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 never felt 'bad'
That aside my observation is your reply marked as sarcasm is better described as a Freudian slip.
Note that I never said anything about any aid being unimportant rather that it was not 'the' war winner(which IS how it was described).
It appears any deviation from the 'we saved your ass' line is treated as a mortal insult.
I think instead it should be taken into account that being told your very existence is the product of anothers munificence is also an insult.
I can only compare it to a situation where a house catches fire and firemen are killed rescuing children. The surviving firemen are told 'great work guys but the real credit belongs to the men who made the hoses and the fire engine'!
Once again, I never said it was a war winner. You need to take your argument up with Torrachris, the guy that actually said it was a war winner. He obviously can't defend his position, though.
Once again, I never said it was a war winner. You need to take your argument up with Torrachris, the guy that actually said it was a war winner. He obviously can't defend his position, though.
I said Lend-Lease had a significant effect on the Eastern Front for the Soviet Union. I wasn't taking anything away from the bravery of Red Army soldiers who sacrificed themselves in the millions. I'd be hard pressed to say Russia could of won the war without allied aid though.
Interesting logic, soldiers are a distraction and factory workers are the real victors.
As the bulk of US equipment in WW1 was supplied by (mainly) France and the UK why aren't you thanking them for "saving your ass"?
That statement shows me how little you know about history. With the entry of the U.S. into WW1 the Germans felt they had to make a push to end the war in 1918. The thinking of the Germans was that the arrival of fresh U.S. soldiers would tilt the balance of war in the allies favor and the Germans wanted to make the push before the full weight of the U.S. could be felt. The brunt of the fighting was done by Anglo-French forces. Without U.S. entry into the war, the Germans very well may have sat back in their trenches and the war could of resulted in a stalemate. The U.S. was the straw that broke the camels back so we saved THEIR ass. Get your facts straight. I have to ask though are we talking about WW2 Eastern Front or WW1 in this forum?
That statement shows me how little you know about history.
That statement, like the one that the Soviets could not have won without LL, is opinion not fact.
To claim someone with a different opinion 'knows little' is a tad presumptuous.
You must allow for the fact (sit down and deep breath here) you might be wrong.........
Surely you can admit the possibility you might not be the only keeper of the truth?
By the way me who 'knows little' was the only one to point out the loco/rolling stock % figures (so dear to the heart of the LL 'we saved your ass-ers) was a gross distortion of reality.
That statement, like the one that the Soviets could not have won without LL, is opinion not fact.
To claim someone with a different opinion 'knows little' is a tad presumptuous.
You must allow for the fact (sit down and deep breath here) you might be wrong.........
Surely you can admit the possibility you might not be the only keeper of the truth?
By the way me who 'knows little' was the only one to point out the loco/rolling stock % figures (so dear to the heart of the LL 'we saved your ass-ers) was a gross distortion of reality.
I think we both agree on the impact of LL to the Soviets and you were very correct to point out the actual impact of the locomotives was less than what it seems on paper.
My position with LL has always been one of riding the middle. There is one camp that says it's what won the war and another that says it was nice, but not necessary. Like, I said, the truth is somewhere in the middle of that statement.
I whole-heartedly believe the Soviets would have won the war without LL aid. However, getting it was important to their war effort in many areas, particularly trucks and raw materials. This aid didn't "win the war" but it certainly helped the Soviet effort and they would have had a much harder go without it.
That statement, like the one that the Soviets could not have won without LL, is opinion not fact.
To claim someone with a different opinion 'knows little' is a tad presumptuous.
You must allow for the fact (sit down and deep breath here) you might be wrong.........
Surely you can admit the possibility you might not be the only keeper of the truth?
By the way me who 'knows little' was the only one to point out the loco/rolling stock % figures (so dear to the heart of the LL 'we saved your ass-ers) was a gross distortion of reality.
I never said that anything I stated was fact. Just my opinion. Most Western historians would agree with me though.
If I may answer the OP's [December 2009] question, in short, because they suffered a long, brutal, politically and racially-motivated invasion by Nazi Germany.
The way I see it, World War II was, in a nutshell, Hitler's dramatic attempt to destroy socialism and certain non-Germanic ethnicities, the Allies' response to that ambition, and Hitler's response to that response. I think there were other reasons, but the primary reason Hitler attacked France & Britain and eventually declared war on the US was that he sensed (correctly) they would try to stop him from carrying out the objectives he cared most about (executing communists, and enslaving the Slavic race, among others). I think Hitler regretted the fact that his fellow Aryans were not on his side and would try to stop him, and either saw that itself as a declaration of war, or saw no other alternative. Of course, there was a lot of anger left over from the Treaty of Versailles.
Am I saying he "went easy" on the western Allies? I don't know... compared to his invasion of the Soviet Union, he kind of did
Anyone think differently? I'm open to other opinions.
All Russian first class aviation gasoline was supplied by the U.S. A great deal of food was American. All their aluminum and fully 1/3 of their munitions, over 500,000 trucks which were far better than any Russia produced during the war (about 200,000). The 9,000 or so tanks supplied by the allies were a small amout but helped. Shermans (76mm) were a big part in the Russian drive through the Balkans were hundreds of them participated and had a measure of success. Aerocobras, P-40s, C-47s and A-20s all considerably assisted the Russian war effort. Almost all telephone communications was over American phones late in the war. The Russians produced 92 locomotives during the war and received 2,000 through Lend-Lease. The numbers go on and on but a picture of the value of Lend-Lease should start making itself clear. David Glantz, Jonathan House, John Erickson all believe LL was important to the Soviet war effort to name a few.
All Russian first class aviation gasoline was supplied by the U.S. A great deal of food was American. All their aluminum and fully 1/3 of their munitions, over 500,000 trucks which were far better than any Russia produced during the war (about 200,000). The 9,000 or so tanks supplied by the allies were a small amout but helped. Shermans (76mm) were a big part in the Russian drive through the Balkans were hundreds of them participated and had a measure of success. Aerocobras, P-40s, C-47s and A-20s all considerably assisted the Russian war effort. Almost all telephone communications was over American phones late in the war. The Russians produced 92 locomotives during the war and received 2,000 through Lend-Lease. The numbers go on and on but a picture of the value of Lend-Lease should start making itself clear. David Glantz, Jonathan House, John Erickson all believe LL was important to the Soviet war effort to name a few.
If you look at my posts #235 and #239 you would see that I'm quite aware of what the aid was and the impact it had as well as detailing the important parts. Also, your locomotive figures are dismissed in my post #239 after Liberator very correctly pointed out the reality of those stats and I researched it further.
My position is one of riding the middle. Your initial statement was not that it was "important" but that it was the sole reason the Soviets won. This is far from the truth. The other side purports that the aid was "nice" but not needed at all. This also isn't exactly true. Did Lend Lease help the Soviets win the war? Yes. Would they have won without it? Yes.
As for your historian list, Glantz and House both take the position that the aid was important, but its largest impact was in shortening the length of the war by 12-18 months versus if the Soviets relied solely on domestic production. Erickson places more importance on it, but all three would categorize the aid as "important" not "decisive". All of them (plus me and Liberator) would strongly disagree with your original statement which read:
Quote:
The victory over Germany was achieved through the economic power of the U.S. The U.S. shipped 11.3 billion worth of supplies to Russia. The argument that Russia could of won the war without allied aid is dubious at best.
It seems to me you have changed your position and determined that it was merely "important" not "decisive". Am I correct?
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.
