and muslims and other faiths... a communist takeover is largely athiest and has little to do with religion... it is mainly the Nazis that try to suggest a jewish link to communism... which is silly because communists is an athiest political system.

This state used its forces, the Red Army, to crush Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc, and other patriotic Eastern nations. If Romanians had not risen up against the usury oppression of the bankers, but had instead willingly gone along with socialism-communism, it would not have been invaded. But the Romanians cast their lot in with those who were in favor of national sovereignty.

The red army entered those countries as liberators and stayed. None of those countries lost their nationality and were ruled by local communist party members. These locals got their instructions from Moscow... just like Saudi Arabia gets its instructions from Washington today.

No doubt a controversial theory, but one for which a great deal of evidence exists. It is prett well-established that Stalin was likely a Jew from Georgia (an area with a high Jewish population), it is known that all three of his wives were Jewish, his children married Jews, his top advisers such as Lazar Kaganovich were Jews, the NKVD elite (Yagoda, Beria, etc) were Jews or probably Jews.

Jewish ethnicity and a practising jew are two very different things. You might have evidence that Stalin was ethnically a jew, but he was an athiest in practise.

My basic view of WW2 is that it was a conflict between those who favored national sovereignty, the idea of a nation being for the volk who inhabited the nation and for their benefit, not the benefit of capitalists and internationalist bankers, and those who wanted a globalist New World Order. The New World Order won.

It was more a fight of the colonial powers part two. The first fight, known in the west as WWI, was about destroying the powerful austrohungarian empire and a few other empires, and ended in a chance for Britain and France to pinch colonies of Germany and other european countries.

WWII actually led to the independence of many of the British commonwealth countries, and of course France lost control of territories later to include indochina... you know Vietnam?

One of the demands of the US entering the war was to break up the trade protectionism of the British commonwealth, but that is another story.

It speaks volumes that at least one MILLION Eastern Europeans, be they Soviet/Russian POWs, Ukrainian Cossacks, etc, willingly signed up with the Germans. I only wish that there had been more German officials who were in favor of extending friendship and kindness, and building a genuine free and anti-communist Russia and Ukraine, instead of those who wanted to conquer, exploit, and take resources.

Hitlers ideology was a package... you can't separate the racist hatred from the economic and military growth. Would hitler have made it into power if he was not so driven by his hatred? If he never made it to power Germany would probably still be paying reparations to France and the UK for WWI... a war they were no more responsible for starting than France or the UK.

In Deutsche Soldaten sehen die SOWJET-UNION, letters written from German soldiers in the Soviet Union, written from June 1941 to December 1941 (during the war, from hundreds of different soldiers in different units in different locations- not post-war propaganda revisionism after the fact), the picture/theme is clear. Everywhere the Germans went they were hailed as liberators and found people who had suffered miserably under the Soviets.

What revisionism? It was the German forces following behind that murdered and raped and stole and turned many of these people against the Germans. There were no consequences for murder for Germans in the Soviet Union. In such an environment what sort of reaction would you expect from the locals. When first seen... they are taking control from the communists... hooray... but then they turn out to actually be worse than the communists...

If Germany had conducted a mass recruitment effort in July-August of 1941, with the sincere promise of creating a free Russia and a free Ukraine, run by Russians and Ukrainians, they would have had seen several million people sign up within weeks of the announcement being made.

Except the German treatment of to locals actually turned out to be worse than the communists treatment.

There are plenty of accounts of the atrocities on the eastern front, and from German accounts it was all the commies... the problem is that we know the locals rose up against the Germans and not against the commies, so you tell me who was worse?

Now of course German loss did not seem inevitable to everyone post Stalingrad, so in essence I do agree that is is incorrect when people look at the war post Stalingrad as a "given".

At the time it was not a given because the effect of Stalingrad was not known or recognised till later what a serious blow it really was.

The invincible army was no longer invincible... or is confidence not important in war?

If the Gestapo and SD had been able to vigorously root out the traitors, such as Oster and Canaris, in 1942-1943, things would have improved. It is hard to achieve major victories when the leaders of Abwehr (Army/Military Intelligence) are traitors who are trying to bring down the government.

