sad thoughts on poly posters

[notyoueither]

So, where do we conclude that fighting despotic regimes and allying with democratic governments was in the interests of the USA in 1939-41?

Of course going to war was in Americas interests. She was losing valuable cultural and trading partners.

The good bit is that the side that is better for the most people is the side that won, right down to the fall of the Berlin Wall.

[GeneralTacticus]

GT, Now this is becoming really bizzare. If Chiang was a brutal dictator, why in the world did we support the SOB at all? This would be like supporting Hitler against England.

More like supporting Stalin against Hitler, as The Stinger said.

Were those movies, I believe, pre-WWII, showing the American Flying Tigers bravely helping the noble Chinese pure propaganda? (Of course, you will say yes.)

Of course.

Perhaps, then, it was Hollywood that got America into WWII?

No.

But, in the 1930s, if Japan was a constitutional monarchy and China was a dictatorship, I don't understand why we aligned ourselves with China against Japan.

Japan was, as che said, a military dictatorship and it was also a significant threat to US business interests in China. For example, they intended to set up a national oil company to replace the foreign corporations that controlled the industry beforehand.

I clearly understand that Japan was a direct threat against English, Dutch and French interests in China and SE Asia. But does that justify our attacking Japan? We were not then allies of any of these countries.

The US DID NOT attack Japan. The embargo against Japan was intended to deny them the materials they needed to continue the war against China.

This whole substread started when SD said that America's war in WWII was NOT about our saving democracy, but about protecting our interests. I simply asked, "What interests." To date, I have only received responses that so-and-so government we were protecting was democratic or suedo-democratic and the other guys were in effect barbarians. However, Japan was a "western" country at the time, a constitutional monarchy with a parliament and prime minister. As we have seen here, China itself was a brutal dictatorship that actually probably did provoke the wars with Japan in the 30s.

You think China provoked a war with Japan when they never attacked Japanese or Japanese-occupied territory before the war got underway, and had been losing territory ever since 1931? The Japanese claim that the Chinese started the Marco Polo Bridge incident is on the same level as Hitler claiming that the Poles fired first.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, I agree with you on Germany. Whether we had a large volume of trade with Germany was largely irrelevant to our growing hostility.

But for the same reasons, I doubt that business and trading interest in China have very much at all to do with our growing hostilty to Japan.

I was just reading another cite on the Rape of Nanking. Apparently, very few people of the world knew about this until recent decades. No western reporters were the. A John Rabe, a German Nazi who rescued 100,000 Chinese, was muzzled by Hitler - actually imprisoned - when he returned to Germany to get Hitler to denounce the Japanese.

So, even though the Japanese were brutal to an extreme in its war against China, few in the West knew, or given its anti-asian racists attitudes, even cared about the Japanese attrocities.

Again, the State Department says that our relations with Japan began to go down hill with the anti-communist pact of 1936. Others say our relationship really began to deteriorate in 1939 after the outbreak of the war in Europe.

I smell Churchill in this. It does seem reasonable to conclude that Churchhill and Roosevelt conspired to force Japan to attack us in order to get Congress to declare war on Germany.

Churchill wasn't in power until May 1940 and he wouldn't wnated a war with Japan Britain could barley cope with the one against Germany

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of Great Nations.

Your turn.

And what he saying about German tanks in 1941? What he saying about German tank casualties? How many tanks Germans lost since the beggining of Barborosa till battle for Moscow?
IIRC, in 1941 Soviets had more the 900 T-34 and more then 500 KV and JS. It were the world's best tanks of that time . :

Yes, in 1941 the Wehrmacht crushed the Red Army in every pitched battle, taking over 3 million prisoners. They were only stopped by the weather, and then pushed back by a combination of superior numbers and, more significantly, Hitler's idiotic meddling.

Bullsh*t.
They weren't stoped by the weather, but by Red army. At the beggining of war Germans had larger army then Soviets:

http://www.shortway.to/1941/ewfram.htm

They also had the benefit of the surprise attack, and yes, they were quite succesfull at the begining. But they faced a resistance they never saw before, and they had losses they never saw before. When they appeared to the gates of Moscow, the Germans troops were exhausted and weakened. At the same time Red Army has received a significant reinforcement from formations thrown from the Siberia and from the Far East. It were well equipped and trained divisions, distinguished of high fighting capacity. The German defeat near Moscow has nothing common with weather as you describe it. They lose, because they were weaker.

You aren't understanding the fundamental differences in the situation. In 1945, Russian males of military age were mostly dead, unable to fight, in factories, or already in the Army - they had no replacements. Further, Soviet industry was not producing enough of the "behind the scenes" equipment necessary for fighting a war. As an example, Lend Lease provided 2408 locomotives to the SU, while the SU only produced 442. Thus, Lend Lease was responsible for almost 82% of all new Russian locomotives.

First of all. About what type of war we are talking about? You said that USA was able to kicked Soviets out of Eastern Europe. I said that this is a pure bullsh*t, because Soviet forces in Europe were three times larger, equiped with better weapons and were MUCH experienced then combined American British forces. The long full-scale war between USA and SU it's absolutely different case. The war in Europe in 1945 if it would happen, would be won by Soviets for sure. And won pretty quick, because it is too far away from USA and Soviets had more powerfull army.

