[fuser]

They got the Ideal start with the Russians deployed forward and total surprise with the dumb orders from above.

Can you be more specific about those so called dumb orders......

They got dream start because they caught red army when it was reorganizing... Also after annexation of baltic states in addition to stalin line (defensive line), they started constructing molotov line at further west... The plan was to maintain both line and have defense in depth.
But when invasion begin molotov line was still under construction and vast amount of guns from stalin line was moved....Then, they also outnumbered defenders and with the help of superior tactics they were able to achieve the desired results....Almost the same fate was faced by france and poland too.... So, it isn't about incompetent leadership .... That leadership successfully organized and planned evacuation of working force and vital factories to east which was on of the most crucial factors in sealing the fate of wehrmacht.

[pugsville]

There were many who adovocated defense in depth as there was plenty of room. Stalin insisted that the germans would not attckm refused simple precautions, demolition of bridges, and mandated stupid attacks. There were plenty of warnings about the impending assualt. I think the Russian depositions were need perfect for the Germans.

[fuser]

There were many who adovocated defense in depth as there was plenty of room. Stalin insisted that the germans would not attckm refused simple precautions, demolition of bridges, and mandated stupid attacks. There were plenty of warnings about the impending assualt. I think the Russian depositions were need perfect for the Germans.

You are still not being specific... First of all stalin was not omnipotent as you are suggesting and was not taking every decision personally...

Construction of defensive line is not taking precautions.

And then we have already talked about this in another thread.... Soviets were trying everything to avoid the war with germans at that moment.. They didn't wanted to provoke germans in any possible way because they were the ones who knew better than anyone "The state of their army" which was under reorganization.. Thus leading to the policy of appeasement and now we know they were right in trying to avoid any conflict with germans at that time.

[RonPaulalways]

Quote:
Wrong, the loss in production was significant and was not recovered from for a long time.


Overall production was reduced but the gist is that by moving their vital industries to east they were able to produce every major war equipment far more greater in number than germans.....

A large part of that was because they were getting essential supplies through lend-lease. Looking at production of arms in isolation misses the big picture of what is required to support war production.

Quote:
The food shortage would have made itself felt in 42 and 43, right when lend lease shipments began arriving on a larger scale. The Soviet Union could have had widespread famine and extreme rationing, which would have slowed down its production and reduced its available manpower.


Oh, please don't mention "could have". They had recently faced a devastating famine and managed to cope up with it.....

They didn't cope with it. Millions died, and others had to be on meager rations. Without the millions of tons of food that came through lend-lease, those effects would have been considerably worse.

Any ways, what makes you think that in case of no land lease there wouldn't have had any planning to counter famine from soviet sides.....

How do you counter famine without food?

Then can you tell from your source exactly what percentage of soviet's own production of food did USA provided??

I don't know that, but I do know food production declined 40% due to the German advance, and millions of tons of food were sent to the Soviet Union through lend lease.

Any way you should know that land lease overall accounted for 7% of GNP of USSR and this figure is not based on ridiculous notion of comparing fundamentally different economies....

Soviet production declined to $274 billion in 1943. The total value of goods sent to the USSR during the war was $150 billion, so I find it hard to believe it accounted for only 7% of GNP in 1942 or 43.

[fuser]

Looking at production of arms in isolation misses the big picture of what is required to support war production.

I stand corrected as you are admitting that they outnumbered germans in arms production even after the destruction of their vital industries in west which was the main point.

They didn't cope with it. Millions died, and others had to be on meager rations. Without the millions of tons of food that came through lend-lease, those effects would have been considerably worse.

But did they collapsed?? They overcame the famine... I once again ask you, please tell me what percentage of its own food production did USSR received through land lease..

How do you counter famine without food?

I meant to say other options than USA..

and millions of tons of food were sent to the Soviet Union through lend lease.

It doesn't matter until you tell me the percentage.