Where there is one traitor there will likely be more. No intelligence agency in the world relies on one source alone... except the US with Iraqi WMDs and look how that turned out. There were entire networks of sources, including within British intelligence at Bletchly park that supplied intel to the Soviets... the Gestapo and SD could not catch them all and even if they could they can be replaced...

Germany could have used a purge of the intelligence agencies, it would have greatly helped things.

Would it? A massive purge could be used by the Soviets to frame patriots and to get more moles into place and actually make things worse. A few planted files and an accusation here and there... I would think espionage is a world of intrigue and deception... if it was that easy to fix all the major powers would have done it.

In 1941 he had wanted Leningrad to be the main priority, believing that the capture of Leningrad was the most important, Leningrad and Kiev were to be the two primary objectives for the summer of 1941, with a drive on Moscow (via Minsk-Smolensk road) to follow only after Kiev and Leningrad were taken.

Based on what evidence? What exactly stopped him trying to take Leningrad... I mean if he actually wanted to?

If the purpose was to capture Leningrad then why besiege it? Why not roll in with armour and take it by force rather than set up blockading forces that surrounded it and dig in for a long siege? They even used forces from Finland to complete the circle... it was clearly a siege and not an attempt to capture.

However the generals were able to sway him into going for broke against Moscow, even though Leningrad was arguably more important than Moscow.

Leningrad was isolated from the rest of the Soviet forces for about 900 days... if it had been captured on the first day there would have been very little difference for the rest of the Red Army... except the german losses would have been higher because when fighting inside large cities they lose their air power advantage.

Moscow on the other hand is a political and communications and transport hub that connects northern, central and southern forces.

The capture of Leningrad no later than say October 1941, instead of the costly siege, would have freed up 400,000 to 600,000 German soldiers for deployment elsewhere to aid in operations for October-December.

Or would it have resulted in a costly urban battle that the Germans were keen to avoid... there is no reason why the Soviets could not have done in Leningrad what they did in Stalingrad, except feeding more forces into the city with no pincer movement to end it... just an ongoing meat grinder to tie German forces in place and chew them out.

Taking Russia in a single campaign, by a western approach, is greatly difficult. The two blow/two campaign method is likely what is needed. All the first blows need to fall between May and August, then forces on both sides will use the next 6-12 weeks to recover and rest and prepare for phase two. Phase two is the winter phase.

It doesn't help. The main problem is the sheer distance from Poland to Moscow. It doesn't matter how you time your attacks it is the distance for supply that is the issue and moving in bounds doesn't change that. You talk about two movements a year... well that happened... the Germans didn't really get much say in the matter... and it still didn't help them.

Taking Moscow in a single operation is hopelessly optimistic. Moscow should be a target for the second phase, the winter campaign. The summer campaign needs to see the capture of Leningrad (above all), followed by Kiev, Minsk, and as an added bonus, Smolensk and Kharkov.

Lots of people in the west claim that Hitlers no retreat policy when german forces were at the gates of moscow was a mistake, but the reality is that in such winter conditions German rifles didn't fire properly because the oil froze. Moving in such temperatures is just as lethal as enemy bullets. If you have to spend the night in the open because you are retreating then the cold will kill you as sure as any Soviet Soldier. At minus 30 degrees you survive... you don't fight. You certainly don't try to drive around in a German tank with its narrow tracks and petrol engine...

A lot of generals went out of their way to sabotage Operation Barbarossa by convincing Hitler to go all-out for Moscow when his original thoughts were on Leningrad.

The force sent to Leningrad was never big enough for taking the city... it could only ever besiege it.

Hitler was more interested in resources than in leningrad or moscow... both of which would be token targets that wouldn't improve Germanys position.

But that didn't really happen, so it is all just speculation...

The problem with that speculation was that all of Germanies forces were retreating... not just the front line units. The rear units neither had the time or resources to build or reinforce large fortifications and even if they did they would likely be attacked by resistance forces. Also as they retreated they found former allies changing sides on them... not really conducive to building big fortifications. Equally if they couldn't complete the atlantic wall what makes you think they could build any fortifications worth a damn while retreating?

A big concrete structure on the western bank of a deep river... the Soviets could simply cross the river further up stream or down stream and attack it from the sides and rear...