On the subject of rails, the US provided 93% of all new Russian rail lines.
Lend Lease provided 409,500 trucks to the SU, while the SU only produced 281,500.
Lend Lease accounted for 2,586,000 tons of aviation fuel, compared to Soviet production of only 1,810,000 tons.
Lend Lease provided 35% of all new Soviet explosives, and 30% of all tires (not to mention the fact that Britain sent the SU 103,500 tons of natural rubber, which was essential in producing tires).
Almost 50% of all coppor ore in the SU came from Lend Lease, which also provided 55.5% of all aluminum production.
Lend Lease "only" provided 28% of Soviet machine tools, but that 28% was far more versatile and complex, and thus more useful, than the ones produced domestically by the SU.

Fine, fine. First of all were did you get it? From "The Rise and Fall of Great Nations"? rolleyes:
Second, sure it looks impressive in compare with newly produced Soviet analogs. BUT could you compare f.e. number of locomotives recived by SU through Lend-Lease with total number of Soviet locomotives, or f.e number of received trucks with total number of Soviet trucks, etc?

Actually, you are downplaying its importance, because all you seem to understand in war is numbers of soldiers and numbers of tanks.

Those are the most important numbers.

It was more than 100,000 Germans. It was also 10 divisions invading Vichy France, plus over half a million men that had to be sent to Italy and the Balkans, which were threatened as a direct result of Torch.

Yeah, right it's a big deal in compare with "pathetic" six million German army on Russian front.

A large proportion of those were German allies, such as Romanians and Italians, which were pretty much worthless, and about 300,000 of that total refers to the 6th Army, much of which could have been saved.

Bullsh*t. Majority of them were Germans. Just check this:

http://militaryhistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fusers.pandora.be%2Fstalingrad%2F

Don't be obtuse. You can't materialize men and material out of thin air, and planning an amphibious invasion of the continent of Europe takes just a bit of time, wouldn't you say? Further, peripheral action in the Mediterranean was of immense material assistance to the Soviet Union.

Very good. And how do you suggest USA to materialize needed amount of weaponry and soldiers on Europe theater in 1945 in case of war vs. Soviets? It tooks three years for you to deleiver 2 millions of troops in Normandy. And it still was three times lesser then Soviets had. Do you think Soviets gave you another three years to reinforce your forces in Europe? With superiority in numbers 3:1 and in quality, the Soviet forces just would crushed your European army within months.

And most of it was dead, at least in terms of replacements. And the Red Army of 1945 was still much more of a big club than a sword - it could hammer away at something, but it had little precision.

This club could easily hammer away your forces from Europe. And your generals perfectly realized this and didn't dare to done something even when USA was the only country who had a nuclear weapons. Because in 1945 Soviet Union had the strongest conventional army in the world.
The rest is your fairytales.

You said the SU could "crush" the US. This is obviously false, as the SU couldn't even get to the US.

I didn't say this and even if I said I mean US forces in Europe.

OK.
1942:
US air production: 47,386
SU production: 25,436

Almost two to one, even in 1942 while the US was still just getting warmed up.

Let me guess, it's "The Rise and Fall of Great Nations." again? I never read it, but something tells me that this is an anti-Soviet bs book, writen in times of Cold war. Am I right?

So? And in 1941, the German Army crushed the Red Army in every battle.

Bullsh*t. In 1941 Red army done harm to unbeatable Wehrmacht it never saw before and stopped German advancement.

Then explain why the Wehrmacht achieved a better kill/loss ratio (ratio, not numbers) against the Red Army than the US Army.

Oh realy?
First of all, they acheived a better ratio during beggining of war. Also, you never fought with really powerfull German regiments. The regiments who concquered Europe, but was destroyed later in Russia. German army in 1944 in Normandy wasn't the same army as in 1941 in Russia. In 1944 Hitler drafted 14 boys and elders badly injured in WW1, into his army located in France, because Russian front consumed all German manpower and resources. There was entire division in France consisted of people with stomach illineses, some soldiers even have missed fingers. In 1944 best German regiments were already destroyed. And you compare such forces with elite of third reich who invaded SU in 1941? Also, you always had superiority in numbers, when you havn't you just retried. We often fought for the last man standing, and had no right to retrie, because we defend our country and every our retrie mean death of civilians left on occupied territories.

And btw, do you have examples of kill/loss ratio such this, for example:

http://wio.boom.ru/tank/ww2tank.htm#t2

"On 23-24 June 1941 a single KV-2 of 2nd tank division conducted an armored road block in southern Lithuania (near Rassaynjay town), holding up the German advance. "
or this:

http://wio.boom.ru/tank/ww2tank.htm#t2

"1 versus 43.... There were destroyed 42 German tanks total and two guns. Kolobanov's tank got 135 hits, but no one penetration."
or such examples of heroism:

http://city.bresttelecom.by/ct/indexe.html

or this:

http://militaryhistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fusers.pandora.be%2Fstalingrad%2F

or this- the legendary 28 Panfilov guards (23 of 28 INFANTRY soldiers were KIA, remaining 5 were badly wounded, but those 28 INFANTRY soldiers destroyed 18 GERMAN TANKS):

http://www.serpukhov.su/dima/war/eng/eclbat.htm

DO YOU HAVE SUCH EXAMPLES OF KILL/LOSS RATIO?

So the Russians of that time were much more susceptible to propaganda than Americans were, is that what you're saying? Not something to boast about

I didn't expect that American could understand mysterious Russian soul. You just can't understand what I mean. And this is not about propaganda, but about our mentality.

Also, maybe you should explain why the Germans were initially welcomed as liberators in areas they conquered (especially the Ukraine), if the Soviet people were so supportive of Stalin.

