Stalingrad remembered.

[The Vagabond]

Great thread, Serb

You launched Sputnik because of German scientists and expertise.

David, you deny Russia any achievement whatsoever.

[Serb]

What take you so long?

[The Vagabond]

Sorry, Serb, it took me so long to post. But I have been reading the thread for the last few days and appreciating it.

[The Vagabond]

As for the name of the city, the most appropriate one would be Stalingradgrad -- to underscore that it is named after the battle of Stalingrad and not after Stalin. But unfortunately this sounds too redundant.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Serb


I've checked my book and have to say that I was mistaken. It was at the end of 1941 right before the Soviet Moscow's counter-offence, no at the beggining of 1942 as I thought. So, I have no idea about such attemts in 1942 and in 1943, perhaps you could enlighten me about this? Btw, do you know that Brits were doing exactly the same exactly at the same time (trying to sign separate peace with Hitler of course)? Does it mean that Brits "were close to collapse" too?

Where the hell do you get that from. the Uk could have made peace in 1940 when it was in real toruble. It didn't so why would it do it later on

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Serb


I've checked my book and have to say that I was mistaken. It was at the end of 1941 right before the Soviet Moscow's counter-offence, no at the beggining of 1942 as I thought. So, I have no idea about such attemts in 1942 and in 1943, perhaps you could enlighten me about this? Btw, do you know that Brits were doing exactly the same exactly at the same time (trying to sign separate peace with Hitler of course)? Does it mean that Brits "were close to collapse" too?

No. It means you are pulling facts out of your ass. The Brits asked Hitler for peace in 1942...

[Fidel]

Originally posted by David Floyd
True, and those resources were insufficient to produce complex machine tools, or enough locomotives/rail tracks, or grain, etc.

but could produce such simple machines as tanks and planes

You have a very simplistic view of war. The presence of a credible threat draws troops away from other sectors. In May 1944, there were no battles going on in France, yet Germany still had 46 divisions - including 9 Panzer divisions with 1500 tanks - sitting around in France. This is pretty significant, wouldn't you say? An entire Panzer group and a couple of armies would have made quite a contribution on the Eastern Front, eh?

the first time there was any significant presence of fighting troops on the West was during Ardennes (and they almost drove you to Atlantic)

That's incorrect. Even after Stalingrad, the Wehrmacht had largely recovered throughout the spring of 1943, and launched some pretty good blitzkrieg-style local counterattacks that succeeded in retaking a good bit of territory in the Ukraine.

sporadic counterattacks, but on a strategic defensive. they counterattacked after russian winter/spring 1943 offensive and that is about it, really...

Kept fighting, yes. Kept launching massive attacks, no, at least not once they maxed out their manpower availability and were only going down, and not once their production abilities peaked, and Germany's began to approach their's

you mean after germany developed a clone army of workers and a clone army of soldiers?

LaRusso,



The Abomb was produced because of espionage - you stole it from the US. You launched Sputnik because of German scientists and expertise.

Serbs never captured any German scientists hehe
By the way, as a great haven for Strangelove-like Nazi scientists, US should keep quiet about such stuff...

[David Floyd]

Serb,

Bullsh!t. You have one problem Floyd, you believe that during the war there were only Americans locomotives on Soviet railroads. For you 2000 locomotives it's huge number, but in fact for such huge country as Soviet Union 2000 locomotives it's a drop in the ocean.

Perhaps, but thousands were captured or destroyed by the Germans, and many of the rest were overworked.

The fact that SU lowered production of its locomotives during the war doesn't mean that all Soviet locomotives magicaly dissapiared somewhere.

OK, but what you are forgetting is that if the Russians had to produce locomotives (not to mention railroad track, which you are also ignoring), they would have been producing that many fewer tanks.

WHEN YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THAT LEND- LEASE WAS LESS THAN 5%, FIVE PERCENTS OF TOTAL SOVIET WAR-RELATED PRODUCTION?

