Russians simply won by the power of numbers

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
User avatar
Evzonas
Member
Posts: 664
Joined: 01 Jul 2004 10:25
Location: Athens, Greece

Post by Evzonas » 07 Apr 2005 14:39

Karl234 wrote:
Igorn wrote:
Evzonas wrote:
Your above statement is really laughable. Did you really think what you have said? Don't you want to say in this statement that Nazi Germans were ubermenschen and Russians were Untermenschen?

Best Regards from Russia,
@Igorn

When the russian tanks are so super good like you are telling. And so resistant against every german shell.
Then your are pressing the russian tank crews or the russian generals a stamp of idiots on.
You`re blame the red army.

Was your father or grandfather KIA?
Karl, Igorn doesn't understand that claiming Russian armour superiority the way he does only shows to an outsider how badly this superiority was used.
I haven't seen anybody here claiming Russians were not capable or didn't had good weapons of their own to put into fight...
But the casualties they suffered could have been much lesser and war could end much sooner had they used better tactics...
It is a commonly accepted fact that Russian officers didn't pay attention to how many soldiers or how many tanks they would loose as soon as they defeated the enemy..... This by itself means that although they had better/more equipment and men, they didn't use it the best way they could.

DIREWOLF75
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 04 Jan 2003 13:48
Location: Sweden

Post by DIREWOLF75 » 07 Apr 2005 20:18

Evzonas
I hope you understand English is not my mother-tongue and I just hope my above explanations correct this.....
Well, English isnt my primary language either.

This looked rather clear though:
I strongly object the claim for a Great Russian Victory in WWII and the greatness of Russian industry since in most of the cases Russia supplied workers and Americans prefab fuel plants, factories and ready "products". The number of "imported" vehicles, tires, boots, food, cables, airplanes tanks, almost everything came from USA. If Russia had no support from USA, they would simply loose
"almost everything came from USA", "in most of the cases Russia supplied workers and Americans prefab fuel plants, factories", "If Russia had no support from USA, they would simply loose".
Neither statement deals with reality.
As said, Russian provided the workers and americans the factory plants, the blueprints, food etc.. There could be no other way around... but without this help, Russia would be missing high octane fuel, food, machinery, trucks etc. If you read more about lend-lease, you will perhaps notice that Russians received more "peacefull" stuff than tanks.
Please specify excactly what factories in Soviet was built by USA directly or indirectly. Blueprints for WHAT if i may ask?

LL food helped though, without it there would very likely have been many more shortages. Disaster without it? Probably not.
Ah the always recurring "trucks", except of course Soviet had more prewar built ones than came through LL and also built more during the war than it received in LL.
But the difference was already there by the fact Germans were already half-defeated by the Winter. Since they didn't take Moscow on their first chance that was it!
Ah, eh, say what? If Germans were already half defeated in winter -41, then there wouldnt have been any need at all for LL.
Except that the 1942 summer offensive CLEARLY shows Germany well able to conduct effective offensive operations in large scale still. However, amounts of LL in -41 was minute, on a scale of drop in the ocean, LL in -42 was enough to probably make a minor difference. In -43 and -44 when the really large amounts of LL actually arrived, Germany was already in deep trouble.
So much so that LL after -42 most likely only shortened the war.

LL in -41/-42 on the -43/-44 scale, now THAT would probably have mattered a LOT more. But that didnt happen. So for the 2 worst years USSR fought with no or little benefit from LL.
I never objected the fact of a reverse lend-lease agreement.
Except you didnt really think about it.
Just for fun i can claim that without the reverse LL, USAs industry would have been useless. And still be more correct than several of your claims (and do note that "more correct" here does NOT mean "correct").

User avatar
Evzonas
Member
Posts: 664
Joined: 01 Jul 2004 10:25
Location: Athens, Greece

Post by Evzonas » 07 Apr 2005 21:02

Direwolf, you are correct all the way, my wrong, sorry!

bonzen
Member
Posts: 144
Joined: 17 Nov 2003 05:17
Location: chicago

Post by bonzen » 08 Apr 2005 02:46

Please specify excactly what factories in Soviet was built by USA directly or indirectly. Blueprints for WHAT if i may ask?
The tractor plants at Stalingrad, Kharkov, and Chelyabinsk and the Kirov plant in Leningrad.

"Soviet tractor plants were established in the early I930s with major U.S. technical and equipment assistance. The Stalingrad tractor plant was completely built in the United States, shipped to Stalingrad, and then installed in prefabricated steel buildings also purchased in the United States. This unit, together with the Kharkov and Chelyabinsk plants and the rebuilt Kirov plant in Leningrad, comprised the Soviet tractor industry at that time, and a considerable part of the Soviet tank industry as well. During the war, equipment from Kharkov was evacuated and installed behind the Urals to form the Altai tractor plant, which opened in 1943."

read more here http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/b ... ter_12.htm
[/quote]

Frontkampfer
Member
Posts: 146
Joined: 26 Feb 2005 01:58
Location: Connecticut, usa

Post by Frontkampfer » 08 Apr 2005 03:00

The discussion omits the fact that during the 1920s, US, Brit, German, & to a lesser extent other Western capitalists built the Soviet industrial infrastructrure.

