How big was USA's role in defeating Germany in WW2?
- Thread starter amadeus
- Start date
As i said i am not a profetinal historian and i this is nor a profetional historian forum, so i don't see where is the problem.
Hm i think i explained that i am discussing not haveing an argument, and that i am here exactly to change and broaden my views.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
This isn't a professional forum. So? That doesn't make you right by default when you refuse to respond to legitimate points.
Again it doesn't matter whtehr i am right or wrong, my purpose in this discussion is not to be right, but to share views, learns more things....
And the weirf thing is that all those legitime points do not contradict with what i said. I agreed the land-lease helped USSR (guess writen 1000times). Still i don't see how it turned the course of the war.
Except that nobody has yet provided any evidence that famine in Ukraine was purposedly created by Soviet government to genocide Ukrainians.
Not to mention that
1. Famines in Russia due to bad crops happened pretty regularly before 1932, and during Soviet period they were actually stopped.
2. Ukraine was not the most suffered region of the USSR, neither in absolute nor in relative terms. Majority of starved people were of Russian ethnicity, and proportionally the most affected by famines region was Kazakhstan.
3. There was no significant separatist movement in Ukraine in 1932
LightSpectra
me autem minui
I have, actually. Let me repost it: "Famine in Ukraine was brought on to decrease the number of Ukrainians, replace the dead with people from other parts of the USSR, and thereby to kill the slightest thought of any Ukrainian independence."
Source: V. Danilov, et al., Sovetskaia derevnia glazami OGPU NKVD. T. 3, kn.2. (Moscow, 2004), pg.572.
They were stopped because Stalin massacred enough people in the gulags and famines that the worthless maximum threshold of the agricultural system established by the Soviets finally matched the population for a brief period of time.
You know, you make a really good point: one of the most murderous and oppressive states in the history of mankind can't be that bad because the ten million people it purposefully starved to death in the Ukraine from 1932-33 (and 1946-47 to a lesser extent) wasn't that bad compared to its other crimes against humanity.
"At the 12th Congress of the Communist Party of Ukraine, Moscow-appointed leader Pavel Postyshev declared that '1933 was the year of the defeat of Ukrainian nationalist counter-revolution.'" Source: Stenograph Record, Kharkiv 1934.
This is not an evidence, this is opinion of V. Danilov.
Calling events of 1932-1933 in Ukraine genocide is very strong accusation which needs very serious backup.
I can suppose that your claim is just another baseless accusation motivated by your strong anti-Soviet mindset rather than historical facts.
The only problem is that agricultural system, reformed in Soviet period became much more efficient than it was before industrialization - when famines were happening regularly despite the country's population consisted of >90% of peasants.
This is not my point, these are your fantasies:
"one of the most murderous and oppressive states in the history of mankind" - just another catchphrase, which only confirms your anti-Soviet indoctrinated mindset.
I would like you to explain how alleged "Ukrainian genocide" killed much more Russians and Kazakhs than Ukrainians.
And what was the purpose of killing Russians in that case - Russian separatism in the USSR probably?
Also it would be nice if you could comment the following citation:
"This interpretation of the famine overlooks inconsistencies between official grain harvest statistics for the early 1930s and the evidence of famine, as well as indications from other sources that these statistics are unreliable. New Soviet archival data show that the 1932 harvest was much smaller than has been assumed and call for revision of the genocide interpretation."
"A 25 February 1933 Central Committee allotted seed loans of 320.000 tons to Ukraine and 240.000 tons to the northern Caucasus. Seed loans were also made to the Lower Volga and may have been made to the other regions as well. Kul'chyts'kyy cites Ukrainian party archives showing that total aid to Ukraine alone was 60 percent more than amount exported during the same period"
Mark Tauger, "The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933"
http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Facul...932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933, SR 91.pdf
It would be interesting to hear explanation of how "murderous" Soviet regime wanted to genocide Ukrainians and was sending them food aid at the same time.
How this contradicts with my statement?