I'm not so sure a Russian would attack somebody over such statements...

27 million Soviets killed by those cuddly friendly Germans... and America lost quarter of one million and Britain lost three quarters of a million on both fronts in the war.

Bare in mind that the Soviets fought on Soviet ground so it was german soldiers and their allies and soviet soldiers and Soviet civilians that had to live through this. For the west... particularly Britain the war was about British soldiers fighting in the Pacific and in Africa but most of the real fighting was British airmen over Germany and occupied Europe, so a minor threat from german airpower against British citizens vs major British threat of airraids against Germany. In fact the British and Americans with their bombing campaign probably killed more german women and children than the Soviets did, while those cuddly Germans easily killed more soviet civilians that were killed in any other area of the war. Second place probably went to the number of Chinese civilians the Japanese killed from about 1932 onwards, with japanese and german casualties next... even being occupied western europes losses pale in comparison.

It is a very strange world where we find thousands of Germans waving the Red Flag in May to celebrate their defeat in a war,

They are not celebrating the defeat of Germany, they are celebrating the defeat of Nazi Germany, which was as bad for Germans ultimately as it was for the rest of Europe.

while hundreds of thousands of young Russians talk about Mein Kampf and carry banners/flags that are clearly influenced by the Swastika.

Russian nazis should have some sense kicked into them like any other nazis.

Russia seems to value genuine free speech while Western Europe only values gov't approved speech.

Russia is not Utopia... I think that is half of the US's problem... its morals and ideals are so high it has no chance to achieve them... the other half of their problem is that currently they apply them to everyone but themselves, but that is another discussion.

In much of Europe the swastika is banned, and considering the cost and pain and suffering the organisation it represents caused I can see why. Free speech is a loaded gun and no one can really say anything they want... and really in most situations you wouldn't want that anyway.

Manys a time I have sat on a bus thinking the kids up the back swearing and bragging about how many drinks they had and how wasted they are need a good smack around the head. I realise to actually do that would cause more problems than it would solve but really I don't think they have the right to say anything they want when they want.

Freedom of thought and belief is something different and we all already have that...

Unless my understanding is very flawed, in Russia you can find all sorts of political parties, all sorts of political newspapers, with views on just about everything, many views that would result in a long prison sentence if you tried to promote them in Germany or Britain.

From what I can see from here there are a much broader range of political parties in Russia than there are in the US... which seems to have two. I wouldn't say they have more political freedom as many of the extra parties are nutjobs or just deluded and are not really viable opponents to Putins party.

It wont change overnight, but it will change.

Of course having lots of viable political parties is like having two captains and two crews on a ship crossing the atlantic. To be viable captains and crews each has to offer something different so the passengers can decide to vote for one or the other... in a real democracy one captain and crew wants to sail to America and one to Europe or Africa and South America if you prefer... the problem is that one period in office is not enough to reach any useful destination so you have to make promises and when you take power you turn the ship around and spend most of your time in office undoing what the previous captain did. By the time you get the trust of the passengers and stay in office long enough to get to the port you were headed for you had promised some sort of utopia and it turns out to be a sht hole, so the other captain gets command and you sail to his port which also turns out to be a shthole... as anyone will tell you most ports are. So the other captain gets command with promises of a different port where things will be better, but they never are... and you become disolusioned with the whole process... especially because there are not enough passengers to make a viable third or fourth crew, so you are stuck with the two big incompetent options that make lots of promises and lots of changes but rarely if ever deliver.

GarryB wrote:

Allied aid to the Soviets was ongoing as of 1940 (to build them up for an eventual war) and continued into 1945.

Why would the western allies send aid to a country that invaded half of Poland?

Lend lease started in 1940 to help anyone who was fighting the Germans, which did not include the Soviet Union till the middle of 1941, and even then decisions about extending lend lease to include the Soviet Union were not made till August or September. Most of the first material to arrive in the Soviet Union was indeed material from the 1940 period as it was stuff the Brits weren't using so they passed it on to the Soviets.

They certainly accepted it, but it was hardly critical to their survival.

