Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wonder why you don't remember who supplied Hitler with gasoline, whose corporations produced military products for the Reich. Take an interest in the activities of Ford, Standard oil, General motors, and even Coca-Cola did not stay away during the war.
Stalin supplied his ally Nazi Germany with material and support during his invasions of Europe for nearly 2 years. Earlier, Stalin gave the Germans a secret tank school (Kama in Kazan) and luftwaffe training program in Lipetsk (although started under Lenin, greatly supported by Stalin). We are not so blind to the deeds of USSR to help re-arm Germany as you dear comrade. Comrade Stalin sure did the world a favor by helping Germany beat "western sanctions".
When the Red Army stopped the Germans before Moscow in December 1941, about five weeks after FDR approved extended Lend-Lease aid to the USSR. Virtually no Lend-Lease materiel had yet reached Soviet shores, much less been shipped to the front. Once the Wehrmacht was stopped before Moscow, the initiative was lost and never regained.
While Lend-Lease undoubtedly helped - Khrushchev famously claimed that SPAM won the war for the Soviets - and significantly accelerated things in the East, which had ripple effects in that the West was deprived of forces allocated to staving off the Red Army, it does not appear that but for Lend-Lease the USSR would have fallen. Come to terms? Maybe. But even that is uncertain.
Total hogwash. The initiative ended in Stalingrad a year later.
The winter stopped the Germans march on Moscow in 12/41, but they were far from defeated. The proof they were not defeated lies in the events of 1942, the taking over of millions more sq km of land and the destruction of more Soviet armies along the way. The turnaround for the soviets was Stalingrad in 1943 along with the denial of German air superiority. This would have not happened if not for the American supply of critically needed fuel and replacement aircraft (and tanker trucks). Even more importantly allied bombing campaigns got rolling with over 1k heavy bombers deployed by March. That caused the Luftwaffe to pull back a significant amount of interceptor aircraft from the eastern front. Finally we were just kicking the Krauts out of Africa by the time Stalingrad ended and on our way to knocking Italy out of the war.
I'm not saying that the USSR would have lost the war without allied support. But they certainly would have lost a lot more battles and men in the process. Arguably Leningrad as well.
I think DKM is correct to say the Germans lost the strategic initiative at the battle of Stalingrad. Not only did they lose the strategically important city on a major supply line they failed to capture the oil resources of the Caucasus. Had they held the Caucasus and Stalingrad all those tanks being built would have had no diesel, they would have also cut the southern supply route for LL.
Germany still held a lot of advantages tactically until the battles of Kursk, Orsha and the 3rd battle of Kharkov. These 3 battles was where the Red Army broke the back of the Wehrmacht. It cost a lot, especially at Kharkov but in all cases the Red Army won the field of battle and were able to repair lost equipment and gather themselves for the push to the Dneiper River and Kiev. The Germans lost too much in manpower and equipment. Bagration in 1944 was the nail in the coffin.
Air superiority never really played a decisive role in any of these battles although it was there. The Red Airforce was never up to par with the Luftwaffe, this was mainly due to doctrine.
I don't think that in 1943 the allied bombing campaign was that effective DKM. Look into what Germany produced in 1943.
I think DKM is correct to say the Germans lost the strategic initiative at the battle of Stalingrad. Not only did they lose the strategically important city on a major supply line they failed to capture the oil resources of the Caucasus. Had they held the Caucasus and Stalingrad all those tanks being built would have had no diesel, they would have also cut the southern supply route for LL.
Germany still held a lot of advantages tactically until the battles of Kursk, Orsha and the 3rd battle of Kharkov. These 3 battles was where the Red Army broke the back of the Wehrmacht. It cost a lot, especially at Kharkov but in all cases the Red Army won the field of battle and were able to repair lost equipment and gather themselves for the push to the Dneiper River and Kiev. The Germans lost too much in manpower and equipment. Bagration in 1944 was the nail in the coffin.
Air superiority never really played a decisive role in any of these battles although it was there. The Red Airforce was never up to par with the Luftwaffe, this was mainly due to doctrine.
I don't think that in 1943 the allied bombing campaign was that effective DKM. Look into what Germany produced in 1943.
Stalin supplied his ally Nazi Germany with material and support during his invasions of Europe for nearly 2 years. Earlier, Stalin gave the Germans a secret tank school (Kama in Kazan) and luftwaffe training program in Lipetsk (although started under Lenin, greatly supported by Stalin). We are not so blind to the deeds of USSR to help re-arm Germany as you dear comrade. Comrade Stalin sure did the world a favor by helping Germany beat "western sanctions".
And what this "material" would be and why would Stalin "supply" it?
Don't bother answering DKM, because it was wheat and grain that Stalin was *supplying* to Germany in exchange for machinery that he needed for his industrialization.
Both countries were pariahs after the WWI (albeit for different reasons,) and that's why Stalin was cooperating with Germany - not because he was "supporting Hitler's regime."
That's why "we" ( as in "we are not so blind") works only for people who know history only as "hear-say."
P.S. Now on another hand, I am learning new things about Ukraine (rather - Western part of it of course,) during Hitler's times, because once they tried to cancel out the 9th of May there, the next question is whether they are going to celebrate now the "Ukrainian independence" promoted initially under Hitler.
But on this one - later.