Of course I'll explain. This statement is no more then pure bullsh*t. If nazi were welcomed as liberators and supported by local population, then we would never won this war. Do you have any idea about scale of partisan warfare on occupied territories? Do you ever read a dairies or memoirs of German generals, who participated in war vs. Russia? In one of such dairy (EDITED: I was mistaken, it was general Gunter Blumentrit, cheif of feildmarshal von Kluge HQ) he saying that he was surprised by attitude of locals. Smt like this: "the situation on occupied territories was absolutely different from what I saw on Russian front during WW1. Aside first war, locals were extremely hostile"
Sure, some bastards joined nazi in war vs. Soviets, but it was TINY part of population. TINY PART- f*cken traitors.

My theory is they were so supportive of Stalin because they'd be killed if they did anything different. Again, not something to boast about.

It's just another bs theory of yours, nothing more.
Do you know with which words our grandfathers engaged in battles? "For Motherland, for Stalin."
First the Motherland, only then Stalin. They fought this war for our country, not because Stalin forced them to fight.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I'll summarize - serb waves his flag, I quote hard numbers and statistics

Just kidding, it's an interesting thread, both sides make good points...

You want hard facts? Fine. Let me introduce one very interesting document, signed by one very interesting person. This person is Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I guess you have heard about such president of USA.
He called victory in Stalingrad's battle a turning point in war vs. nazi. CASE IS CLOSED. Those are the words of YOUR president, your bs theories that Soviets were unable to deal with nazi in 1944 is no more then bs. Or perhaps you are disagreed with Roosevelt?

Only 60 years passed since this battle and modern Americans such as yourslf, are completely ignorant about SU contributions into victory over nazim, aroggant such as yourself, completely ungratefull, and beleive in general sh*tness of Russian army.
Read this document boy. Perhaps the words of one of the best presidents in American history will have impact on you. Because aside you, he didn't beleive in general ****ness of Russian army and furthermore he admired the courage, fortitude and devotion of Soviet soldiers.

[Q Classic]

Q Cubed and SD, Just because two empires collide and go to war, as in Rome vs. Carthage, does not make one "evil" and the other "good." Just because Tojo was a responsible officer in the Army that raped Nanking does not necessarily make the whole Japanese nation guilty - however, the problem with Nanking was that the Japanese never put any of the responsible officers on trial, but later apparently appointed one of them, Tojo, prime mininister. This sounds very much like Ariel Sharon, doesn't it? The United States had Calley and Mi Lai, and recently Senator Kerrey. But the US is not evil because of their individual war crimes.

man, this is really irritating. apparently, the entire occupation of korea is not worth mentioning, even with the scope of atrocities that were committed there. only nanking.
hirohito, who embodies japan-- or did, what with the culture of japan (and asia) at the time joining the state, the leader, and godhood, knew the scope of the atrocities, knew what was going on. japan itself had some inkling. the fact that they allowed such injustice to continue and swept it under the rug in the tokyo war crimes trials-- does that not also hint that the japanese are not completely innocent?

The war between Rome and Carthage started because each side was backing opponents in a local war in Sicily. Similarly, the war with Japan started because we backed Chiang, a brutal dictator we are told, against Japan, a western-style constitutional monarchy.

i didn't say he was a brutish dictator. i said he was a generalissimo who would have created a corrupt democracy if he'd had half the chance.

The asserted reason given here is that American interests in its East Pacific colonies were being threatened by Japan. Perhaps. But it is not clear that this was the case at all. I asked for even one example of Japan threatening the United States in the 30s. No examples are forthcoming.

when your national interests are threatened, you do tend to react protectively. one could argue--and some have been arguing, that that was precisely the case in the 30s.

"Outbreak of War
Growing domestic opposition to the Nationalist government’s policy of self-strengthening before counterattacking in N China and Manchuria led to the kidnapping of Chiang Kai-shek. He was kidnapped at Xi’an in Dec., 1936, by Chang Hsüeh-liang. Chiang was forced to agree to a united anti-Japanese front with the Communists as a condition for his release. The situation was tense, and in 1937 full war commenced. A clash (July, 1937) between soldiers of the Japanese garrison at Beijing and Chinese forces at the Marco Polo Bridge was the pretext for Japanese occupation at Beijing and Tianjin. Chiang Kai-shek refused to negotiate an end to hostilities on Japanese terms and placed crack troops outside the Japanese settlement at Shanghai. After a protracted struggle Shanghai and the national capital, Nanjing, fell to the Japanese. The Chinese broke the Huang He dikes (June, 1938) to slow the enemy advance. In late 1938, Hankou and Guangzhou were taken."

ned. how does that suggest that china started hostilities?
1. the Marco Polo Bridge incident, in case you weren't aware, was an incident in which Japanese soldiers deliberately provoked and instigated an armed confrontation...
make no mistake, the Japanese started open hostilities, not china.

http://ibiblio.org/pha/monos/144/

http://ibiblio.org/pha/monos/144/144app06.html

2. as for the joining of the Nationalists and the Communists:

On September 18, 1931, officers of Japan's Kwangtung Army (the military force stationed on the Liaodong Peninsula) blew up a section of track on the South Manchuria Railway outside of Mukden (Shenyang). Claiming the explosion was the work of Chinese saboteurs, Japanese forces occupied key cities in southern Manchuria. Within a few months they controlled the entire region. Although the Kwantung Army acted without authorization from the Japanese government, its decisive action was popular at home, and political leaders accepted it as an accomplished fact. Rather than create a new colony, the Japanese decided to set up the nominally independent state of Manchukuo under Emperor Henry Pu Yi, who had been the last emperor of China. Real control over Manchukuo remained in the hands of Japanese advisers and officials.