The problem with the western view was Soviet secrecy... for most of the post war period most in the west knew of the eastern front from west german military men... who claimed it was numbers and the winter and hitlers orders that prevented them from winning in the East. All the same ignoring that the Soviets had to fight in the same winter conditions too and Stalin made rather more stupid mistakes than Hitler ever did.

Well my view is that lend-lease was absolutely crucial, but also Soviet army doctrine rapidly evolved such that the Soviets were able to match the Germans on a doctrinal level by mid-late 1943 and they were out-maneuvering/out-fighting them in pitched battles by mid 1944.

On a basic infantry/soldier level the German soldiers were still the best in the world, but they were being overwhelmed by a better equipped enemy that had a solid doctrine that had gained parity with the German doctrine and eventually trumped German doctrine.

Germans lost the material war, the Western bombing of their cities/industries really threw a wrench into their war efforts, and they had a chronic manpower shortage, especially in regards to infantry units, on the Eastern front.


Anyway, these are all very involved back/forth postings, these discussions might be better had over skype, team-speak, or some such thing.

GarryB wrote:

27 million Soviets killed by those cuddly friendly Germans... and America lost quarter of one million and Britain lost three quarters of a million on both fronts in the war.

America killed more civilians than they suffered military losses...


America easily killed several million civilians in WW2, so I'm not going to cry that America lost 500,000 + soldiers. That may sound cold and cruel, but America is responsible for the liquidation of several million German POWs after the war who were herded into large open fields, surrounded by fences, and given less than 600 calories per day, and in some cases, no food at all.


I will say that what was done to the Soviet citizens was wrong, but many of them were partisans. If Stalin is to be believed about the Belarus partisans, the Belarus partisans were responsible for 500,000 + Axis casualties, which suggests a VERY large and VERY active partisan movement. Partisans have a way of winding up shot/hanged, and they have a way of bringing retaliation down on an entire village. Not that it makes it right, just that it makes it reality.

GarryB wrote:

The red army entered those countries as liberators and stayed. None of those countries lost their nationality and were ruled by local communist party members. These locals got their instructions from Moscow... just like Saudi Arabia gets its instructions from Washington today.

Most of what you said is worthy of discussion/debate, reasonable enough for the starting point in a rational discussion, but the idea that the Red Army liberated Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc, very laughable...

Hungarians even fought on after their nation had been overrun, they fell back with the Germans into Austria, determined to fight on knowing only that they had no choice, hoping for the best.


Romania only switched sides after a coup which saw Antonescu arrested. Romanians have always been against Russians and were more than eager to side with Germans in what they saw as a racial war against the Slavs (at least that's how Antonescu appears to have seen it).

The communist parties were already waiting in the wings with Stalinist stooges handpicked from those who were most willing to take their marching orders from Moscow.


Romania lost much of its territory, it had already been driven from key parts of its lands in 1940 by the Soviets.

Well my view is that lend-lease was absolutely crucial, but also Soviet army doctrine rapidly evolved such that the Soviets were able to match the Germans on a doctrinal level by mid-late 1943 and they were out-maneuvering/out-fighting them in pitched battles by mid 1944.

Doctrine is ideology, perhaps you are talking about tactical and strategic planning?

Lend lease did not have any critical benefits till it came time to go on the offensive. The delivery of so many trucks and jeeps improved the mobility of the force and allowed them to produce more tanks than they otherwise would have, but it really didn't change the result... it just changed the timetable.

It is a common western view that lend lease won the war and D Day and strategic bombing won the war too.

In the Soviet Union however most of those countries have a different view... I remember reading a book where a Ukrainian communications officer who was translating a meeting after the war said his mother starved to death in Leningrad but the Americans want us to thank them for the Spam... which was largely from the first world war and nicknamed the second front...

When the west starts to recognise the enormous contribution and sacrifice of the Soviets on the eastern front I am sure they will be happy to say thanks for selling them some stuff and how making them pay for it and now thank them for it is a really classy thing to do.

On a basic infantry/soldier level the German soldiers were still the best in the world, but they were being overwhelmed by a better equipped enemy that had a solid doctrine that had gained parity with the German doctrine and eventually trumped German doctrine.

Overwhelmed? I guess that must mean the Japanese were better than the Germans because they managed to defeat the Chinese who had rather greater numbers.

