They can be happy today that we still walk in line after 70 years.
Our gratitude has always been exagerated and paid with nuclear stocks, stop gap oil supply and financial crises, where the gratitude to the east was wrapped in embargo’s, hatred and weaponry build up.
The Soviets also hold entire 1 million FAR East Army agains Kwantung army, made them to keep serious forces out of active battle on the pacific.
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.
Well if such a distant frontline was such a large and inportaint - why then you have spend only 15% of you war effort against ENTIRE asiatic giant of Japane:)
While the close and compact European front absorbed the rest 85%?
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.
the Soviets , mate , had not just the Northern way of Murmansk for lend lease. The Murmansk got no more then 35% of lend lease. Endeed the more importaint was souther way throu Iran and Kavkaz, and Eastern way- from Syberia-Alaska ( the all of the BEll aircobra has been delivered byt this way). In those ways the Soviets also keep guard this lines of supplies. Moreover all the aircraft from Alaska had been piloted by the Soviet pilots.
If the materiel was so unnecessary, can anyone explain why the Soviets bothered even to unload it? Let alone use it?
It’s simple. Coz GErmans may cautch those materials and use it against allies later.
Yes, we all know that.
On an objective basis you could, but won’t, also take the view that, even if in self-interestedly fighting German attempts at European domination and colonial expansion in two world wars, Britain destoyed itself as a colonial and world power but in so doing achieved freedom for Western Europe nations, which is more than any of those Western Europe nations acheived for themselves in either world war.
That is not meant to disparage the huge sacrifices of some of those Western European nations in both world wars, but the simple fact is that without Britain and America they would have been speaking German for a long time now.
German is third language of Belgium and thaught in school anyway :mrgreen:
ok, is a bit over the edge, but your example is a bit off centre, since German is becoming a very important language in Eastern Europe again and is known by many western Europeans.
perhaps if german oppression would have prevailed we would all still hate it. Now we dont.
On the other we all know very well that in the mind of english speaking “natives” (USA/UK/AUS/…) it all seems like “free” from german language oppression and all consequences, but you forget that we are not english speaking natives and our society has developed under pressure in your direction. We are all speaking differently and with different cultural consequences. Yet, we all know english and we all know american hegemony and we - though not as oppressed - for a bit are forced to accept this. Marshall plan was not only money… Even the resurection of Germany itself was under pressure of the US and payed by US - way off from France’s aspirations for example.
It’s very harsh, but our society has a weight on its shoulder in an Anglo-Saxon colour, simply because the last tanks on our soil were. It’s as simple as that.
How do you call as sytem where American and British companies are spread over everywhere in Europe, the crises are directly given through and were the english speaking mass can go everywhere and be welcomed in their “Lingua Franca”? And don’t forget UN and NATO… Hegemony certainly and an “modern empire” perhaps?
We’ve long agreed on that, and on its importance in aiding the other Allies by keeping those Japanese troops out of action against them.
But there is a very great logistical difference in maintaining a static Soviet defence army supplied by a relatively short line of communications on its own land compared with supplying the Allied forces advancing, generally by seaborne landings, across thousands of miles of ocean and foreign islands. For example, the Soviets didn’t need the ships or fuel or supplies to maintain a fleet train to supply the major naval efforts in the Pacific and to a lesser extent the Indian Oceans, nor did they need to transport everything else, from troops to rations to planes and everything else necessary to sustain them, to those destinations. Also, as the Soviets weren’t fighting the Japanese, they weren’t suffering casualties so they didn’t need the medical resources, casualty evacuation, and troop reinforcements etc which drag down a fighting army.
Because we regarded a Russian as being worth about 85% of one of us, and a Japanese as about 15% of one of us. 
Seriously, it was the ‘Germany first’ policy which determined the allocation of resources to each theatre.
But the 15% is the percentage of American effort, although some commentators state it as being as low as 10%.
I’ve never seen a figure for the British / Commonwealth effort. It could be lower, given the ‘Forgotten Army’ in Burma, or it could be higher when one brings in British forces in India and the Australian forces which did most of the land fighting in New Guinea in 1943 while MacArthur readied his forces for his advance on the Philippines.
This is why these discussions are worthwhile. Because I’d forgotten about Iran and I didn’t know about Alaska.
Could you provide more information on those aspects?
Then it was very noble and self-sacrificing of the Russians to use their resources to unload stuff they didn’t want just to keep it away from the Germans.