Soviet production declined to $274 billion in 1943. The total value of goods sent to the USSR during the war was $150 billion, so I find it hard to believe it accounted for only 7% of GNP in 1942 or 43.

You have some serious problem in understanding the simple fact that the method you are using is completely wrong in comparing two different economies.... So, the figure you are posting isn't realistic ..

It doesn't matter if you find it hard to believe but this is the fact, may be you should read the book "feeding the bear" by hubert tuyll...
or tell me from your source ...

[RonPaulalways]

But did they collapsed?? They overcame the famine... I once again ask you, please tell me what percentage of its own food production did USSR received through land lease..

It's more accurate to say that the famine didn't affect them enough to bring their war production below that of Germany's. It certainly did affect them and would have done so even more absent lend lease.

Quote:
How do you counter famine without food?


I meant to say other options than USA..

We're assuming one vs one.

Quote:
and millions of tons of food were sent to the Soviet Union through lend lease.


It doesn't matter until you tell me the percentage.

Fair enough, but you're assuming the percentage was not significant enough to make a difference in the outcome of the war, and you don't have a source either.

[Smilin' Dave]

and you don't have a source either.

It is incumbent on the person who introduced an argument to prove it, not the person disputing it.

[fuser]

We're assuming one vs one.

Read that post of mine again.Don't try to take one small part of it and change the whole original meaning. Here it is again

The idiocy of this discussion lies in the fact that we are suppose to think as already pointed out by smilin dave that every other country had evaporated with only germany and soviet union existing.....

Any country will want to clutch as many resource as they could through diplomacy during wartime but ultimately the war is decided at battlefield......
Going by the notion of the thread USA can't win a single war with any major power one on one as she imports most of her oil And the thread rule says absolutely no involvement of other countries........

But if we are to talk specifically about land lease we should...... As I earlier pointed out about the most important help USSR got from USA "Trucks" weren't as important..... Then about problem of food, that could have been solved through other means than USA.....

Before any body points out hey no other country, please read above lines first and go figure out without Romania how would Germany had solved her oil problem..... Mind you oil is single most important resource in modern warfare...

All I am saying is that when talking of one on one situation we should restrict ourselves to militaristic factors only....

It's more accurate to say that the famine didn't affect them enough to bring their war production below that of Germany's.

Which is what most matters in a war of survival

but you're assuming the percentage was not significant enough to make a difference in the outcome of the war, and you don't have a source either.

I have already suggested you a book.But the major point is that you shouldn't claim anything regarding the food aid until you come up with a percentage and a source

[RonPaulalways]

Before any body points out hey no other country, please read above lines first and go figure out without Romania how would Germany had solved her oil problem..... Mind you oil is single most important resource in modern warfare...

True, but Germany would have likely taken Romania by force had it not become an ally. The US aid OTOH would not have been forthcoming without lend-lease.

All I am saying is that when talking of one on one situation we should restrict ourselves to militaristic factors only....

If the scenario is one vs one, then we have to. I never claimed it's a realistic scenario, but these are the parameters of this hypothetical.

Quote:
It's more accurate to say that the famine didn't affect them enough to bring their war production below that of Germany's.


Which is what most matters in a war of survival

Of course, but my point is that if it cost them millions of lives, and forced them to go on extreme rations, then it affected their war production, and therefore if the food shortage had been greater, it could have affected it enough to bring their war production below Germany's.

But the major point is that you shouldn't claim anything regarding the food aid until you come up with a percentage and a source

As I pointed out, I acknowledge that it's not certain that the food shortage would have been decisive, but you should also not claim any thing regarding food aid until you come up with a percentage. We know for a fact that millions of tons of food were sent, and that the Soviet Union lost a significant percentage of food production to the German advance. Without knowing any more facts, you can't claim to know that the aid was not essential.