The German soldiers were the best in the world with experience and while they didn't have the best equipment their tactics were the best and their communication and coordination was unsurpassed in the first half of the war. The thing is that it didn't really matter that the Soviets started out in the middle of a complete restructuring as most of the original army was captured or killed in the first 6 months of the war whose fate was being worked to death in Germany in slave labour camps. The Soviets simply had a larger population base and was able to create new units and equip them faster than the Germans could and over the course of the war the training got better and the tactics adapted and got better and the equipment got better.

Germans lost the material war, the Western bombing of their cities/industries really threw a wrench into their war efforts, and they had a chronic manpower shortage, especially in regards to infantry units, on the Eastern front.

Despite strategic bombing by the UK and US German production increased, and their manpower shortage mainly stemmed from all their best most experienced officers getting killed on the eastern front.

America killed more civilians than they suffered military losses...

America had the luxury of not fighting on home soil.

America easily killed several million civilians in WW2, so I'm not going to cry that America lost 500,000 + soldiers. That may sound cold and cruel, but America is responsible for the liquidation of several million German POWs after the war who were herded into large open fields, surrounded by fences, and given less than 600 calories per day, and in some cases, no food at all.

Germany was responsible for the deaths of over 50 million people during WWII... it is hard to feel anything with those sorts of numbers.

I will say that what was done to the Soviet citizens was wrong, but many of them were partisans.

Yeah... anyone who tried to defend their own country from an outside power deserves a brutal death????

I am sure they expected a brutal death at the hands of the Germans, it doesn't mean they deserved it.

Either way I find it disturbing you are upset at the mistreatment of German soldiers and your indifference to the fate of Soviet peasants who were only protecting what was theirs.

Most of those peasants probably lived in huts with dirt floors and they fought the well supplied, well equipped master race... one case where I will be cheering for the underdog.

If Stalin is to be believed about the Belarus partisans, the Belarus partisans were responsible for 500,000 + Axis casualties, which suggests a VERY large and VERY active partisan movement. Partisans have a way of winding up shot/hanged, and they have a way of bringing retaliation down on an entire village. Not that it makes it right, just that it makes it reality.

First of all Stalin is not a person I would believe with numbers anyway. Second the partisan movement was broad and became very powerful but did not rise up immediately or spontaneously. I rather suspect that well trained soviet VDV and spetsnaz type personel were left behind during retreats to gather up other soldiers left behind and the able bodied locals to attack german lines of communication and supply. Not very well organised initially they later became a real problem and tied down soldiers that would other wise be on the front line to deal with them.

Such forces need the support of the locals to survive as they are hardly going to be able to produce their own food. The fact that the locals supported them suggests the locals felt the risk was worth it.

Most of what you said is worthy of discussion/debate, reasonable enough for the starting point in a rational discussion, but the idea that the Red Army liberated Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc, very laughable...

The red army entered those countries and those countries rapidly changed sides and started fighting the Germans. What would you call it?

I believe when it happened in Italy the western allies called it a liberation.

BTW Roumania, Hungary and Bulgaria were happy to contribute troops to fight in the Soviet Union... these countries were not Soviet allies and the Soviets had no reason to treat them as such.
Before the war Stalin went to the british and the polish to sign an alliance treaty, but the british brushed them off and told them to talk to the polish and the polish said they weren't interested and would rather deal with the Germans than the Soviets. Stalin signed a non aggression treaty with germany because it was the best offer at the time. Britain would offer nothing and neither did the poles so the choice was sign a nonaggression pact with hitler and get half of poland, or don't sign and be on your own with the german forces occupying all of poland.

Pretty easy choice really.

Then at the closing period of the war as Soviet forces were approaching the poles decided to rise up and take warsaw for the polish government in britain... why on earth would stalin allow that? The same government that didn't want anything to do with the soviets in 1939 now expected a seat at the table at the end?

In the west it is depicted as a stab in the back, yet the polish government in exile rising up to take warsaw and therefore power in poland as the soviets arrived was an attempted stab in the chest with the soviets stepping onto the blade... they chose to stop short.

Hungarians even fought on after their nation had been overrun, they fell back with the Germans into Austria, determined to fight on knowing only that they had no choice, hoping for the best.

