Where was there any element of a ‘benevolent saviour’ in the Anglo-Saxon, or English speaking, war effort?
It was certainly absent in the bombing of Hamburg, Dresden etc and the assaults in Italy and Normandy and subsequent advances, not to mention even more vicious land battles in repelling the Japanese from mid-1942 to the end of the Pacific War.
Who presented the Anglo-Saxon Allies as ‘benevolent saviours’ when they were engaged in total war against ruthless enemies?
The British were engaged in a fight for survival against Germany, not some sort of philanthropic exercise to liberate Europe from the Nazi yoke by gently encouraging the naughty Germans to go home by showering them with benevolence. It was a boots and all fight against an enemy which started a boots and all war.
Which age was do you think was the average for Red Army soldier in april 1945?20 and it was very optimistic…
I have to add, nevertheless 12 army have been complected with Panzer Division Clausewitz - last complected german panzer unit.( 10 Panthers,5 jagdpanzers and up to 5 Tigers). Not to mention 2700 of Pnazerfausts , by which the 12 army was armed.Enough force to make a nightmare to any tank’s army in berlin.
It’s a fact that the just-deployed 12th Army was the -by average- youngest German outfit with of the youngest commander ever to command an army in WW2 (Wenck was born in 1900).
I have to add, nevertheless 12 army have been complected with Panzer Division Clausewitz - last complected german panzer unit.( 10 Panthers,5 jagdpanzers and up to 5 Tigers). Not to mention 2700 of Pnazerfausts , by which the 12 army was armed.Enough force to make a nightmare to any tank’s army in berlin.
In the hands of an experienced soldier a Panzerfaust might’ve been an effective AT weapon. However I doubt that 2700 one-shot AT weapons (mostly in the hands of absolute greenhorns) and up to 20 tanks/tank destroyers make a serious opponent to Lelyushenko’s 4th Guards Tank Army.
After all 12th Army did comparatively well, e.g. in the fierce battles around Ferch.
Paradigm of “Democracy, Peace and Freedom”?
Liberation of Western Europe etc… coupled with long term policy and halt of the communist spread.
European partnership and certainly Post war US-German peace would 've been seriously scratched if a bomb would have been dropped.
We all know the fighting between nazi and soviet empire was welcomed in the West, since it weakened all anglo-saxon opponents.
The prolonged effect of Western hesitation only brought nuclear options closer… brrrr
Forgive my deliberatly used “anglo-saxon” vocabulary but it’s clear as hell it exists. There never was since WWII a difference in policy, the middle east makes it obvious.
Wrapped all up it’s terribly frightening … almost making me glad all things went the way it went.
Allies in WWII included the major contribution by the Soviets, which had nothing to do with limiting communist spread and everything to do with enabling it towards Germany, ably assisted by the Western Allies.
Or maybe it would have just driven post-war German attitudes further into the ground and made the Occupation and eradication of Nazism easier.
Of course it was. It brought a major power into the conflict with Germany and hugely reduced Germany’s ability to fight the Western powers.
I can’t see that.
To the contrary, by diverting German forces and resources to the Soviets, it reduced the German forces available against the Western forces at the time, being only Britain and its Commonwealth.
Western hesitation?
What do you mean?
Why focus only on ‘Western hesitation’ rather than ‘Nazi aggression’?
This sounds like a European version of the Japanese ‘we were victims of the nuclear weapon and deserve to be treated sympathetically for the suffering this imposed upon us’ attitude rather than the objectively correct ‘we started the war and were remorseless and brutal in prosecuting it and have no grounds for complaining about the way our enemies chose to end that war with the nuclear weapons we would have used against them in starting or prosecuting our war if we had had them’.
If you’re referring to the English-speaking peoples who fought in WWII, they certainly did exist. And they also certainly defeated the evil philosophies and actions of the Nazis and Japanese militarists, without which the world today would make the Soviet Union at its worst look like a holiday camp.
You should be ****ing grateful that it’s the way things went. Otherwise, for a start, you’d be answering to some little Himmler for every keystroke you make on this forum.
not true (or at least for all I know)
…but I understand why you look at it that way :lol:
Soviets were advancing very well even before invasion of Normandy.
And the amount of forces put on land in 1944 were also already available earlier.
Of course it was. It brought a major power into the conflict with Germany and hugely reduced Germany’s ability to fight the Western powers.
To the contrary, by diverting German forces and resources to the Soviets, it reduced the German forces available against the Western forces at the time, being only Britain and its Commonwealth.
True, yet the USA, the major ally, which pumped in production and resources for all allies, came into conflict at the end of 1941.