At least horse can be used for transporting grain, or they are not even fit for that ?
It's fairly expensive in terms of grain to transport grain by something that eats it in large amounts....
Heh, you're reminding me of the Schweinemord.
Didn't one of those books on the fall of the Roman Empire you recommended make the claim that shipping grain by horse drawn wagon doubled the cost of the grain for every 50 miles because of that the horses ate?
Yeah, that works many places. Particularly when a large portion of your empire wraps around the Med. It doesn't work so well if you happen to be in Russia. There are good navigable rivers, but only in a few places.
Except that a few of us, myself included, happen to be professional (or at least qualified) historians. Several of the others are studying at university to become one themselves.
Your earlier statements reveal that you completely ignore the evidence presented to you in favour of sticking your head in the clouds and lamely mumbling something about how maybe Germany (or later, Russia) could have done things differently if everything in the lead-up was different. The fact is, Hitler's goals from before he even became Chancellor essentially forced all the issues that led to the Second World War. Hitler's attempts to force the issue in favour of his warped views of international politics almost led to war between Germany and Italy as early as 1934, when Hitler supported an attempted coup in Austria by the Austrian Nazi Party. He almost started a war over Czechoslovakia in 1938, and again in early-1939. It is difficult to believe that anything short of Hitler not being in power could have changed German economic and industrial policy, nor could any changes made have improved the German military to the point where it could compete with the UK, USSR, US or even France. Germany's economy was simply that much weaker than its competitors. Even Italy's economy and industry was stronger, though Mussolini did a fantastic job of screwing that up.
Hitler was never going to fundamentally change the entire industrial output of Germany at a whim, even if it were possible, which it's not. The real world isn't a game of Civ. You can't just decide halfway through building a tank that you need a bomber instead, and switch over the shields. Germany could not completely restructure its industry or economy, even if they'd possessed some sort of long-term strategy other than:
1. Start wars in the East.
2. ?
3. Kill all the Jews and gain lebensraum.
If you are going to discuss things on an historical forum, then perhaps you should actually investigate the topic you're talking about, instead of just naively believing things that all the evidence suggests is wrong. Otherwise, you're going to get chewed out a lot.
To everyone who noted my statistical errors regarding population earlier, it's due to a misprint in my source. The page I was reading stated it possessed figures on "German population and industrial capacity in 1939-40," when it actually should read "1949-50." That's what I get for reading West German history books, I guess. It doesn't change the fact that Britain outproduced Germany, it just changes the exact amount.
Can you provide your source? This is what I've been looking at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II
I know, I know, its Wikipedia, but it looks good to me.
I want to ask you (as you are professional historian) how reliable is the data provided in wiki regarding historical issues according to you ? (please don't understand me wrong, it is not conected with the previous discussion, but it seems that according your source(guess a serious one) Britain outproduced Germany, and as mentioned above the wiki says the opposite). And i think that for many people who have history just as a hobby or are simply interested in some issues conected with it use wiki as a primary and most accessable source. So how reliable is it ? Not only for ww2 data, but in general for historical issues.(may be it should be in different topic...)
That's what I looked at to correct myself. My original source was a chapter in an old text-book I 'aquired' from high school. I've decided it's utterly hopeless just in the short time I've been reading this thread. The book in question is "History of the German State: 1861 to Present," Philip Jurgens, that present being 1972. A google search didn't even reveal the damn author's name, let alone the book.Can you provide your source? This is what I've been looking at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II
I know, I know, its Wikipedia, but it looks good to me.
Wiki is actually pretty good for basic statistics, dates, etc.. Where it fails is whenever something is even remotely controversial, ie., Stalin's complicity in the Holodomor, the truth behind war crimes, etc.. But it's hard to argue with simple facts like "x amount of tanks were produced by y date, then they were sent to z." Not that you won't still occasionally come across a page that does exactly that, but it's fairly rare. The real usefulness behind Wiki is reading the pages, then checking the sources Wiki provides to determine their worth. A Wiki page is only as good as who is writing it, and they sources they use.