[fuser]

True, but Germany would have likely taken Romania by force had it not become an ally

Please, its one on one remember... Don't indulge romania

If the scenario is one vs one, then we have to

But you are not

and therefore if the food shortage had been greater, it could have affected it enough to bring their war production below Germany's.

Until you give percentage and source these posts are meaningless...

As I pointed out, I acknowledge that it's not certain that the food shortage would have been decisive

So, we should stop talking about it then....

but you should also not claim any regarding food aid until you come up with a percentage. We know for a fact that millions of tons of food were sent, and that the Soviet Union lost a significant percentage of food production to the German advance. Without knowing any more facts, you can't claim to know that the aid was not essential

It is you who is making an argument by claiming something, so burden lies on you to back up that claim.... I am claiming nothing regarding food production....Again no one is saying aid was not important only it was not that significant to change the outcome of war.
So, read again

the major point is that you shouldn't claim anything regarding the food aid until you come up with a percentage and a source

[cowofzot]

GNP is not a measure of defense spending.

In 1932, France was spending 5.2
percent of its GNP on defense, compared to only 1.9 percent by Ger
many (which was constrained by the Versailles Treaty). But in 1935
Germany tore up the Versailles Treaty and began to rearm. While
France and Great Britain dithered away their chance to intervene with
relative ease, Germany began a massive arms buildup. By 1938, Germany
was spending 17.2 percent of its GNP on defense, while France
was spending only 8.6 percent. Alarmed at this situation, in 1939
France increased defense spending to 23 percent of its GNP. Germany
more than matched that with 30 percent

http://www.nazi.org.uk/military%20pdfs5 ... f_WWII.pdf

[fuser]

GNP is not a measure of defense spending.

Have you even read the post carefully enough... Who talked about defense spending and gnp together??
Nevertheless you have failed to explain why

[cowofzot]

Nope, just that GNP is not a measure of military spending, therefore one must have the Military percentage figure & compare it to the Lend Lease figure to get an accurrate estimation of its value.

One must also take into account the "type" of materials sent, high grade steel, copper & many things Soviets didn't have. & again food & 6X6 trucks were enormously important to there armys mobility & sustainability.



Quote;
Any way you should know that land lease overall accounted for 7% of GNP of USSR and


Who talked about mixing GNP with military spending? That would be you.

[cowofzot]

When the Soviet Union invaded Poland with their unlikely ally Germany, Russian food supply in general for both civilian and military use was in decline, and had been so for the past decade.

From 1941 through mid-1942, Soviet troops fought on minimal rations, and local procurement was the norm. Greatly prized were captured German rations, and often times raids would be planned around capture of supply dumps specifically containing foodstuffs.

http://17thdivision.tripod.com/id40.html

[fuser]

just that GNP is not a measure of military spending,

You are stuck here, who is talking about GNP with regard to military spending....

one must have the Military percentage figure & compare it to the Lend Lease figure to get an accurrate estimation of its value.

This is just dumb.... Through land lease was USSR receiving just military aid?? Most of the aid was non military in nature and you want to compare it with just military spending..
But we can do it if we compare it with militaristic aid received from land lease only and trust me you won't like it..

Any way you should know that land lease overall accounted for 7% of GNP of USSR and


Who talked about mixing GNP with military spending? That would be you.

Yeah, true and where am I mentioning military spending?? Try not to make stupid claims like this..

When the Soviet Union invaded Poland with their unlikely ally Germany

From 1941 through mid-1942, Soviet troops fought on minimal rations,

And aid started entering USSR in massive amounts in mid 1943, so what's your point.. How they solved their problem for that one year.
Any ways even with minimal ration as you are claiming, they managed to do fine....So, What's your point??

http://17thdivision.tripod.com/id40.html

Another source that cites nothing but this "US Army Handbook on USSR Military Forces", which I was unable to find on net.... So, until you give me direct link to that handbook to check the sources that handbook provides, this source is bull crap.

[cowofzot]

No, massive amounts arrived in 42, go back & read the chart.