The news on Ukrainian economy - first.
Stalin supplied his ally Nazi Germany with material and support during his invasions of Europe for nearly 2 years. Earlier, Stalin gave the Germans a secret tank school (Kama in Kazan) and luftwaffe training program in Lipetsk (although started under Lenin, greatly supported by Stalin). We are not so blind to the deeds of USSR to help re-arm Germany as you dear comrade. Comrade Stalin sure did the world a favor by helping Germany beat "western sanctions".
It's called business and politics DKM. I didn't ever hear of any olive branches being extended to the USSR by western nations during those times did you?
There's many reasons things went down as they did.
Air superiority never really played a decisive role in any of these battles although it was there. The Red Airforce was never up to par with the Luftwaffe, this was mainly due to doctrine.
I don't think that in 1943 the allied bombing campaign was that effective DKM. Look into what Germany produced in 1943.
My point was the allied bombing did cause Germany to reposition a significant amount of their air defenses back to the west in 1943 which did end German air superiority over the eastern front. Also the North African campaign caused more repositioning of ground and air forces. By the time the battle of Kursk occurred, less than half the Luftwaffe remained on the eastern front than 6 months before. Soviet aviators wrote many praises for the brave American bombers flying high loss raids deep into Germany.
And speaking of both, Hitler was very determined to halt our advance in Italy which led to the ultimate weakening of the German lines around the time of Kursk ( I believe we invaded Sicily before the Battle of Kursk).
No I'm not saying we won the war for the Soviets, but our contribution was more than trucks and food shipped to Murmansk. We combined all our resources to break the Germans for good in 1943.
And what this "material" would be and why would Stalin "supply" it?
Don't bother answering DKM, because it was wheat and grain that Stalin was *supplying* to Germany in exchange for machinery that he needed for his industrialization.
Both countries were pariahs after the WWI (albeit for different reasons,) and that's why Stalin was cooperating with Germany - not because he was "supporting Hitler's regime."
Nickel, Iron ore and Oil composed the largest shipments of material to Nazi Germany during the war right up until June of 1941.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
P.S. Now on another hand, I am learning new things about Ukraine (rather - Western part of it of course,) during Hitler's times, because once they tried to cancel out the 9th of May there, the next question is whether they are going to celebrate now the "Ukrainian independence" promoted initially under Hitler.
I understand well that the Soviet propaganda instilled this idea that all Western Ukrainian nationalists are "fascists" since many of them did side with the Nazi's. This was due to a ploy by the crafty Germans who well knew the western Ukrainians chafed at the recently imposed Commie rule. Germany gave them their churches back for example. It was a ploy to win them over and it had some success as they did in many other countries where Germany gathered supporters for their cause.
I recall seeing the Svoboda guys in Kharkov many years ago and me and my (college age) friends all agreed these guys don't belong here in Eastern Ukraine and need to go back to their Bandera land. I get it, I really do.
8 years later when the Banderi guys showed up to help my friends to fight off the invasion in their backyards, well that changed a lot of minds about who is the fascist and who is on their side. Spending time in trenches bonds young men in remarkable ways. I know you don't see it that way. But on the ground, this is the way it is and will be for at least as long as the war drags on and some years after. There are still nearly 2 million people displaced throughout Ukraine who feel very angry about being kicked out of their homes by bandits from the east.
My point was the allied bombing did cause Germany to reposition a significant amount of their air defenses back to the west in 1943 which did end German air superiority over the eastern front. Also the North African campaign caused more repositioning of ground and air forces. By the time the battle of Kursk occurred, less than half the Luftwaffe remained on the eastern front than 6 months before. Soviet aviators wrote many praises for the brave American bombers flying high loss raids deep into Germany.
And speaking of both, Hitler was very determined to halt our advance in Italy which led to the ultimate weakening of the German lines around the time of Kursk ( I believe we invaded Sicily before the Battle of Kursk).
No I'm not saying we won the war for the Soviets, but our contribution was more than trucks and food shipped to Murmansk. We combined all our resources to break the Germans for good in 1943.
The Germans didn't lose air superiority due to lack of equipment. Look at the production stats for ME 109s in 43 and 44. From 6000 it doubles to 12000.
The Germans lost air superiority because the Soviet pilots got better aircraft and they lived to pass on what they learned. LL helped as we all know. There were different strategies also. Bottom line is the Germans had the defenses, they were just came up against the same problem rhe Japanese did. Inexperienced pilots.
The Soveits gained qualitatively across the board. The Germans lost their good pilots. This turn around started in late 1942.
What I'm saying about the bombing campaign is that it had little effect. German weapons production was far higher in 1943 and 1944 than before, it doubled in many respects.
As for Italy and France they were sideshows. Look at the stats. There were more men at Kursk than all those little kurfuffles combined.
Sure but the fact is the Luftwaffe numbers on the eastern front was quite reduced by the summer of 1943 and it wasn't just due to losses. Look up JG 3 for example. Later on the Luftflotte Reich was formed with most of those shiny new planes you talk about. The eastern front was only allocated 25% of German fighter planes from 43 onward.
And you're wrong about the little effect. German aircraft production was knocked out in Feb of 44' and it never recovered. Soon after P-51 sweeps took care of the rest of the Luftwaffe in the skies above Germany.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