Did Stalin think about just telling Churchill not to send the stuff, because the Russian wharf cranes must been needed for unloading supplies coming to the USSR from other supporters such as … ?
even so , to keep out the battle the serious amount of troops was very importaint factor. How many Japane troops were needed to capture Singapoore? 30-40 of thousands. We hold frozen almost million ( and 1/3 ot them were experienced troops). At the same time we sacrifaced by the other troops, keeping safe the Far East army.
Because we regarded a Russian as being worth about 85% of one of us, and a Japanese as about 15% of one of us.
Seriously, it was the ‘Germany first’ policy which determined the allocation of resources to each theatre.
So this is just a another confirmation that the Pacific theater was no more importaint for America then the 15% of 100%, right?;)The everything was aboutfighting Germany.
This is why these discussions are worthwhile. Because I’d forgotten about Iran and I didn’t know about Alaska.
Could you provide more information on those aspects?
Everything i could for you:)
But what you want to know?how much were supplied throug the about ways?
Then it was very noble and self-sacrificing of the Russians to use their resources to unload stuff they didn’t want just to keep it away from the Germans.
It’s no more noble then to supply Germany with alluminium , flooding them armades of full-metal bombers that was almost all shoted down:)
Did Stalin think about just telling Churchill not to send the stuff, because the Russian wharf cranes must been needed for unloading supplies coming to the USSR from other supporters such as … ?
As i remember Stalin all the war just persuaded Churchill to stop the lend-lease and open the second front;) But Church as a truly conservative elglander nothing want to hear about;)Untill the most moment it wasn’t really needed for Stalin:)
Well, I’ve always had a problem with countries which have more than one language.
Look at Canada. In Quebec they have to have English and French signs. So you have a sign which says ‘cafe’ (don’t know how to do the acute over the e in cafe) in English and under it a sign in French which says ‘cafe’.
If they had to have signs in German it would probably say ‘cafe’.
So I think the Allies did the world a huge favour by ensuring that the Germans didn’t get into Quebec, because it’s stupid enough having two signs in different languages saying the same thing without burdening the Quebecois with the cost of a third lot of signs saying the same thing which only confuses tourists.
My comment was a flippant comment intended to illustrate that without the Allies then Western Europe could still be under German control, as could much of the rest of the world.
As for German language being important, down here there were university subjects before WWII; during it; and after it called ‘Science German’ or similar. It was popular with medical and science students as it enabled them to read the original papers in those fields by Germans, who were often world leaders in their fields.
You seem to be making the common assumption that Australians are naturally aligned with America and Britain because we share a common language.
You couldn’t be further from the truth.
Many Australians share the European resentment of pervasive American cultural domination through a range of things from movies and television shows to McDonalds and KFC, not to mention the occasional interference of American government agencies in our local politics, including the widely believed if unproved conspiracy in bringing down our national government in 1975 so it could be replaced with a conservative government more favourable to the Americans. Not as brutal as Chile around the same time, but consistent with American arrogance then. And now, even as America fails to recognise and deal with its decline as the greatest power on the planet as China, if it doesn’t go off on another one of its crazy tangents such as the Cultural Revolution, moves steadily towards replacing America as the real gorilla on the planet.
How do you call a system where countries in Europe, and my own country, sought American and British investment and were happy to have those foreign companies on their soil while they were profitable and employing local labour but, as soon as economic conditions go bad, blame those countries and foreign companies for everything that’s gone wrong?
Personally, I’d say that those sorts of criticisms show a self-centred determination to demand the benefits of uncontrolled foreign investment without being willing to share its disadvantages, and a narrow and completely unrealistic sort of nationalism which demands that foreign companies invest in your or my country as some sort of altruistic exercise for the benefit of the locals. Blind Freddie can see they’re in it to make money out of your or my country without regard to our benefit or intersts. If you get into bed with the devil, sooner or later you’re going to get a hot fork, or even the devil’s ****, up your arse. Don’t be surprised and don’t complain when it happens
I think I remember seeing a photo of you in uniform once hence you’ll probably know the sound and the earth shaking when a tank runs by…pretty scary.
Surely the handling of the Panzerfaust was quite easy -still dangerous for the user- but I’m sure aiming and firing at an enemy tank crawling with ‘Urräh’ yelling grunts from small distance requires balls…or at least nerves of steel if the shooter is a grandma.
That’s what i mean. In france the 12 army didn’t look like a childish.
The 12th Army was re-deployed on April 10, 1945. The unit had little in common with that from 1940.
Chevan
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.
No I am not forgetting anything, I am pointing out that without lend lease aid despite what many people seem to think, it was in no way certain that the Soviets would have been able to reach Berlin first or even certain that they would have defeated the axis forces at all.
The West probably would not have won and it may have ended in a huge stalemate without the Soviets, but likewise the Soviets needed the Western Allies as well. All contributed to the final defeat of Germany.