From the moment in the defense, still 80% of German forces fought in the East. Simply because the major pressure came from there.
Complete rubish, if one looks at the military power of the West. There was hesitation in bringing troops in, siply because they wanted as much gain os possible with as little effort. Nothing like heroic battledrift in western politics, only on the field.
Western hesitation?
What do you mean?
You ignore many aspects in the views of European citizens.
We got rid of Nazi suppresion, but the efforts made to counter communism were … let’s say … sitting in the backseat and jumping in front at the very last. Which resulted in mass crash of the nazi regime and the creation of a eastern monster.
Or maybe it would have just driven post-war German attitudes further into the ground and made the Occupation and eradication of Nazism easier.
eradication of Nazism … hmmm … you mean the “German Nazi state” yes.
On the other hand you ignore the power of Germany in the european recovery build up post-war and in todays geopolitics.
I can’t see that.
again you ignore the fact the Allies were fighting for their own future, not the liberated citizens. Cold war started within WWII, not afterwards. The Soviets were not expected to achive such a military succes in 1944.
Why focus only on ‘Western hesitation’ rather than ‘Nazi aggression’?
I don’t. Nazi aggression has been discussed for over 70 years now. It’s a fact.
This sounds like a European version of the Japanese ‘we were victims of the nuclear weapon and deserve to be treated sympathetically for the suffering this imposed upon us’ attitude rather than the objectively correct ‘we started the war and were remorseless and brutal in prosecuting it and have no grounds for complaining about the way our enemies chose to end that war with the nuclear weapons we would have used against them in starting or prosecuting our war if we had had them’.
Huh?
no no not at all.
If you’re referring to the English-speaking peoples who fought in WWII, they certainly did exist.
There is a geopolitical axis USA - UK. No denial. Americans think so. Perhaps UK and minors don’t because they don’t want to feel a small Ally.
And they also certainly defeated the evil philosophies and actions of the Nazis and Japanese militarists, without which the world today would make the Soviet Union at its worst look like a holiday camp.
Your thinking of the SU is completely a falacy. One barbaric regime does not clean the other. And there is absolutely no difference in blind bombing vietnam and Iraq to kill some terrorists and set fire to a Russian town, because of partizans.
It’s not because you call yourself democratic, you are, and even so, even democracies can vote for barbarist actions.
Some say these comparisons set nazis free, I say it condemns all.
You should be ****ing grateful that it’s the way things went. Otherwise, for a start, you’d be answering to some little Himmler for every keystroke you make on this forum.
hahaha, like we’re not answering to someone else right now. :lol:
Again we got rid of the nazi state. yes. But that doesn’t mean it’s all christmas and fun in the world. Many did not get rid of it, by the way, it simply was called differently.
Don’t you think the Nazis said the same in those days? " you should be grateful. Otherwise, for a start, you’d be answering uncle Stalin."
ok, USSR was a holiday camp then and the USA never ever did things for itself, nor did the eurocountries ever tribute oil reserves to Washington last years … :neutral:
Um, the Soviet advance of the Red Army was only possible with the vast fleets of trucks and vehicles sent from (mainly) the United States. T-34’s and Sturmovicks are nice, but:
Logistics. Logistics. Logistics…
And the amount of forces put on land in 1944 were also already available earlier.
No. No they weren’t. Nor were the landing craft needed to put them ashore…
Originally Posted by steben
And the amount of forces put on land in 1944 were also already available earlier.
Not true
Units of the 79th Armoured Div were still receiving some of their vehicles the day before they set sail, crews had limited time on them before they embarked.
The US still had not received all their DD Tanks due to production delays.
The Allies had a critical shortage of landing craft throughout the war, operations were delayed or postponed often due to shortages of these vessels.
Even Stalin agreed that as much as he wished a second front it was pointless launching before all was ready.
Much is always made by some people that the West did nothing until 1944, forgetting that the west and Britain in particular had been fighting for longer than Russia (while also forgetting Russia and Germany cosied up to each other throughout the 30’s, culminating in the carve up Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Eastonia Pact).
The Western Allies fought the Sea Battles, Med Battles, Italy. Britain stood alone against Italy and Germany for a year and then when Hitler with the rest of the Axis forces attacked Russia’ Britain sent aid which it desperately needed itself.
Without lend lease etc the Soviet forces would not have been able to do what they did as they built no trains to replace those lost, limited trucks were produced. The USA provided the vast majority of soft skinned vehicles that the Soviets used, over 1500 locomotives, nearly 3000 railway wagons. Without the logistics tail to back the Soviet forces up they would have been stuck, to produce these equipments themselves meant factories and resources being diverted from fighting vehicles. Couple all this into the disruption and diversion of forces that the Western Allies caused with the side line wars and the air campaign and it would by no means have been certain the Soviets could have reached Berlin.