And lots of Ukrainian partizans fought germans and communist groups and also continued fighting after the end of the war... they likely hoped for the best too... and didn't get it either.

Romania only switched sides after a coup which saw Antonescu arrested. Romanians have always been against Russians and were more than eager to side with Germans in what they saw as a racial war against the Slavs (at least that's how Antonescu appears to have seen it).

And there is a lot of sympathy for the nazis in the baltic states even today, despite what they did, and I don't like them much for that either.

The communist parties were already waiting in the wings with Stalinist stooges handpicked from those who were most willing to take their marching orders from Moscow.

And polish governments in exile in britain were any different?

The Soviets paid for the removal of German forces from Eastern europe in blood... they are hardly going to let their new buffer from NATO do as they please.

Any more than the people of the Marshal islands had any choice about the US obliterating their island homes with nuclear detonations in the 50s and 60s and now with a huge mass of plastic bags and bottles and used nappies and human waste that is the north pacific ocean.

Romania lost much of its territory, it had already been driven from key parts of its lands in 1940 by the Soviets.

Evil Soviets this and evil soviets that.

Poland took plenty of territory from the Soviet Union in 1921 and even as Germany was taking land from Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938-1939 Poland managed to steal little slivers of land that germany wasn't interested in.

Borders in Europe are not static and moved on a regular basis... 100 years ago Poland didn't even exist...

You cant compare the US with russia but if you do here is the deal.
The us army has much and much more experience in fighting wars then russia.
The tactics are way better actually everything is better in the US except for the shitty m1 abrams tank.

I hear much people about russia in ww2 and let me tell you something russia sucked in ww2 one third had a rifle and two third were dead before even seeing the germans the russians didnt had advanced tactics like the US did, they sended their soldiers in hell knowing that two third would die, because the germans were better equiped and were better in fighting.

Russia didnt won that war because of fighting skills.
They won the war because of their huge numbers about 9 million russians died thats just insane and almost twice as much as the germans and remember the germans fought a war on very much fronts and the russian fought at ONE front.

The 1 rifle per 2 men anecdote is the most blatant myth about WW2 ever on the internet. Just look weapons availability statistics o the soviet military in WW2 compared to number of soldiers per year.

The us army has much and much more experience in fighting wars then russia.

Insurgencies?

The tactics are way better actually everything is better in the US except for the shitty m1 abrams tank.

I wouldn't call M1 tanks shitty. I'm pretty sure it would be safe to amuse that it belongs among top 5 tanks in the world. Not talking about shitty discovery TOP 5, but common, it doesn't have fatal flaws, it's decent tank that will get upgrade to squeeze more life out if this platform.
But then, by everything being better.. Not really.

I hear much people about russia in ww2 and let me tell you something russia sucked in ww2 one third had a rifle and two third were dead before even seeing the germans the russians didnt had advanced tactics like the US did, they sended their soldiers in hell knowing that two third would die, because the germans were better equiped and were better in fighting.

Let me guess, You are basing all You knowledge by watching Enemy at the gates? Sorry, but I just want to smack You in the face for Your lack of thinking. Imagine Infantry platoon where only every third had weapon. I personally can't. 
What advantage tactics are You talking about? Infantry wasn't trained up to German standard, but it can be explained because of mobilization. Hitlerjungend and German reservists weren't Zoombar OMG DELTA!!! as well.  Germans were better not even because of equipment, but thanks to abysmal command from Soviets and surprise of initial attack. Thanks to Stalin, not soldiers. When they got their shit sorted they went all Blitzkrieg on Germans themselves. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria
Pretty good for army without rifles

Russia didnt won that war because of fighting skills.
They won the war because of their huge numbers about 9 million russians died thats just insane and almost twice as much as the germans and remember the germans fought a war on very much fronts and the russian fought at ONE front. 

Russians didn't win because of fighting skills, but they won because of breakthrough victories they won. How they achieved them, it's different story, but it wasn't only numbers as, of course they helped. 
Germans were able to get tactical superiority in numbers so they most of the time could negate their strategical disadvantage, Blitzkrieg ffs. Guess who were first to employ ala Blitzkrieg style operations?