This is documented in exhaustive detail, making use of corporate records, in Sutton's book WESTERN TECHNOLOGY & SOVIET ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Vol. 1, a little known study that changes our view of 20th century history.

The irony is that the "anti-Communist" corporate West assured the success & power of the USSR, just to make a dollar. (The Germans themselves did a lot to build the Red military). This story was later obscured by a lot of noisy propaganda to cover up the real role of Western business & finance vis a vis the Soviets.

For obvious reasons both pro-Soviet & capitalist historians have ignored Sutton's work & many "standard" histories of the USSR make little or no mention of the massive US/Brit role in that era.

To cite only one example, the Soviet motor vehicle industry, including critical tractor capacity, was created in the 1920s by Henry Ford.

Re WW2: The Tsarist government with it's "sainted" head was also shockingly wasteful of Russian manpower in WWI & so as in other areas there was continuity rather than discontinuity reflected in the new regime.

In evaluating the USSR it must also be remembered how bad things were under the old order; the manufactured "Cold" War mentality has tended to prevent this objectivity. My paternal grandfather came to America fleeing Tsarist tyranny, not Communism.

User avatar
Kunikov
Member
Posts: 4455
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 19:23

Post by Kunikov » 08 Apr 2005 05:46

1) US Lend Lease made up 4% of the Soviet wartime economy production.
2) Although Germany had forced labor working in their armaments industries (even though they controlled almost all of Europe and her industries), the Soviet Union had grandmothers and children working in theirs.
3) Lend Lease was not felt in 1941 at the counter-offensive at Moscow, hardly felt in the Stalingrad Counter-offensive, and to a small degree visible at Kursk (mostly in the all LL tank brigades or corps). After Kursk Germany was not going to win, ever, thus Lend Lease only made the inevitable conclusion come about quicker.
4) Your (Evzonas) posts are filled with generalizations and 'what if' senarios for which you have no proof nor can you present any even if you wanted to. Do yourself a favor and study what actually happened and why, not what could have been.

User avatar
armour
Member
Posts: 291
Joined: 06 Jun 2004 06:23
Location: Canada

Post by armour » 08 Apr 2005 05:58

The Irony of this whole thread and especially last posts is that people are quoting some big numbers of "stuff" delivered to USSR without realising that Lend-Lease amounted to ONLY 7% of all Soviet production from 1941 to 1945.

The greater chunk of those 7% arrived after Russians were already clearly winning the war,i.e. after Stalingrad and Kursk, so all in all the significance of Allied Aid to USSR is always blown way out of proportions, as a matter of fact Stalin didn't even ask for Lend-Lease as I understand he specifically asked for a "Second Front" so the Lend-Lease was sort of a mocking alternative for real help.
The discussion omits the fact that during the 1920s, US, Brit, German, & to a lesser extent other Western capitalists built the Soviet industrial infrastructrure.
Can you name those Capitalists who came to USSR during 1920s to "build" Soviet industrial infrastracture?
The irony is that the "anti-Communist" corporate West assured the success & power of the USSR, just to make a dollar. (The Germans themselves did a lot to build the Red military). This story was later obscured by a lot of noisy propaganda to cover up the real role of Western business & finance vis a vis the Soviets.
The Irony is that they pumped even more funds into Germany after Hitler came to power in 1932, so I guess they also Assured German victory in Poland and France, but fell short in USSR?

I guess I'm not wrong to say that they sent Lend-Lease to USSR in significant amount only AFTER USSR was already clearly winning the war, because if USSR lost the War, they were never going to get their dollars back.
To cite only one example, the Soviet motor vehicle industry, including critical tractor capacity, was created in the 1920s by Henry Ford.
And what does this have to do with anything? Ford was American President or something?
Re WW2: The Tsarist government with it's "sainted" head was also shockingly wasteful of Russian manpower in WWI & so as in other areas there was continuity rather than discontinuity reflected in the new regime.
How so?

Russian casualties WW1 : 1.6 million
German casualties WW1: 1.7 million

Apparently shockingly wasteful yet LESS shockingly wasteful than German government.
In evaluating the USSR it must also be remembered how bad things were under the old order; the manufactured "Cold" War mentality has tended to prevent this objectivity. My paternal grandfather came to America fleeing Tsarist tyranny, not Communism.
I don't believe anybody was forbidden to leave, what was he fleeing back then?

User avatar
armour
Member
Posts: 291
Joined: 06 Jun 2004 06:23
Location: Canada

Post by armour » 08 Apr 2005 06:00

1) US Lend Lease made up 4% of the Soviet wartime economy production
I think your number maybe more correct as perhaps 7% is what was "sent" about half of it didn't make it to destination.

User avatar
Kunikov
Member
Posts: 4455
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 19:23

Post by Kunikov » 08 Apr 2005 06:01

armour wrote:
1) US Lend Lease made up 4% of the Soviet wartime economy production
I think your number maybe more correct as perhaps 7% is what was "sent" about half of it didn't make it to destination.
As far as I remember, it was around 4%, you can find it in Harrison's "Account for War."