The oft repeated comments about the Allies wishing Germany and the Soviet Union to wear each other out before they stepped in also went true for Stalin. He hoped that France and the UK would be bled while bleeding Germany so he could sweep in.
This is not true.
Endeed the Soviet fought with Axis powers since 1936 in Europe (Spain) and since 1937 ( Japane, Halkin-gol). With just the short pause 1939-1941.
West ( ie England) fought since 1940 ( not to mention “Phony war”).
Soviet Union stood in harsh anti-nazis points a long time befor the west has bfinaly recognized the Hitler as a treat.
The Western Allies fought the Sea Battles, Med Battles, Italy. Britain stood alone against Italy and Germany for a year and then when Hitler with the rest of the Axis forces attacked Russia’ Britain sent aid which it desperately needed itself.
But how did they stand?
Just sited and survived the bombings raids, having no ability to react properly.
And of cource the start of Barbarossa has seriously decreased the threat for Britain( i.e. fully eliminated it the risk invasion), coz major powers of Luftwaffe had been re-moved to the East.
So that tiny help that Britain was able to send in USSR hardly played much role. However , for sake of true , i have to add that Britain was the first state which send help to Russia in most critical days of winter 1941.
Without lend lease etc the Soviet forces would not have been able to do what they did as they built no trains to replace those lost, limited trucks were produced. The USA provided the vast majority of soft skinned vehicles that the Soviets used, over 1500 locomotives, nearly 3000 railway wagons. Without the logistics tail to back the Soviet forces up they would have been stuck, to produce these equipments themselves meant factories and resources being diverted from fighting vehicles. Couple all this into the disruption and diversion of forces that the Western Allies caused with the side line wars and the air campaign and it would by no means have been certain the Soviets could have reached Berlin.
firstly without the Lend Lease the Bratain was …dead.
the 65% of lend lease actualy has been absorbed by … Britain.USSA got no more then about 30% of it. More likely 27%.
Actualy this help was essentual , but hardly critical. The lack of trucks may delayed the quick advance of the Red army over Eruope in 1944-45 but hardly it can save the Germans in Russia from defeat.
the Panzerfaust migh tbe deadly effective ( and it was ) even in hands of granddads from Wolkstorm. German propogand specially portray the PF as very simple and effective AT mean that migh been operated even the grandmas:)
Now the armor of 12 army just make you smile , but remember how seadly effective might be Panther or Tiger from a ambush.
After all 12th Army did comparatively well, e.g. in the fierce battles around Ferch.
That’s what i mean. In france the 12 army didn’t look like a childish.
I find it hard to overlook the facts and try to see the hard efforts.
First, all the “aid” to USSR that we are talking about could have been used by own troops, but they decided to give it away in large numbers to a communist “Ally”.
Easy to speak about material shortage if you have lost control over it. But it’s fairly simple: Britain and the USA wanted the USSR to be less weak but wanted it to fight a smuch as possible to weaken germany.
And yes, of course Stalin wanted the west to bleed as well. Du-uh … but we never talk about Stalin as a “democratic benevolent leader” do we? I find it a progress you dare to compare west and east to conclude they did the same. But … from the east we expect no praise as we do from the west.
Conclusion is that the west certainly did not much more for me or my parents than the Soviets did.
Khrushchev taped interview.
Several times I heard Stalin acknowledge (lend lease) within the small circle of people around him. He said that if we had to deal with Germany one to one we would not have been able to cope because we lost so much of our industry.
Marshall Zhukov bugged interview 1963
He endorsed the view that without aid the Soviet Union ‘could not have continued the war’
The most important items may not have been military but had a huge impact on the Soviet capabilities.
77,900 Jeeps, 151,000 light trucks, 200,000 Studebakers.
57.8% Aviation fuel
53% Explosives
nearly 50% of all copper, aluminium, rubber tyres.
1900 locomotives (the USSR built 92),
56.6% of all rails laid
11,075 railway cars (USSR built 1087)
Enough food to provide an estimated 1/2 a pound of concentrated nourishment per Soviet soldier for every day of the war.
The British Commonwealth got slightly more aid from the US than the USSR did but the British Commonwealth also sent aid on top of the US aid to the Soviet Union.
The non direct military aid meant the Soviets could concentrate production on tanks etc, without the aluminium you have problems producing the tank engines and aircraft, without the railways you cant transport them from the far removed factories to the front.