If you look at the statistics for the Empire as a whole, Britain easily outproduced Germany. It also produced far more useful things, whereas Germany had a habit of wasting production on unnecessary crap. Still, it appears that Germany did outproduce the UK, at least based on sheer scale of production. What they were producing was less useful, however, even after Speer streamlined their production.
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 11,235
had a chance to read the entire thread and would like to have some comments .
there has been a view that the tone is against the achievements of Americans for recent day political persuasion . Can't speak for others but let me talk of my experiences elsewhere . Now this military strategy / politics site that banned me was kinda a weird place . My discussions of the planned and approved orbital bombardment of the Continental US would be left in place though anything that matched the undebateable reality was immediately deleted . Last year ı got encumbered with a particular notion . However ı detested it ı had to post the Fourth of July thing . You know the rocket bombardment and the glory of Star and Stripes . It went down the drain immediately . People do hate me for speaking out of station .
got it this year again , maybe precisely because of my dislike . A redder glare for USA !
and it is hard to ignore the dedication the US had in their desire to reshape the world and their efforts in the war is something one must be a total fool to ignore . So in a contribution as a well known armchair historian there are various things ı would like to mention . No quotes as usual , this is not intented to be a tug of war . That would lead to counter arguments and ı seriously like posting last on the threads . Makes it look like ı have said the last word on the subject .
there has been a view that the tone is against the achievements of Americans for recent day political persuasion . Can't speak for others but let me talk of my experiences elsewhere . Now this military strategy / politics site that banned me was kinda a weird place . My discussions of the planned and approved orbital bombardment of the Continental US would be left in place though anything that matched the undebateable reality was immediately deleted . Last year ı got encumbered with a particular notion . However ı detested it ı had to post the Fourth of July thing . You know the rocket bombardment and the glory of Star and Stripes . It went down the drain immediately . People do hate me for speaking out of station .
got it this year again , maybe precisely because of my dislike . A redder glare for USA !
and it is hard to ignore the dedication the US had in their desire to reshape the world and their efforts in the war is something one must be a total fool to ignore . So in a contribution as a well known armchair historian there are various things ı would like to mention . No quotes as usual , this is not intented to be a tug of war . That would lead to counter arguments and ı seriously like posting last on the threads . Makes it look like ı have said the last word on the subject .
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 11,235
on various points picked from the thread
a) there has been a number given about the German POWs captured by the Western Allies . It being double of the Red Army etc etc . It ignores what the Germans did in the name of a Lebensraum and how the Russians returned the "favour" . Something that has been mentioned by other posters . One thing relevant to military "investigation" is that the leading Russian waves were not that much into atrocies ,rapes and thefts in Berlin - straight from the "victims"- as they had to be disciplined to be effective in battle . Scum followed behind . Anyhow no German would prefer to be in Russian hands . It has been suggested that after the Bagration or at least from 1945 on , the German strategy was to surrender more of their country to Americans . Not the French and a far lesser degree to the British , but it couldn't be much helped in the context of the times .
b) aluminium was the first thing Stalin wanted in the Lend Lease after an initial shipment of flak guns , greatly surprising Harry Hopkins who had gone to Moscow to discuss the aid programme . Russian improvement of aircraft have indeed depended much on the availability of aluminium . Changing the wooden spars of Yaks provided extra volume for extra fuel and so on . Yet one must remember the Lagg 3 was sort of wooden and La-5FN / 7 had metal spars in the wing yet still the same in construction . Properly handled wood construction matched the best in composites up to 1990s . ı don't know the situation now .
in a similar vein one must remember the 109F and its puny armament , that single 15 mm cannon + 2 machine guns of rifle calibre . Russians followed a similar strategy . Yeah it was only suitable for the sharpshooters but the German correction in the shape of 109G was sort of a disaster . Had Germans managed to get straight from F to K it would have been allright but the 109G-6 had no place in any airforce as far as what ı have read goes .