(from encarta)
to explain this futher, you must understand that China and Japan were embroiled in conflict from pretty much the beginning of the 20th century, with periods when they were actually in a "hot" war (a declared one) and a state of war that wasn't declared. this forced agreement with the Nationalists and the Communists arose because while Japan controlled Manchuria, they acted in a belligerent manner towards China-- and the CCP (Chinese Communist Part) could not alone defend China against the Japanese, nor could the KMT... but instead of allying themselves with each other, the KMT and Chiang used funds sent from overseas not to better equip troops or share equally with the Communists (which was implied in the original deals), Chiang used them to enrich himself and his cronies.

I ask again, how did china start hostilities?

[Ned]

Q Cubed, My somewhat limited research on this issue from the original diplomatic traffic available from the Roosevelt library is consistent the view that relations with Japan really turned sour in early 1940 - consistent with Churchill's accession. Prior to that time, Britain and the US provided aid to China and the US was a mediator to end the war. We were not, however, imposing sanctions and demanding Japanese withdrawal from China.

I think we were generally aware of attrocities in China and Korea, but I don't think we cared all that much - the racism in the US and Britain at that time was very high. For example, I read an original report from American escapee's from Japanese prison camps in the Philippines. The Americans expressed their feelings of shock when the Japanese treated "them" in a brutal, inhuman way. The knew the Japanese used Chinese for bayonet practice. But they never expected the Japanese to use them in the same way.

As to the cause of the various incidents in 1931 and 1936 that lead to open hostilities, it is seem somewhat clear that the sparks were lit by one Chang Hsueh-ling, the Manchurian war lord. (Is he still in prison in Taiwan?) When he came to power in 1931, he became actively anti-Japanese. I have no doubt that he blew up the Japanese-controlled railway in Manchuria. Later, in 1936, he kidnapped Chiang and forced him to make peace with the communists and renew the effort against the Japanese - undoubtedly in a hope that he could regain Manchuria for himself.

As for Japan being a military dictatorship, it does appear that the army operated somewhat independently of the civilian government after the attempted coup in 1936. Tojo notes this in his diaries. http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/12/1/Tojo31-85.html

The rape of Nanking was a lawless act of the army who was no longer taking orders from the government. However, I suspect that they did take orders from Hirohito. The reason I say this is that Hirohito made Tojo the army minister in 1940 and prime minister in 1941.

It is also clear from the diplomatic traffic at the time that the US, UK and France were closely cooperating in their relations with Japan. They shared their views of Japanese policy and coordinated their responses. Each country, of course, had individual interests. But the most important interests after Sept. 1939 was the war in Europe. Thus as the Japanese got closer to Hitler, the three became increasingly hostile. Each increase in hostility lead Japan to move even closer to Hitler. It was a reinforcing cycle that lead to war.

[Q Classic]

well, i'm not exactly sure what we're arguing that has to do with the us...

but anyway:

As to the cause of the various incidents in 1931 and 1936 that lead to open hostilities, it is seem somewhat clear that the sparks were lit by one Chang Hsueh-ling, the Manchurian war lord. (Is he still in prison in Taiwan?) When he came to power in 1931, he became actively anti-Japanese. I have no doubt that he blew up the Japanese-controlled railway in Manchuria. Later, in 1936, he kidnapped Chiang and forced him to make peace with the communists and renew the effort against the Japanese - undoubtedly in a hope that he could regain Manchuria for himself.

honestly, i can't see that. not with how japan behaved in the past, and not with the evidence regarding the marco polo bridge incident.

The Shenyang Incident 1931
Japan had established an influential position in Manchuria after the Russo-Japanese War of 1905. It had further increased its economic control of the region during the First World War and had stationed its Guandong Army there to protect its interests. In September 1931, a group of extremist officers in the Guandong Army planned an incident in Manchuria which would provide an excuse for Japanese aggression. They planted a bomb that destroyed a small section of the Japanese-controlled South-Manchuria Railway. The Japanese then claimed that the Chinese were responsible for the explosion, and fighting broke out between Chinese and Japanese troops. Shenyang and other strategic points were soon occupied by the Guandong Army. It was called the Shenyang Incident. The conquest of Manchuria by the Japanese began at that time.

The Lugouqiao (Marco Polo Bridge) Incident 1937

In 1935-1936, the Japanese nationalists and militarists were growing increasingly impatient with their own government. They believed that further expansion on the Asian mainland was necessary for economic reasons and to ìliberateî China from the communist threat. They were also worried about the possibility of a united front between the Nationalists and the Communists. In July 7 1937, fighting broke out between Chinese and Japanese troops at Lugouqiao or Marco Polo Bridge near Peiping. The Japanese claimed that a Japanese soldier had escaped and hidden inside Wanping city. They then urged the Chinese soldiers stationed in Wanping to let them enter the city and find the soldier. The Chinese troops refused. Fighting broke out with each side accusing the other of firing first. Japan used the incident as their excuse for invading China and as a result, the Second Sino-Japanese War started.

here

small note, Guandong == Kwantung. it's romanization again.

[David Floyd]

IIRC, in 1941 Soviets had more the 900 T-34 and more then 500 KV and JS. It were the world's best tanks of that time .

Your "IIRC..." is not a credible source. Show me a contradictory credible source, then we'll talk.

They weren't stoped by the weather, but by Red army.

So you're telling me that if Operation Typhoon was launched during the summer - exact same conditions, otherwise - that the Russians would have won?