German production was also ramping up from early 1942 about the time the UK and US were starting to increase the bombing campaign so diverting assets to the west especially air defence fighters and AA guns (AA weapon production also took away from production that could have been used in the East). The equivalent of 6 German motorised and armoured divisions destroyed in North Africa in 42/43,
But lend lease in USSR was very “profitable” investition from the western point, wasn’t it?The just 27% of lend-lease make to hold 80% of Germans Wermacht and up to 50% of Luftwaffe on the Eastern front.While the west faced only relatively small part of GErmans army in Normandy. As for Italy - the GErmans never hold there the first-class troops at all.So , if to talk frankly enough, the West finally has benefited itself much from lend lease to USSR. I guess even more benefit if the lend lease was used only within Allied coalition.
What might have encouraged them to give it away to that communist Ally, and particularly in Britain where it was fighting for its own survival?
No doubt. But, in answer to your quoted comment and my last question, could it have had rather more to with bringing as much of the Allies’ resources as possible to bear against the major concentration of their common enemy, being the Germans with the bulk of their land and air forces in the East, as a perfectly logical and reasonable part of winning the war against Germany?
No.
And I haven’t heard anyone use that or a similar description of any of the other Allied war leaders.
Is anybody arguing to the contrary?
I think we all recognise that the bulk of the land war mid-1941 to the end of the war against Germany was fought by the Soviets, but that does not diminish the earlier contributions made by Britain and its Commonwealth in standing alone against Germany while the Soviets and Americans stood on the sidelines, and particularly while the Soviets conspired with the Germans to carve up middle Europe for Soviet advantage.
Anyway, what obligation did America or Britain have to do anything for your parents or Belgium?
The British Commonwealth, unlike the Soviet Union, was also engaged in a war against Japan across a vast spread of ocean and land from Bougainville to Burma.
This theatre of war was, compared with the land war fought by the Soviets against the Germans, much larger, more distant from the sources of supply, and more demanding in every aspect of logistics in sustaining land, sea and air forces in repelling the Japanese.
So far as delivery of lend lease materiel to the USSR is concerned, the USSR contributed little or nothing to the merchant and naval components of each of the convoys which brought the lend lease equipment to the USSR at great risk, and loss, to the men and ships in those convoys. It’s all very well to bitch about how, depending upon the contradictory positions one wishes to take, lend lease wasn’t enough or didn’t contribute anything to the Soviet victory over the Germans, but the simple fact is that the Soviets to a very large extent didn’t have to do anything but unload the (insert, according to your personal opinion of lend lease to the USSR, ‘inadequate’ or ‘unnecessary’ or ‘unwanted’ or ‘inferior’ or ‘decadent’ or any other term disparaging the goods the Soviets apparently didn’t want or need) goods.
If the materiel was so unnecessary, can anyone explain why the Soviets bothered even to unload it? Let alone use it?
“slightly more” is about TREE times:) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
And they actualy re-lendleased some of wearpon to USSR. Say they got newest Mustangs from USA- and send to Soviet their Hawker Hurricane:) Nice exchange…
A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $759 billion at 2008 prices) worth of supplies were shipped: $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France and $1.6 billion to China.
Soviets endeed got even lesser then t wrote. 11,3 from 50,2 billion - ~22,5%
So , it will correct to say , that sending lend lease to USSR - America saved its own ***. The Western Allies of USA- France and Britain got the lion part of lend-lease altogether.
The non direct military aid meant the Soviets could concentrate production on tanks etc, without the aluminium you have problems producing the tank engines and aircraft, without the railways you cant transport them from the far removed factories to the front.
You are forgetting that without the Soviet fight , keeping busy the MAJOR forces of Wermacht on East, you should never even dare to land on Europe.neither Italy nor France.
German production was also ramping up from early 1942 about the time the UK and US were starting to increase the bombing campaign so diverting assets to the west especially air defence fighters and AA guns (AA weapon production also took away from production that could have been used in the East). The equivalent of 6 German motorised and armoured divisions destroyed in North Africa in 42/43,
The Strategic bombing compain also devastated YOUR own economy. The superexpensive stategic armades cost so much that say , the Britain spend HALP of it’s military budget on it.Although Germany was forced partly to correct it’s military production to favour of AA defence - the west spend huge unproportional amount of resources on bombings raids.
The " 6 motorised divisions" looks impressive on paper ,but not in real fight. compared with 100-150 divisions fighting on the East. At the same time the allies lost up to …20 000 of bombers over Europe during a war. Impressive figure, considering the fact how muchaverage bomber did cost.
