[fuser]

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

Yes, I wrote that and nowhere I have mentioned military expenditure, so stop this stupidity...


Then going by your logic as that food was strictly for military purpose that means there would had hardly been any famine problem in USSR...

Military budget & GNP are not the same thing.

And no one is saying it, so stop parroting.

Military budget is a small percentage of GNP.

It depends, during the WW2 over 50% of soviet gnp was directed towards war effort. So, going by your logic land lease will still account for around 13-14% again hardly decisive..... Then compare strictly the military expenditure of Germany and Soviet union and not their gdp or gnp and you are only helping my case...

[cowofzot]

Exactly, you didn't mention military expenditure.

Missing the point again, not the percentage exclusively that determines how imortant Lend Lease was to the Russians, it is "once again" the type of materials sent, 6X6 trucks so their armies can roll, enough food to feed a 12 million man arny for 5 years, strategic metals they lacked & fuel for their airforce, rolling stock. Kinda important stuff.

74% of all vehicle tires.
92% of all railroad locomotives, rolling stock and rails.
74% of all truck transport.







Quoting Zhukov:
However, one cannot deny
that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have
formed our reserves and ***could not have continued the war*** . . . we had no
explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans
actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet
steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our
production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel.


We would have been in a
serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the
quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic],
we could have dragged our artillery nowhere.


Metals & tools etc here.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... /lend.html

[pugsville]

Did anyone define the terms of "one on one"? If lend lease is counted out, is german resources from Sweden, France, Spain, Romiania and munitions from Czech counted in or out. I think Germany was much much more dependant on outside resources than USSR.

[RonPaulalways]

^ Resources attained through military conquest are permitted in a one vs one.

[pugsville]

But if you allow the conquest of France then surely the consequences of the conquest of france are allowed, war with Britain and US aid. Which means it's no longer one on one, of course things can be redefined. BUt is it really Germany plus some stuff versus USSR without other stuff?

[Igor Antunov]

But if they never attacked France and Britain in the first place they would have saved on those losses.

They didn't, they attacked Poland. Then France and Britain attacked them because they were guaranteeing Polish independence.

[fuser]

@cowofzot

You surely don't read enough... Whatever you have wrote had already been discussed in this thread..... So, try to read them first before posting anything new...

they were guaranteeing Polish independence.

like they guaranteed Czechoslovakia but any way this time they acted by declaring war on Germany and by "truth raids" : the spread of leaflets urging German citizens to rise against their leaders. The British were hoping this would lead to the downfall of the nazis and if it didn't, that it would show the RAF was capable of making bombing raids on Germany.
In reality the only result was that the Germans increased their Flak and, in the words of general-major Harris, that 'the continental need for toilet paper for the next five years had been met'.

[cowofzot]

Fuser, read more, the stuff I posted in my last post was new material as yet not posted in this thread. In particular quotes from Zhukov.

[fuser]

@ cowofzot

No one here is debating over the amount of materials USSR received through land lease, it was indeed massive but the major point which being in discussion here is production capability of germany and USSR without their allies.... No one is disputing the importance of land lease but the question is whether it was that important to change the very outcome of war??

That is why I asked you to read the whole thread carefully before posting any thing new..

As that quote from zhukov goes, it hardly matters ......As there are countless quotes from other military personnel according to whom land lease wasn't even a drop in a bucket....He was not an economist. AnywayI stopped reading that quote when I countered this
"we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets."


Sorry but most of the WW2 books doesn't agree....

[Thunderhawk]

Quoting Zhukov:
However, one cannot deny
that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have
formed our reserves and ***could not have continued the war*** . . . we had no
explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans
actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet
steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our
production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel.

1) was this quote only about his reserve force he built up, or the Soviet military in general?
2) source. Preferably including the Russian original.

[Smilin' Dave]

^ Resources attained through military conquest are permitted in a one vs one.

Actually this just seems to have been something you decided on your own accord. The OP was quite clear that other powers would be involved in the fighting, including Britain. Excluding lend-lease completely was highly artificial since there is no reason supplied as to why it would be stopped. When confronted with the prospect of a similar cut in terms of Romanian oil, you changed the rules. I have this funny feeling that any minute now we are all going to start playing cowboys and indians, and you will declare that you have a shield.

[RonPaulalways]

I have this funny feeling that any minute now we are all going to start playing cowboys and indians, and you will declare that you have a shield.

What!? Of course I have a shield, it goes without saying that warriors going into battle would be prepared!

In all seriousness though, I figure conquest would be permitted in a one vs one because the resources it provides the conquering country are not voluntarily ceded, so the course of events are due solely to the actions/intention of the conquerer.

[William_H_Dougherty]

Hmmm.

Without a change in the Nazi occupation policy, I do not see Germany ever exacting a total defeat of the Red Army, whether they were at war with the rest of the world or not.

Additionally, as was mentioned by a previous poster, Germany really gambled everything on Operation Barbarossa. Most significantly lost at this time were the country's oil reserves. Unless Germany occupied the Caucus during the initial invasion, the Wehrmacht would have been critically wounded, regardless of the outcomes of the Battle of Leningrad and Moscow.

They would only able to mount limited offensives after this period, so really the question you have to ask, was Germany on its own capable (I assume by your one-on-one reference there is no Hungary, Romania, Italian, Slovakian contribution to this invasion) of destroying the entire Red Army within a single Barbarossa style campaign before they had not more oil to keep all the panzerarmies moving in a concerted fashion.

I doubt it.

- WHD