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4785
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 15:19
Location: Finland

Post by Topspeed » 08 Apr 2005 06:10

It is possible that a round number as 60 mio is little imaginary.

The Solovetsky camp was only few hundred kilometres away from finnish border and stories from there were verified by the escaped inmates already back in the 20ies.

The Siberia based inmates seldom made it to freedom, but some did. Some of their letters were smuggled by regular communist citizens doing a favor for a friend.

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Post by Qvist » 08 Apr 2005 07:36

3) Lend Lease was not felt in 1941 at the counter-offensive at Moscow, hardly felt in the Stalingrad Counter-offensive, and to a small degree visible at Kursk (mostly in the all LL tank brigades or corps). After Kursk Germany was not going to win, ever, thus Lend Lease only made the inevitable conclusion come about quicker.
Without getting into the subject of LL as such, it seems this illogical argument keeps cropping up no matter how many times it is countered. Soviet victory after Stalingrad or after the summer of 1943 was only inevitable given that the Red Army continued to be able to maintain their force levels in the face of continuing very heavy losses, and they only barely were. Thus, it makes no sense to argue that something that by all accounts contributed significantly to exactly that ability did not make any fundamental difference. That is not tantamount to arguing the USSR would not have won the war if it had not been for LL, just that it did not neccessarily matter less just because the bulk of it came relatively late.

cheers
Last edited by Qvist on 08 Apr 2005 08:24, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Evzonas
Member
Posts: 664
Joined: 01 Jul 2004 10:25
Location: Athens, Greece

Post by Evzonas » 08 Apr 2005 07:54

Kunikov wrote:1) US Lend Lease made up 4% of the Soviet wartime economy production.
2) Although Germany had forced labor working in their armaments industries (even though they controlled almost all of Europe and her industries), the Soviet Union had grandmothers and children working in theirs.
3) Lend Lease was not felt in 1941 at the counter-offensive at Moscow, hardly felt in the Stalingrad Counter-offensive, and to a small degree visible at Kursk (mostly in the all LL tank brigades or corps). After Kursk Germany was not going to win, ever, thus Lend Lease only made the inevitable conclusion come about quicker.
4) Your (Evzonas) posts are filled with generalizations and 'what if' senarios for which you have no proof nor can you present any even if you wanted to. Do yourself a favor and study what actually happened and why, not what could have been.
You are correct all the way, my wrong, sorry

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4785
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 15:19
Location: Finland

Post by Topspeed » 08 Apr 2005 07:57

Kunikov wrote: 2) Although Germany had forced labor working in their armaments industries (even though they controlled almost all of Europe and her industries), the Soviet Union had grandmothers and children working in theirs.

Any data on how many % was made by forced labour in USSR ? I estimate 25-50 %.

demonclaw
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 19:05
Location: sweden

Post by demonclaw » 08 Apr 2005 08:34

actually the aid did help Russia alot . Take trucks for example , they got 400,000 tucks from the western allies and in 1945 it made up 60% of the Russian trucks . So dont tell me that the red army would have been a effective fighting force without the amount of trucks they received from the western allies .

http://www.o5m6.de/main.html

the aid from the westerna allies didnt help russia much in 41/42 but it helped them to strike back at the germans . This page sums it up pretty well
http://www.wargamer.com/articles/lldocefx.asp

"Did Lend-Lease prevent the defeat of the Soviet Union? Probably not, the most important defensive battles were fought and won, before the arrival of large amounts of Allied aid"

"Was Lend-Lease the factor that enabled the Soviets to win their war with Germany? A qualified yes. An examination of the types and volume of aid the Russians received very strongly supports this view. The enhancements to all aspects of Soviet mobility provided by large numbers of U.S. trucks can not be overstated. Most importantly, the Soviet logistics system was considerably augmented by the large numbers of trucks received"


The aid did of course effected more than the logistic system but you can read more about it in the links i provided

kelty90
Member
Posts: 171
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 14:04
Location: Hampshire, England

Post by kelty90 » 08 Apr 2005 08:53

Regarding the USSR winning mostly by force of numbers...the implication is that a war should be a sort of gladiatorial contest between equals - the "best man" wins. This is, of course, total nonsense.
The Germans should have factored in the available manpower of the USSR before invading. Just like they should have factored in climate, communications, Red Army equipment, etc. If you choose to invade one of the most populous countries in the world, you can hardly conplain when they use that manpower against you.
As for Lease Lend, the point for me, is that the Western Allies (UK and USA) were sensible and generous enough to do their best to help equip the Red Army. Contrast this with the German attitude to their allies. The poor Italians, Hungarians, Rumanians, etc were scarcly assisted at all. Witness the pathetic amaments of these allies outside Stalingrad. While we were sending Stalin everything we could, why didn't the Germans equip their allies with the best tanks and equipment.
The Germans went into the USSR with their eyes wide open knowing full well about Soviet numbers, no use whining when they hadn't the skill to beat them.

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”