At the beggining of war Germans had larger army then Soviets:

http://www.shortway.to/1941/ewfram.htm

They also had the benefit of the surprise attack, and yes, they were quite succesfull at the begining. But they faced a resistance they never saw before, and they had losses they never saw before.

Granted. Operating in sub-zero temperatures without winter gear is quite a shock.

When they appeared to the gates of Moscow, the Germans troops were exhausted and weakened.

Exhausted and weakened, sure, but a lot of that was due to extended operations in extreme weather without winter clothing.

At the same time Red Army has received a significant reinforcement from formations thrown from the Siberia and from the Far East. It were well equipped and trained divisions, distinguished of high fighting capacity. The German defeat near Moscow has nothing common with weather as you describe it. They lose, because they were weaker.

Actually, at the start of Typhoon, the SU had 800,000 trained soldiers, plus various workers battalions and the like, defending Moscow. The Germans eliminated 700,000 of these troops before the end of Typhoon. They had to stop because of the weather, and because they did not have winter gear, and because their tanks and other vehicles weren't able to operate in such cold conditions.

First of all. About what type of war we are talking about?

I would assume a full scale war, where neither side demilitarized or anything of the sort before starting to fight, or geared down production.

You said that USA was able to kicked Soviets out of Eastern Europe. I said that this is a pure bullsh*t, because Soviet forces in Europe were three times larger, equiped with better weapons and were MUCH experienced then combined American British forces.

I never said it would be instant.

The long full-scale war between USA and SU it's absolutely different case.

So you admit the US would win in a long war against the SU?

The war in Europe in 1945 if it would happen, would be won by Soviets for sure. And won pretty quick, because it is too far away from USA and Soviets had more powerfull army.

It was an army that not only was the last remnant of forces the SU could put in the field, but also an army dependent upon Lend Lease in many ways for replacement vehicles. And imagine how much the Red Air Force would have to scale back operations once Lend Lease aviation fuel stopped coming in. And imagine the effects on Soviet supply lines once US B-29s started devastating the railway system supplying the Red Army.

Fine, fine. First of all were did you get it? From "The Rise and Fall of Great Nations"? rolleyes:

No, but even if I had that is more credible documentation than you have provided.
I got it from this website:

http://members.tripod.com/~Sturmvogel/WarEcon.html

However, if you can find credible contradictory information, I'll listen.

Second, sure it looks impressive in compare with newly produced Soviet analogs. BUT could you compare f.e. number of locomotives recived by SU through Lend-Lease with total number of Soviet locomotives, or f.e number of received trucks with total number of Soviet trucks, etc?

I don't have the numbers handy, I'd have to look for them, but I know for a fact that the Soviet rail system was hit very hard, and many locomotives were lost to the Germans in Western Russia, and most of the original Soviet trucks were destroyed or broken down beyond repair by 1945. And in any case, those that were left were not nearly as capable as US Lend Lease Studebakers. It is said that only two vehicles could get through the mud in the Ukraine - the T-34 with its wide tracks, and the US Studebaker.

In fact, US trucks stamped with "U.S.A" were so prevalent in Western Russia and Eastern Europe that some people thought "USA" stood for "Kill that Son-of-a-***** Adolf" (in Russian of course).

Those are the most important numbers.

Logistics are just as or more important than numbers. Ask anyone in the military. Number of men and number of tanks become major considerations only after air superiority has been secured, and after a secure logistics system capable of providing for every need of the army is in place. The Soviet Union would have had neither of those things.

Yeah, right it's a big deal in compare with "pathetic" six million German army on Russian front.

Yes, actually it could have been important - a few more reserves in a critical location can turn the tide of a battle, which can in turn make or break an entire campaign.

Very good. And how do you suggest USA to materialize needed amount of weaponry and soldiers on Europe theater in 1945 in case of war vs. Soviets?

In ships. It's not as if they would have had to invade again, or use artificial harbors and beaches for unloading.

It tooks three years for you to deleiver 2 millions of troops in Normandy.

How many times do I have to tell you that numbers are not nearly the greatest consideration in war?

And it still was three times lesser then Soviets had. Do you think Soviets gave you another three years to reinforce your forces in Europe? With superiority in numbers 3:1 and in quality, the Soviet forces just would crushed your European army within months.

See above. You wouldn't have crushed anything without air superiority or secure supply lines, or US Lend Lease. You would have had none of those.

This club could easily hammer away your forces from Europe. And your generals perfectly realized this and didn't dare to done something even when USA was the only country who had a nuclear weapons.

Actually, the US General Patton was one of the main voices for going after the Soviets. It was the politicians who didn't want to. And they were of course right, but not because the SU would have won. They were right because warmongering is wrong, regardless of strength. For example, the US could easily seize Mexico and the oil reserves there, and the same with Canada. It's not a question of military power at all. But that doesn't mean that we do it, because, again, starting unnecessary wars is wrong.

Let me guess, it's "The Rise and Fall of Great Nations." again? I never read it, but something tells me that this is an anti-Soviet bs book, writen in times of Cold war. Am I right?

Fine. Find me a source that says something else, and I'll look at it.

In 1941 Red army done harm to unbeatable Wehrmacht it never saw before and stopped German advancement.

But they still lost every major battle up until the end of Operation Typhoon, which only failed because of weather.

First of all, they acheived a better ratio during beggining of war.

And at the end of the war, they were still killing more Russians for every German killed than they were Americans.