To Regular:

Hey, hey, your whole post is out of place, using facts and common logic is not the way how USA and Russian armies can be compared well here 


Russian army is much better than USA army, because Russians have developed superb anti-spy techniques, that USA is as of yet, unable to work around.
An example:

The CIA decided to infiltrate some spies into Russian military academy.
They send one spy, trained to be disguised as a casual Russian soldier, language, culture, and all that. However, a couple of months later, he returns, with his cover blown.
"What happened?", asks CIA director.
"So much drinking..." an agent says, with a pale face. "I was trying to drink alcohol, but was unable to drink in such bucket quantities as others. They noticed that, and became suspicious. I was searched thoroughly and all came into light..."
"I see", the director says.

He decided to send another spy, this time provided with additional heavy drinking "training course"    . However, a couple of months later he also returns, with his cover blown.
"What happened?", asks CIA director impatiently.
"Well, I behaved as you say, with heavy drinking and all that, like the others. However, they became  suspicioous, as I was the only one attending lectures and training courses so regularly, instead of partying. I was searched thoroughly, and all came into light.
"I see", the director says.

He then decided to send another spy, provided with additional heavy drinking and narcissism "training courses"   
A couple of months passed, and the spy was still safe... then another... The CIA director was pretty happy, however... he recieved the news, that this agent was also returning, with his cover blown:
"What happened this time?", asks CIA director furiously.
"Well, I behaved as you told me, with heavy drinking, and partying, instead of attending lectures. However, others became suspicious, as I was the only one failing my semester exams..."


Also, in terms of tanks, Russian T-90 is much better than American M1, because the latter is just named after some cheeky general, while T-90 is named after Vladimir P.      so it must be better, right?  

Flyingdutchman wrote:You cant compare the US with russia but if you do here is the deal.
The us army has much and much more experience in fighting wars then russia.
The tactics are way better actually everything is better in the US except for the shitty m1 abrams tank.

I hear much people about russia in ww2 and let me tell you something russia sucked in ww2 one third had a rifle and two third were dead before even seeing the germans the russians didnt had advanced tactics like the US did, they sended their soldiers in hell knowing that two third would die, because the germans were better equiped and were better in fighting.

Russia didnt won that war because of fighting skills.
They won the war because of their huge numbers about 9 million russians died thats just insane and almost twice as much as the germans and remember the germans fought a war on very much fronts and the russian fought at ONE front. 

Never go full retard.

This thread is going places.

I hear much people about russia in ww2 and let me tell you something russia sucked in ww2 one third had a rifle and two third were dead before even seeing the germans the russians didnt had advanced tactics like the US did, they sended their soldiers in hell knowing that two third would die, because the germans were better equiped and were better in fighting.

Hahahaha... yeah strategic bombing and D day won WWII right?

The SOVIETS were pushed back to Moscow in 1941 just like all of western Europe was defeated by much the same German force and was either defeated or ran across the English Channel and hid till 1944 when the Germans had been defeated on the ground and in the air.

The US entered the European Front with WWI tactics like everyone else bar Germany. All the allies fought hard and learned harsh lessons rapidly.

Case in point the standard US tank was the Sherman which was mediocre in almost every respect except numbers produced and was totally inferior to the T-34 even though the T-34 entered service years before.

They sent their soldiers to fight the Germans because they had no English Channel to hide behind... the german policy of extermination in the East was nothing like their policy in the west and gave those on the eastern front little real choice but to fight.

Only at very critical times was there any shortage of weapons... at Stalingrad they rushed forward several units before they were fully equipped but even then the numbers were more like one in ten didn't have a rifle. Stalingrad was a trap... if every second man went into combat with no rifle how the hell could they arm the troops that formed the encirclement?

Your understanding of the Eastern front is pathetic... I suggest you stop watching "Enemy at the gates" and start reading some properly researched books on the subject.

Russia didnt won that war because of fighting skills.

Suggest you look up and read about an operation called operation bagration... it did to the german forces what the german forces were doing to everyone before Christmas 1941.

They won the war because of their huge numbers about 9 million russians died thats just insane and almost twice as much as the germans and remember the germans fought a war on very much fronts and the russian fought at ONE front.