c) maybe they were a bunch of closet Commies but the volunteer French fighter group on the Eastern European Front , the Normandie Niemen regiment took Yak-3s when the entire gamut of Russian and Lend Lease fighters were available to choose from .
d) it is indeed in German army reports that every Allied convoy that made into port was followed by much increased Russian activity . Though one can't see any break in the later Russian offensives but for the one in front of Warsaw where they watched Germans doing they might had have to do themselves and the winter 44 / 45 when they waited the German armoured reserves wasting themselves in the Ardennes . Though ı am not an expert and can easily be proven wrong . It was a time of debate between the Allies anyhow .
e) mobile forces lacked artillery -generally- and in return were supported from the air . Lack of trucks for artillery movement will obviously limit the rate of advance and increase the casualties allowing concentration and hence more effective counter attacks from the Germans , there is no doubt for that . Israelis attempted to answer that issue - of lack of balanced formations - with improved tank gunnery . It worked in 1967 . It did not in 1973 .
f ) in early 1942 it was seen the German infantry in Russia was averaging 4 kilometers per hour walking . Trucks and tanks did 2 while panje carts were the fastest at 4.5 km/h . As a result more horse carriages were added to Panzer Divisions .
a) there has been a number given about the German POWs captured by the Western Allies . It being double of the Red Army etc etc . It ignores what the Germans did in the name of a Lebensraum and how the Russians returned the "favour" . Something that has been mentioned by other posters . One thing relevant to military "investigation" is that the leading Russian waves were not that much into atrocies ,rapes and thefts in Berlin - straight from the "victims"- as they had to be disciplined to be effective in battle . Scum followed behind . Anyhow no German would prefer to be in Russian hands . It has been suggested that after the Bagration or at least from 1945 on , the German strategy was to surrender more of their country to Americans . Not the French and a far lesser degree to the British , but it couldn't be much helped in the context of the times .
b) aluminium was the first thing Stalin wanted in the Lend Lease after an initial shipment of flak guns , greatly surprising Harry Hopkins who had gone to Moscow to discuss the aid programme . Russian improvement of aircraft have indeed depended much on the availability of aluminium . Changing the wooden spars of Yaks provided extra volume for extra fuel and so on . Yet one must remember the Lagg 3 was sort of wooden and La-5FN / 7 had metal spars in the wing yet still the same in construction . Properly handled wood construction matched the best in composites up to 1990s . ı don't know the situation now .
in a similar vein one must remember the 109F and its puny armament , that single 15 mm cannon + 2 machine guns of rifle calibre . Russians followed a similar strategy . Yeah it was only suitable for the sharpshooters but the German correction in the shape of 109G was sort of a disaster . Had Germans managed to get straight from F to K it would have been allright but the 109G-6 had no place in any airforce as far as what ı have read goes .
c) maybe they were a bunch of closet Commies but the volunteer French fighter group on the Eastern European Front , the Normandie Niemen regiment took Yak-3s when the entire gamut of Russian and Lend Lease fighters were available to choose from .
d) it is indeed in German army reports that every Allied convoy that made into port was followed by much increased Russian activity . Though one can't see any break in the later Russian offensives but for the one in front of Warsaw where they watched Germans doing they might had have to do themselves and the winter 44 / 45 when they waited the German armoured reserves wasting themselves in the Ardennes . Though ı am not an expert and can easily be proven wrong . It was a time of debate between the Allies anyhow .
e) mobile forces lacked artillery -generally- and in return were supported from the air . Lack of trucks for artillery movement will obviously limit the rate of advance and increase the casualties allowing concentration and hence more effective counter attacks from the Germans , there is no doubt for that . Israelis attempted to answer that issue - of lack of balanced formations - with improved tank gunnery . It worked in 1967 . It did not in 1973 .
f ) in early 1942 it was seen the German infantry in Russia was averaging 4 kilometers per hour walking . Trucks and tanks did 2 while panje carts were the fastest at 4.5 km/h . As a result more horse carriages were added to Panzer Divisions .