Also, you never fought with really powerfull German regiments. The regiments who concquered Europe, but was destroyed later in Russia. German army in 1944 in Normandy wasn't the same army as in 1941 in Russia. In 1944 Hitler drafted 14 boys and elders badly injured in WW1, into his army located in France, because Russian front consumed all German manpower and resources. There was entire division in France consisted of people with stomach illineses, some soldiers even have missed fingers. In 1944 best German regiments were already destroyed.

That's nice. But I'm talking about the kill/loss ratios in 1944/45, not 1941.

And you compare such forces with elite of third reich who invaded SU in 1941? Also, you always had superiority in numbers, when you havn't you just retried. We often fought for the last man standing, and had no right to retrie, because we defend our country and every our retrie mean death of civilians left on occupied territories.

Really? So in 1944 Germany was still advancing into your territory and you were still defending to the last man?

And btw, do you have examples of kill/loss ratio such this, for example:

Yes, there were many instances of local Red Army successes. Another, larger scale example would be the fact that the Russian 100d and 101st divisions (I believe those were the two) stopped the initial German thrust at the border.
But the Germans still won the great battles of annihilation at places such as Minsk, Kiev, Vyazma, etc.

And this is not about propaganda, but about our mentality.

Mentalities are manipulated by propaganda. What the hell do you think political officers were for?

Of course I'll explain. This statement is no more then pure bullsh*t. If nazi were welcomed as liberators and supported by local population, then we would never won this war. Do you have any idea about scale of partisan warfare on occupied territories? Do you ever read a dairies or memoirs of German generals, who participated in war vs. Russia? In one of such dairy (of general-leuthenant Boddo von Zimerman IIRC) he saying that he was surprised by attitude of locals. Smt like this: "the situation on occupied territories was absolutely different from what I saw on Russian front during WW1. Aside first war, locals were extremely hostile"
Sure, some bastards joined nazi in war vs. Soviets, but it was TINY part of population. TINY PART- f*cken traitors.

In the Ukraine, Stalin intentionally caused the death of millions during the 1930s, and he forcibly seized the Baltic States in 1939/1940. When the Germans first arrived, the people living in those areas at first thought that the Germans would be better occupiers than the Soviets - and indeed they were, until Hitler made one of his great blunders and sent in the Einstatzgruppen. But the fact remains that Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians, and various other peoples, at first felt that living under the Germans was far preferable than living under Stalin, who had killed millions of them. That isn't treason by any means.

Do you know with which words our grandfathers engaged in battles? "For Motherland, for Stalin."
First the Motherland, only then Stalin. They fought this war for our country, not because Stalin forced them to fight.

That's right. But I'm talking about other potential wars, where "the motherland" was not in danger. In that case, they'd put up with it because of a combination of lying propaganda and an extreme fear of Stalin.

Fine. Let me introduce one very interesting document, signed by one very interesting person. This person is Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I guess you have heard about such president of USA.
He called victory in Stalingrad's battle a turning point in war vs. nazi. CASE IS CLOSED. Those are the words of YOUR president, your bs theories that Soviets were unable to deal with nazi in 1944 is no more then bs. Or perhaps you are disagreed with Roosevelt?

Roosevelt was a politician, and everything he said or did was calculated to meet a political end, not necessarily to reflect reality.

[Ned]

Q Cubed, Of course the Japanese have a different view. As I found out, Harvard is chairing joint US/China/Japanese research into the Sino-Japanese war. Histories written by the US just after the war probably continued to be influenced by propaganda. I suggest that the truth lies somewhere in between two opposing views of the same facts.

But what I found is that US hostilty toward Japan was hardly influenced at all by the Sino-Japanese war. It had everything to do with the war in Europe. I suspect the English viewed Japan as threat to attack their rear, i.e., Hong Kong, Singapore, Dutch Indonesia, and French Indochina. Thus policy after 1939 was obsessively focused on Japan's relations with Germany. The US was cooperating hand-in-glove with the English and French.

After the Japanese signed the Axis agreement and moved their army into Indochina in Sept. 1940, the worst fears of the English seemed to be coming reality. This is when the US really began to impose sanctions and diplomacy became radically hostile.

Note, this had nothing at all to do with "American" interests in the Far East. We were doing this to help England, France and Holland.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
i didn't say he was a brutish dictator. i said he was a generalissimo who would have created a corrupt democracy if he'd had half the chance.

Then why didn't he in Taiwan?

[Q Classic]

i didn't say he was a brutish dictator. i said he was a generalissimo who would have created a corrupt democracy if he'd had half the chance.

but che, he did.
taiwan under him was an extremely corrupt, authoritarian, one-party state that had democratic elections.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Your "IIRC..." is not a credible source. Show me a contradictory credible source, then we'll talk.

My IIRC still serve me well:
"The primary models of tanks in the Soviet arsenal were the T-26 (approximately 12,000), the BT calvary series (approximately 8,300), the T-28 was the primary medium tank, and there were 2 battalions of T-35 heavy tanks.

The T-34 became the standard medium tank for the war after the invasion. The KV-1 was the most thickly armored tank in the world. There were 508 KVs and 967 T-34s available in June 1941, out of a total of 23,637."
508KV+967 T-34 is more then 947, and I guess heavy T-35 with all its disadvantages was still more then eqal to German light tanks.

So you're telling me that if Operation Typhoon was launched during the summer - exact same conditions, otherwise - that the Russians would have won?

Of course. German forces were exhausted, German propaganda declared that Red army is destroyed, but in reality they found new, fresh and strong Red army near Moscow. The army that had more planes, tanks and artilery then Germans.

Granted. Operating in sub-zero temperatures without winter gear is quite a shock.