Over 2 million long tons shipped in 42.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/ ... -b.htm#c12

There's just no way for you to get around this.


Lend Lease was Non military??!! Have you got a source for that? Nevermind, I'll do it for you.

Lend-Lease (Public Law 77-11)[1] was the name of the program under which the United States of America supplied the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China, France and other Allied nations with vast amounts of war material between 1941 and 1945. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

That's WAR material. Not Umbrellas, baby dolls & X-mas decorations.

[fuser]

Lend Lease was Non military??!!

Either you are dumb to understand a simple statement or you are deliberately trying to change the original meaning of a statement as you want...Its last time I am saying you to stop this bull crap....

Where the fuck did I said it was non military.... Atleast try to read one line carefully or is it that you can't understand english....

This is what I said

Through land lease was USSR receiving just military aid?? Most of the aid was non military in nature

First part is a Question.Now answer it in yes or no if you can...In Second part anyone can see the word most

I "ll expect from you to do away with these stupidities from now on to remain in a serious discussion.

go back & read the chart.

When did you provided a fucking chart?? You provided this chart in this post only...And only if you have cared to study those charts, you wouldn't have posted this here..... Please study the chart yourself, those charts clearly back up my claims as I already wrote

aid started entering USSR in massive amounts in mid 1943

But I got it you must have missed those two words....

Now I am quoting from the book "Feeding the Bear: American Aid to the Soviet Union " by Hubert Tuyll

90 percent of lend-lease cargo was not military

@cowofzot

Please Please pay attention to the previous posts before posting anything or you are just wasting others and yours time as well

[cowofzot]

Your stupidities have already been addressed.


This is what I said
Quote:
Through land lease was USSR receiving just military aid?? Most of the aid was non military in nature


First part is a Question.Now answer it in yes or no if you can...In Second part anyone can see the word most



Again, aid was strictly military in nature as I clarified with the link. Try & read & comprehend it this time. Lend Lease was MILITARY aid, it wasn't anything else. You've miscomprehended what your book stated, it meant the military aid as regards weapons was that percentage, steel, food, trucks etc are not weapons per se, they are nonetheless for military purpose. GNP is "not" a measure of military expenditure, therefore comparing Lend Lease to GNP is meaningless.



Gross National Product. GNP is the total value of all final goods and services produced within a nation in a particular year, plus income earned by its citizens (including income of those located abroad), minus income of non-residents located in that country. Basically, GNP measures the value of goods and services that the country's citizens produced regardless of their location. GNP is one measure of the economic condition of a country, under the assumption that a higher GNP leads to a higher quality of living, all other things being equal.


Income earned by its citizens is not related to military budget.





I provided the chart on last page & in the post above yours, here it is agin for 3rd time.


Lend-Lease (Public Law 77-11)[1] was the name of the program under which the United States of America supplied the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China, France and other Allied nations with vast amounts of war material between 1941 and 1945. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

That's WAR material. Not Umbrellas, baby dolls & X-mas decorations.

[fuser]

Its useless to debate with you..Are you saying that no food was shipped from USA to USSR?? Plz answer this one

You are irritating, for the last time no one is comparing gnp and military expenditure

You surely don't read what other posts Its totally useless to argue with someone like you..

Anyways I wrote exactly from the book not what I comprehended... Am I suppose to take your word instead of Hubert Tuyll

I am not going to smash my head on a wall anymore....

[cowofzot]

Its useles to debate with you, I did say food was shipped from USA to USSR, food so that they're armies could fight, boots so they're soldiers could march, metal so they're factories could make tanks, no paychecks, everything was geared for military purpose. You misintrepreted what your author said.


Here again is your quote; Any way you should know that land lease overall accounted for 7% of GNP of USSR



Quote; no one is comparing gnp and military expenditure

No one except you. Military budget & GNP are not the same thing. Military budget is a small percentage of GNP.