I understand the 5% figure. What you aren't understanding is that a)that's a very low end estimate, b)much of that percentage, whatever the true percentage is, could not have been domestically produced, at least not of the same quality, and c)if the SU had been forced to produce that stuff, it's corresponding percentage loss of military production (tanks, artillery, whatever) would have been much greater than 5%. They wouldn't have been able to split production factories in half - ie, part producing tanks, part producing trains. Further, that percentage figure refers to the financial cost of production, not the labor itself, or the amount of raw materials.

What you're doing is basically lying with statistics. The contribution of Lend Lease was certainly greater than 5% any way you figure it, but in terms of actual military production, such as tanks, aircraft, etc., Lend Lease allowed the production of more than "5%" more than otherwise would have been produced. Also realize, again, that a good portion of Lend Lease was actually military equipment that was utilized up through the end of the war (the entire 1st Guards Mechanized Corps, in 1945, was equipped entirely with Lend Lease tanks for example) that would have had to have been otherwise produced.

I've asked "which battles on West front drew off German troops for example in November/December 1941 and how many troops ?" Once again IN 1941, not in 1944.

Oh, I'm not claiming that the US and Britain had any influence on the Battle for Moscow in 1941. The Germans lost because of the weather, not because of US involvement.

If you do not realize that landing in Normandy in 1944 was nothing more than attempt to grab at least something in Europe, before commies would take everything, BECAUSE it was absolutely clear that Germany is doomed and nothing would stop Soviets, then you are hopeless.

I think you're confusing this with the Soviet attack on Japan in 1945, and in any case, I'll apply the same argument that you use for that one in reverse - the Soviet Union was begging for help of a military nature (to a much greater degree than the US requests that the SU go to war with Japan).

And as to the Soviets driving all the way across Europe and being able to defeat the United States, I think we all know how laughable that is.

You are talking about tactic, I was talking about strategy.

You were talking about blitzkrieg in general, and I answered with specific examples.

And still, you didn't answered how the hell you could be 100% sure that Soviets would have lost if in 1943 Germans still had air-superiority?

First of all, I didn't make that argument, second of all, do you at least admit that the Germans would have done significantly BETTER in 1943 with air superiority? Or, barring that, will you admit that air superiority would have had SOME positive impact for the Germans?

They had it 1941, so what?

If you think the Soviet Union could have survived the losses of June-December 1941 again in 1943, and stayed in the war in any significant capacity, you're dreaming.

And you have to prove first that Soviets would lost air-superiority if Germany had these additional fighters.

As late as 1944, with under 20% of their fighters in the East, the Luftwaffe could grab local air superiority almost anywhere it wanted. The Finns could do the same thing, and both of these in the face of massive theater wide numerical superiority possessed by the Red Air Force. If Germany increased it's fighter strength by 500%, don't you think it would have had a massive impact on the air war?

Btw, do you know that Brits were doing exactly the same exactly at the same time (trying to sign separate peace with Hitler of course)?

Really? The British were trying to make peace in 1942, AFTER the US entered the war and AFTER they won the Battle of Britain when they wouldn't make peace when they stood alone after the fall of France? Hehe, good one.

LaRusso,

but could produce such simple machines as tanks and planes

Well, it's true that because of their focus of very nearly 100% of industrial potential on military production, the SU produced more tanks than the US (and also, of course, lost more to a massively disproportional amount).

But in terms of aircraft, you're totally off base. In 1944, the US was outproducing the SU in aircraft by a ratio of 2:1, and this disparity was trending upwards in 1945, with the US industrial capacity still not at full potential (expanding at about 15% a year), while the SU's had already peaked. Further, thousands of these US aircraft were heavy bombers, which the SU produced almost 0 of, focusing almost entirely on the much easier to produce fighters and tactical aircraft.

the first time there was any significant presence of fighting troops on the West was during Ardennes

No, this was the first time there were significant numbers of troops and tanks FOLLOWING Operation Cobra and the closing of the Falaise Gap and, to a lesser extent, the landing in Southern France, which absolutely decimated Germany's Western armies.

sporadic counterattacks, but on a strategic defensive.

Never claimed otherwise.

you mean after germany developed a clone army of workers and a clone army of soldiers?