The losses in Aircrew were costly but when that was your only means of fighting back and affecting the war in the East then thats what you do, slowing down German production, diverting troops and resources from elsewhere at a huge cost to aircrew.
I am sure the Soviets would have loved the UK and US to not bomb German factories (however inaccurate and sometimes only causing a few weeks close down), would have preferred to face those extra AA weapons (loads of lovely AA guns and more fighters). How many weapons, ball bearings, fuel could be produced in a few weeks that the Germans lost each time, all that diversion of manpower to repairing infrastructure not to mention material.
How long to drive a tank from the new far back factories to the front, how fit for battle will it be (average 1000 miles was a major rebuild), how much fuel, manpower will it take, much better to stick them on the US railcars pulled by US locos, with the fuel and munitions supplied by US trucks.
Without the materials like aluminium (T34 engine was made from it) at a rough example cut out US aluminium which was over 50% of what the USSR used then you cut out 50% tank production at a stroke, no engine just a fancy pill box.
Without the railway stock and material you can produce as many fighting vehicles as you want but you cant get them to the front and after a while the factories have no material as can not be delivered.
No bombing of Germany means full production and all of it going East, suddenly that material advantage is not so great.
Well once i heard how the real tank moved near me:)What i can say. At that moment i racalled not the Panzerfaust but …Molotov Coctaile. the one should actualy have a big balls to drop the firing Coctail to a moving tank;) And i may to guaranty you that many woman were prepeared to drop the coctail to a german tank in 1941. So no wonder if old gramma with Faust will targeting the T-34 in Berlin. it was likely scenario. At least for tank crew…
The 12th Army was re-deployed on April 10, 1945. The unit had little in common with that from 1940.
Sure they had not much common. In april 1945 they had a Tigers. Nothing even close simular they had in 1940;)
I bet…Germans could never deal with the idea of women as a combat opponent (I guess we still can’t today). The troops were kind of shocked in 1941.
So no wonder if old gramma with Faust will targeting the T-34 in Berlin. it was likely scenario. At least for tank crew…
Just because German propaganda obviously was very effective…
File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1973-001-30, Volkssturm, Frau mit Panzerfaust.jpg
Sure they had not much common. In april 1945 they had a Tigers. Nothing even close simular they had in 1940;)
Not sure if I’d prefer a bulk of pre war trained tank crews in Panzer IV-A over 17-year-old school boys in Tigers with little or no training…
lol
starting to understand the deep rooted (trivial though but fundamental) problem of the Belgian Puzzle aye?.. Belgium = Quebec³
However, looking at Switzerland you see a different story, direct democratic culture over there is admirable.
My comment was a flippant comment intended to illustrate that without the Allies then Western Europe could still be under German control, as could much of the rest of the world.
Europe is now under Franco-German control anyway. It’s always the same story.
If Germany would have prevailed, the previous known countries would still be on the map, with indeed some sort of puppet gouvernment (as seen in Eastern Europe). Its not that Brussels would the capital of Western Greater Germany etc. German would be important language, as Russian was in the east.
You seem to be making the common assumption that Australians are naturally aligned with America and Britain because we share a common language.
You couldn’t be further from the truth.
Many Australians share the European resentment of pervasive American cultural domination through a range of things from movies and television shows to McDonalds and KFC, not to mention the occasional interference of American government agencies in our local politics, including the widely believed if unproved conspiracy in bringing down our national government in 1975 so it could be replaced with a conservative government more favourable to the Americans. Not as brutal as Chile around the same time, but consistent with American arrogance then. And now, even as America fails to recognise and deal with its decline as the greatest power on the planet as China, if it doesn’t go off on another one of its crazy tangents such as the Cultural Revolution, moves steadily towards replacing America as the real gorilla on the planet.
nice … sorry if I neglected your view on this
How do you call a system where countries in Europe, and my own country, sought American and British investment and were happy to have those foreign companies on their soil while they were profitable and employing local labour but, as soon as economic conditions go bad, blame those countries and foreign companies for everything that’s gone wrong?
Nature? :mrgreen:
Yes true, but it’s a sort of generation problem.
Our parents were much more content with US involvement.
You can count in as well that US policy has changed a bit since 40ties.
Influence and grasp has always been there, but brutal economic policies and unilateral views have grown since 80-90ties.
I mean: US views have been more pleasant earlier and more cooperative than recent days.