They fought a war western europe gave up on. They learned some very hard lessons and they largely fought alone against the most powerful army and airforce in europe.

Remember the west chose not to mount the D Day Landings because they feared high casualties... the brits lost something like 3/4ths of a million and the Yanks lost 1/4 of a million... they clearly were happy to let the Soviets to the fighting and the dying for them.

The German invasion of the Soviet union was about the acquisition of land... they didn't need the people... it was a war of extermination and that was reflected in the death toll.

Also US and UK were very happy to see their enemies fighting each other and making money out of it, specially USA which sky rocket the GDP through the war and only because they were selling their resources to Germany and Soviet Union along with other countries of both camps.

Also UK already had the plan "Operation Unthinkable" which had the goal to conquer Soviet Union after Germany was defeated and Soviet Union would be weakened enough, Operation Unthinkable was signed in May 1945, signed by Churchill himself.



This was the plan to start the 3rd World War without pause from the 2nd World war to defeat Soviet Union as soon as possible and to take the chance to conquer the majority of World Resources which are hold by Russia.

The true spirit of British Empire lifed and died with this insane massmurder Churchill, but a spark has remained in the british policy.


Another secret plan made by Churchill was Operation Ranking, to ally himself with germany and the remaining wehrmacht troops stationed at western front and to direct them to the east (1943-44).

The UK doesn´t play in the same league as Russia or US. Otherwise i think both the latter has a military that will perform well and suits the countrys need.
Face it, UK isnt a Empire no more, just a middle europeén country. Time to let go of old self images.

Flyingdutchman wrote:

etaepsilonk wrote:To Regular:


Also, in terms of tanks, Russian T-90 is much better than American M1, because the latter is just named after some cheeky general, while T-90 is named after Vladimir P.      so it must be better, right?  

I'm not sure if that story is true   but about the tanks the t-90 IS much better then m1 abrams!

The story is true.

I noticed, there's been a bit of a discussion, why Germans lost WW2.
I've not researched it very thoroughly, but I think, a significant, if not the main factor for their setbacks and eventual demise was loosing their airforce superiority.

etaepsilonk wrote:
I noticed, there's been a bit of a discussion, why Germans lost WW2.
I've not researched it very thoroughly, but I think, a significant, if not the main factor for their setbacks and eventual demise was loosing their airforce superiority.

The main reason for Germany´s defeat is that you can´t win against the whole world.
Industrial production and manpower, in total war that´s whats important. Once they were at war with UK, US, USSR they didnt stand a chance, all other like losing air superiority is just a result, just like losing the U-boat war.

runaway wrote:

etaepsilonk wrote:
I noticed, there's been a bit of a discussion, why Germans lost WW2.
I've not researched it very thoroughly, but I think, a significant, if not the main factor for their setbacks and eventual demise was loosing their airforce superiority.

The main reason for Germany´s defeat is that you can´t win against the whole world.
Industrial production and manpower, in total war that´s whats important. Once they were at war with UK, US, USSR they didnt stand a chance, all other like losing air superiority is just a result, just like losing the U-boat war.

France did, in late 18th century   

Yes, industry is a significant factor, contributing to the allies' victory, but, by far, the best way to win the war (even a total one) is to win battles   .

We can look at WW2 history. Luftwaffe failed to win air superiority over Britain, hence, seaborne invasion was cancelled there   

In Africa theater, Germany began to suffer setbacks alsmost exactly in late 1942, after a significant build-up of British airforce in Medditerranean region   


Heck, in eastern front, battle of moscow was won by the Russians in WINTER, at the time then Luftwaffe was grounded due to bad weather



Battle of Stalingrad, there the Luftwaffe wasn't grounded fully but was significantly whittled down, by relentless Soviet and British airforce operations, also, need to escort huge transport aircraft convoys , of course, bad autumn weather also hampered airforce operations.



Operation iskra, the relief of Leningrad blockade, was commenced in JANUARY, 1943, that's winter again


Do you know the first major successful battle for the soviets in summer time?

It was the battle of Kursk, incidently, around the same time, then LA-5FN was introduced into service in larger numbers which is proclaimed to be the first soviet fighter more or less equal to German ones

I think, that's quite a lot of coincidences, isn't it?