No, I mean after the German field commanders were allowed to pursue a flexible defensive strategy that involved strategic withdrawals and corresponding local counterattacks to squeeze off overextended Soviet troops (which virtually always happened when the Germans counterattacked) - a strategy designed to kill Soviet troops much quicker than Germany lost troops.

[Sandman]

I can't believe you're still flogging the dead locomotive horse, Floyd. The numbers are simply against you.

[David Floyd]

First of all, locomotives are but one example. Second of all, I haven't seen anyone but me post numbers (Serb got the 2000 figure from me), and thirdly, Lend Lease wasn't the only example of American assistance to the war effort.

[Sandman]

Two of your points are the same point of which I am taking no notice. A Floydian slip?

Where does your estimate of 2000 come from then? I've seen similar unattributed figures of 1000. Does your figure represent locomotives shipped, rather than those arriving safely?

I think that it is reasonable to assume that the lend lease locomotives were ill-equipped for Russian conditions, and presumably required increased effort to adapt them for useful service.

I also suggest that the presence of LL increased the need for rail transport more than the proportion of economic aid gained because the aid was delivered into the Soviet Union at it's extremities, reducing the overall efficiency of the rail network.

I would also be very surprised if the Soviet locomotive losses were as high as you suggest. They were delivering materials to the Germans prior to war, but what percentage of Soviet GDP was spent on that? No more than 5%, surely.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Serb
BeBro,
Yes Ilya (may I use your previous name Eli?) is absolutely correct. Stalingrad’s original name is Tzaricin, but it’s not about Tzar or monarchy. Tzaricin (later Stalingrad, later Volgograd) was founded on river Tzarca (Queen). The name of this river was the origin for name of the city. It was renamed to Stalingard later. I guess because it’s a place where during Russian civil war Red army had devastating victory over White Army. The person who commanded defense of the Tzaricin was Stalin.

Leave the name alone or rename it to Tzaricin. We should never honor Stalin or Hitler. For the solider who fought and died there, honor them.

Serb; Like it or not, Midway was for the US in the Pacific, as was Stalingrad for Russia.

The Japanese had us at a disadvantage. They had one Battleship, 4 Carriers and several Cruisers, Destroyer and Subs, plus an invasion fleet of several thousand troops. The US had 3 carrier, a few Cruiser and Destroyer. Midway itself had only a few planes and a few hundred Marines to defend the Islands.
If we had loss, the war would have been extended maybe 2, 3 or more years.

The US was building it first Carrier and Battleship after the war started for us, and they were not ready to sail until Feb and March of 43. Midway was in June of 42, and if the Japanese won at Midway, they would have a base to attack Hawaii anytime they wanted. Plus the US had no means to supply Hawaii other than with ships, and the Japanese Subs could have operated off of our coast. There are only 8 ports on the West coast that shipping could have sailed from to Hawaii.
Seattle, Portland, Eureka, Ca., San Francisco, Monterey, Ca., Los Angeles, and San Diego. The only planes that could fly to Hawaii is the B-17 and 24s, no fighter had the range.

We the US would not have been able to attack Africa in 42. Germany could have sent more troops to Russia.

I know that you love Russia, but from time to time sit back and look at the big picture. If I do this, what will he do. And if he does that, what can I do to stop or slow it down.

[David Floyd]

Joseph:

Actually, the Japanese had 2 BBs with the First Carrier Striking Force - 2nd Section, BatDiv 3, which was the Haruna and Kirishima.

The rest of their BBs were with their other forces.

So it's an even bigger victory for the USN

[Joseph]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Joseph:

Actually, the Japanese had 2 BBs with the First Carrier Striking Force - 2nd Section, BatDiv 3, which was the Haruna and Kirishima.

The rest of their BBs were with their other forces.

So it's an even bigger victory for the USN

Thank you. I did not get one my books to look it up, but I knew that they had at lease one.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Serb

Do you have any link that says that 16 year olds were drafted on regular basis in Red army in 1944? I never heard about this. Sure some young volunteers lied to draftmans about their true age, but draft of 16 olds on regular basis it's absolutely different thing.

I've seen alot of pictures of soviet troops around 44/45 with teenage soldiers. Not in the same ratio as the Germans at berlin but still quite a few. Of course, I wouldn't know if they were drafted or not.