Is it an excuse? It shows only an aroggance and stupidity of their leadership, who beleive that they will crush us within few months. And btw, do you know how German troops cover their lack of winter wear? They took all possible winter wear from local population on occupied territory and doomed millions of civilians to death.

Exhausted and weakened, sure, but a lot of that was due to extended operations in extreme weather without winter clothing.

They were already exhausted and weakened at autumn, when they appeared at the Moscow. For the few first months of war they lost about 600 000 soldiers and half of their tanks. Should I quote Hitler?
Hitler to Guderian: "had I known Russian tank strength...I would not have started this war."

Actually, at the start of Typhoon, the SU had 800,000 trained soldiers, plus various workers battalions and the like, defending Moscow. The Germans eliminated 700,000 of these troops before the end of Typhoon.

The data about Russian casulties:

http://www.serpukhov.su/dima/war/eng/elose.htm

And btw, do you have any idea how many soldiers Germans lost during this battle? 900 000 in acordance with German archives or 1 100 000 in acordance with Russian archives.

They had to stop because of the weather, and because they did not have winter gear, and because their tanks and other vehicles weren't able to operate in such cold conditions.

They lost initiative, their moral was poor, Hitler promised quick victory to them and said that Red army is history, instead of this they faced new, fresh forces. Enire new front was created for Moscow's defense. We had more, planes, tanks and artilery. Our forces were fresh, while German soldiers were tired. Our forces were well-equiped, while German supply lines were too long and were constantly under attack of our partisan regiments.
We were stronger this time and they lost this battle.

I would assume a full scale war, where neither side demilitarized or anything of the sort before starting to fight, or geared down production.

In that case, in Europe your forces were still crushed, because Soviet forces in Europe were much more powerfull and you don't had time to send reinforces in needed quantity. We didn't declare war on Japan, and our Far East forces would be more then enough to protect our territory. This war would turn to long stalemate, because with lost of your European forces, you'll need a lot of time to create new army and Soviets don't have capability to deliver army into USA, except invasion in Alska.

So you admit the US would win in a long war against the SU?

Of course not.

It was an army that not only was the last remnant of forces the SU could put in the field, but also an army dependent upon Lend Lease in many ways for replacement vehicles. And imagine how much the Red Air Force would have to scale back operations once Lend Lease aviation fuel stopped coming in. And imagine the effects on Soviet supply lines once US B-29s started devastating the railway system supplying the Red Army.

First of all I don't buy this bs about fuell. In your source the data is exaggerated. Perhaps you'll explain HOW exactly all those goods were delivered into SU? HOW SUCH HUGE amount of cargo was delivered into so distant country, while German subs were patroling the sea? Untill then it sounds more like fairytale to me.
Especially this line from your source about aviation fuel:
"Aviation Fuel, thousands of tons (includes Allied deliveries):1940-889 1941-1269 1942-912 1943-1007 1944-1334 1945-1017 "
It's very suspicious, considering that SU didn't recieved anyting untill late August of 1941. Perhaps, this source miss us with Britain, or perhaps it's simply pbs (which is more likely)
Next, you describe it as USA would had an air superiority which I highly doubt. I highly doubt that USA had more planes, better planes and better pilots in Europe then Soviets. Next, manpower, yes, this war cost 27 millions of people lives for our country, yes, it was terrible impact on demogaphy. But, statement that we hadn't mens anymore is exaggeration. You know, children has tendency to grow, the children who were 14 at 1941, were 18 at 1945. Sure in compare with USA who lost only 300 000 of its mens, you were in better situation, but are you sure that your population would support war vs. former ally, and would ready to risk its lives in war vs. former close ally. You were a democracy afterall. Next, Lend-Lease dependance, bs, you should add industry of occupied Europe to industry of SU. With industry of Europe SU would be more then able to maintain long full-scale war vs. USA.

No, but even if I had that is more credible documentation than you have provided.
I got it from this website:

http://members.tripod.com/~Sturmvogel/WarEcon.html

However, if you can find credible contradictory information, I'll listen.

I don't have to. Your own source is telling this:
"On May 1, 1945 Lend-Lease vehicles comprised 32.8% of the Red Army's vehicle park. 9.1% were captured vehicles and 58.1% were domestically built...
These trucks enabled the Soviets to mount the offensives that evicted the Nazis from their territory and took Berlin. Without them they would have had to divert tank production to the manufacture of trucks. Undoubtedly this would have prolonged the war in the East, but not changed the outcome."

This is exactly is my point. Without Lend-Lease the victory cost more time and more lives for us, but we still won at the end.

I don't have the numbers handy, I'd have to look for them, but I know for a fact that the Soviet rail system was hit very hard, and many locomotives were lost to the Germans in Western Russia, and most of the original Soviet trucks were destroyed or broken down beyond repair by 1945.

Yep. Look for them. I guess there were much more then 2 408.

In fact, US trucks stamped with "U.S.A" were so prevalent in Western Russia and Eastern Europe that some people thought "USA" stood for "Kill that Son-of-a-***** Adolf" (in Russian of course).

Not "some people thought", it's some people were joking about this Ubit Suku Adolfa. It's slightly different things. Aside you we have our own alphabet and this alphabet simply don't have letters "U" and "S".

Logistics are just as or more important than numbers. Ask anyone in the military. Number of men and number of tanks become major considerations only after air superiority has been secured, and after a secure logistics system capable of providing for every need of the army is in place. The Soviet Union would have had neither of those things.

It's much better to have a strong army with poor logistic, then to have a strong logistic and don't have army at all. Who needs your logistic, if you don't have weaponry?