Personally, I’d say that those sorts of criticisms show a self-centred determination to demand the benefits of uncontrolled foreign investment without being willing to share its disadvantages, and a narrow and completely unrealistic sort of nationalism which demands that foreign companies invest in your or my country as some sort of altruistic exercise for the benefit of the locals. Blind Freddie can see they’re in it to make money out of your or my country without regard to our benefit or intersts. If you get into bed with the devil, sooner or later you’re going to get a hot fork, or even the devil’s ****, up your arse. Don’t be surprised and don’t complain when it happens
true, but again: most disadvantages are felt today than they did yesterday.
No need to apolgise, because I hadn’t expressed that view before.
Against that view, Australian governments of either major party will generally go with the Americans on most issues, because of a quaint if horribly mistaken belief that if we pay our dues by contributing about 1% of forces in combined ops in matters of contemporary interest to the Yanks, the Yanks will repay us at some future unspecified time when we’re under threat, such as standing between us and China when it’s not to the Yank’s advantage. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
On the other hand, we may well have managed to sucker the Yanks into greater involvement in Vietnam in the early stages because we feared that America was about to desert us when we were confronted with a potential conflict with much larger Indonesia, so we’re just as exploitative as every other country in pursuing out national interests at the expense of other nations.
Hmmmm, don’t think US policy needed a push …
Vietnam is completely an issue of maintaining the break even and defending markets to western / US economics. Indonesia’s role in it is enormous. If Vietnam succeeded in taking control over itself, it would be a example for Indonesians. As soon as the Indonesian regime accounted for maintaining free economic role of western companies, the Vietnam symbolic " don’t let think for themselves " obstacle was gone and the gate went open for popular doctrines in “saving US lives” and retreating.
dear Leccy.
I/m not a complitelly disagree with you. But lets not to mix the separate questions up into one post.
- Was the lend lease such a great thinbg that saved allied coalition? Definitelly YES.
- Was the lend lease critical for defence of USSR?No. But it was critical for …Britain.As we saw in figures, the major customer of lend lease was a UK.From what the next conclusion comes out - providing the lend lease to it’s allies America saved …itslef.
- Was the strategical bombings so effective and cool like it usially portrayed in posts like you wrote? IMO No.
You told an excellent example of how alluninium was importaint in war production in example of T-34 engine.I say you more.Let’s take a simple mathematic. Do you know how much alluminium is needed for production of one B-17? The Soviets had its own project of analog four engine bomber - Pe-8. SO one full-metal Pe-8 absorbed AS MUCH alluminium as …( attention!!!) 30 of soviet fighters Jak. But 30 fighters migh be much more USEFUL in front.SO the reality was hard. The USSR specially denied its strategical bomber in favoure of MUCH more effective and needed for army fighters and sturmoviks ( Il-2). This is just everything about war’s economy. The same was in Germany. Instead of armades of peices of crap like fw-200- they concentrated on the production of fighters- the only the strategy they may let for itselt.
IF one just imagine how much excellent fighter migh to produce the US/UK instead of 20 000 of bombers - i guess equalent to 100 000 of fighters. Having so much fighters YOU migh to finish Luftwaffe within few week. But you didn’t. Although YOU have enough resources / manpower for that. Instead you started just doubtful compain for “reducing the German inductry”. Losing the fantstic figures of superexpensive bombers - you still want to be proud how it influed on German war effort.
There is exist the different ways to fight with enemy. You have chosed the worst one. It’s like to bomb the berlin by the stones , hoping one hit the Hitler’s head and war , therefore should end soon;)
huh, and how about Hanna Reich?Did she shocked the German public as much as the inferior russian fighting females?
Just because German propaganda obviously was very effective…
Yes, it effective while people do believe. I mean they believe the any Frau migh to hit the enemy tank:)
Not sure if I’d prefer a bulk of pre war trained tank crews in Panzer IV-A over 17-year-old school boys in Tigers with little or no training…
I bet on…Tiger. The boys migh to get an experience very quick endeed.
A good example actually. Hanna Reitsch intended to volunteer for a suicide mission near the end of the war but met with an incredulous shake of the head by both
Hitler and Goebbels.
Rising Sun is right: the bomb was intended originally for Germany. The US would have dropped it. The irony is that by holding out, Japan became its recipient instead. Oh, and BTW, the Russians would have reached Berlin anyway.
Don’t forget that after Germany surrendered, many of the scientists involved with the Manhattan Project began to actively petition that the bomb not be used, since Japan wasn’t the threat that Germany had been. Must be noted that many of these scientists (Leo Szilard and Niels Bohr in particular), were from areas directly affected by Naziism. The bomb was most certainly developed to be used on Germany, not Japan. I personally believe that a big factor in it being used on Japan was to avoid the inevitable Congressional Inquiry on why 2 billion dollars were spent on a weapon that was never used.