Yes, actually it could have been important - a few more reserves in a critical location can turn the tide of a battle, which can in turn make or break an entire campaign.

Yes, but Germans was forced to maintain part of their forces in Europe. Perhaps you forget, but they OCCUPIED those countries, and needed forces to hold those territories. Without German forces within those countries, they simply uprised against ivaders.

In ships. It's not as if they would have had to invade again, or use artificial harbors and beaches for unloading.

So are you trying to say that in 1945 in USA mainland was another million+ army ready for another landing in Europe?

How many times do I have to tell you that numbers are not nearly the greatest consideration in war?

Of course not. But, when you had forces tree times larger, your forces eqiped with better weaponry, your soldiers and generals went through four years of war, while your enemy FAR LESS experienced. And your enemy had to cross ocean to reinforce its army, which took a lot of time and efforts, then I guess that Soviets had much better chances to win.

See above. You wouldn't have crushed anything without air superiority or secure supply lines, or US Lend Lease. You would have had none of those.

We gained air superiority in 1942, our supply lines were secured since that time. Lend Lease, see above.

Actually, the US General Patton was one of the main voices for going after the Soviets. It was the politicians who didn't want to. And they were of course right, but not because the SU would have won.

Your politicians were much wiser then.
In 1941 Hitler had the best army of the World, while Soviets were unready for war, during Stalin's purges their army lost huge number of experienced commanders who went throught the civil war and intervention, they had obsolete tanks and planes, they were sneak attaked and were in chaos during first months of war, they lost huge territories to enemy, the most industrialized part of their territory. BUT even after all of this they CRUSHED the strongest army in the World and become new strongest army of the World. If Hitler failed to defeat them when he had the strongest army on this planet, while Soviets were weak, what makes you think that America would be able to crush the Soviets, when she hadn't the strongest army on this planet, while Soviets had such army and were on peak of its military strength?

But they still lost every major battle up until the end of Operation Typhoon, which only failed because of weather.

Perhaps you forget with WHOM we fought. They were the conquerors of Europe, unbeatable Werhmacht, they crushed all their previous enemies easily without any serious casualties. Every battle with Red army cost new deaths for them, every such battle weakened them and gave us time to prepare new defenses.

And at the end of the war, they were still killing more Russians for every German killed than they were Americans...
That's nice. But I'm talking about the kill/loss ratios in 1944/45, not 1941.

Why do you think that your forces had better ratio in 1945? Where the hell you get this?

And anyhow, in 1945 on your direction there almost was no resistance, while on Russian front was a great resistance. Nazi prefered surrender to your forces, because they feared that Russians will revenge for all crimes nazi done on occupied lands. All more or less regular regiments were fought vs. Soviets, fought fiercely.
And lets see on overall kill/loss ratio: (Sure you will shout that its Russian propaganda, because it took from Russian archives.) This data took from the book "History of Russia from ancient times to nowadays." wrote by M.N. Zueva in 1995.
"During 1418 days of the Great Patriotic war, on Russian front Germany and its satelites lost 607 divisions, more then 10 millions soldiers (80% of overall German casualties) 167 000 artilery, 48 000 tanks, almost 77 000 planes. ( 75% of all its weaponry)
However, the price of victory was high. 29 millions of Soviet people went through sevice in Red army. During war the SU lost 27 million people, including 10 millions of soldiers on front. 4 millions of partisans were slain on occupied territories. 6 millions of civilians were imprisoned. Invaders destroyed 1710 cities and towns and more then 70 000 of villages. 32 000 industrial facilities were destroyed. 98 000 of "colhoz" (farmer's communes) were destroyed. 6 000 hospitals were destroyed. 82 000 schools were destroyed. 334 colleges and universities were destroyed. 427 museums were destroyed. 43 000 libraries were destroyed. "
So, overall stat aproximate is 1:1. 10 millions vs. 10 millions. What is the ratio of US army?

Yes, there were many instances of local Red Army successes. Another, larger scale example would be the fact that the Russian 100d and 101st divisions (I believe those were the two) stopped the initial German thrust at the border.

Such as Elnia operation:

http://www.shortway.to/1941/ewfram.htm

That's right. But I'm talking about other potential wars, where "the motherland" was not in danger. In that case, they'd put up with it because of a combination of lying propaganda and an extreme fear of Stalin.

Yes, it's a different case. So, we should determinate who would strike first Soviets or USA?

Roosevelt was a politician, and everything he said or did was calculated to meet a political end, not necessarily to reflect reality.

Are you trying to say that Roosevelt was lying when he said this?

[Serb]

Damn, this post is too big. I can't edit it and I forget to put a link about number of tanks in Red army before 1941:
"The primary models of tanks in the Soviet arsenal were the T-26 (approximately 12,000), the BT calvary series (approximately 8,300), the T-28 was the primary medium tank, and there were 2 battalions of T-35 heavy tanks.

The T-34 became the standard medium tank for the war after the invasion. The KV-1 was the most thickly armored tank in the world. There were 508 KVs and 967 T-34s available in June 1941, out of a total of 23,637."

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/ussr/index.htm

[tinyp3nis]

Hey Serb, i would really much like to know your side of the story what happened in the winterwar of 39, i have heard the finnish side here way too often and i know all the facts allready, but i have allways wanted to hear the russian version of what really happened. I really havent got the chance to hear it earlier, but it has allways bugged me since i have been hearing the soviet version is way different what really happened(or finnish ppl say what happened)....
You dont have to reply, but im just too curious not to ask about it, just in case u have info.