Downplaying Russia's Role

[Neil B]

Let's see accusing posters here of opinions they don't hold, using Soviet cinema to support arguments, playing the outraged soothsayer.
What are those things......live under bridges.......it will come to me....

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by angie999+Jan 6 2005, 05:11 PM-->

As I said:

<!--QuoteBegin-Zhukov@Jan 5 2005, 05:06 AM
It's sad that the effects of the Cold War are still around.

You clearly know nothing about Russia's history. You've been told that "Communism is bad", and that's how you formulate your subsequent opinions, without ever bothering to check them out, which I can understand as you would actually have to study Russia’s history outside of the “Western” world. If were in an official debate, you would continue speaking from “stuck in the cold war” opinion, while I could actually get witness to prove you wrong.

And no I did not formulate my opinions based on Soviet cinema, in fact, I read more on the war than I’ve seen Hollywood, Soviet, and other movies of any kind combined. While most of the poster here read only Western writings, and clearly not much about the East.

[Gerry Chester]

Dear Zhukov,

You write "...most of the poster (sic) have read only Western writings, and clearly not much about the East."

I for one find it somewhat difficult to believe that, in two days, you have read and sufficiently digested the contents of the 7,512 postings to express such an opinion.

Cordially, Gerry Chester

[angie999]

Originally posted by Zhukov@Jan 6 2005, 10:15 PM
You clearly know nothing about Russia's history. You've been told that "Communism is bad", and that's how you formulate your subsequent opinions, without ever bothering to check them out, which I can understand as you would actually have to study Russia’s history outside of the “Western” world. If were in an official debate, you would continue speaking from “stuck in the cold war” opinion, while I could actually get witness to prove you wrong.

Quoted post

I clearly do know something. All my adult life, I have been on the political left, I have studied the Russian Revolution, the Soviet era and Stalinism. I also regard myself as coming from a Marxist tradition and I have read most of Lenin's major works, among many others.

Before the fall of the Soviet Union, I never took the position of "cold warrior".

If you check back, I do actually support your position that the role of the Soviet Union in WWII has not received adequare recognition in the west. At the same time, I would not advocate reliance on the work of the Stalinist era as a substitute - taking the Stalinist era to have lasted up to the fall of Gorbachev, because the bureaucratic mismanagement of the Soviet Union lasted till then.

What I am calling for is a complete opening of the archives to independent research and analysis, leading to publication of new work by internationally renowned historians. This is, incidentally, an opportunity for a new generation of Russian historians to make their reputation internationally.

[angie999]

I think that this topic should be moved down to Russia's War. What do you think?

[angie999]

Originally posted by Zhukov@Jan 5 2005, 06:15 PM
Well, you can set the books you read on fire and inhale that smoke, as I don’t “smoke” anything (aside from downtown pollution). Why are putting the help in cold cash? The help may have totalled up at $11 billion, but once again, “…the equipment sent, was either obsolete or outdated or old or even non-functioning, and the quantities were only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what a country that wasn't bombed on a daily basis could send.”

For a country that was not at war, the very least they could do was send $11 billion dollars in “new” and “functioning” equipment. I just remembered a hilarious phrase from “Pearl Harbor” by Roosevelt, “We are still making refrigerators, while out enemy is making bombs”. Or something like that, I really wouldn’t bother watching that movie again for the sake of finding out.

Quoted post

Just a very quick point. Prior to WWII, the US actually manufactured very little in the way of military equipment and had no stocks of old, outdated, obsolete military equipment to send. Once WWII got underway, even before the USA became a beligerent power, military production with new designs got underway, but in 1941 and 1942 it was still a struggle to equip the rapidly expanding US forces.

Similarly, there was little old British equipment to send, as the cupboard was a bit bare after the equipment losses of 1940

By the summer of 1943, US M3 and British Churchill tanks had been supplied to the USSR, right off the production line. The Red Army did not rate them highly, but they were the same equipment as currently in service with US and British forces. The light tanks supplied were as good as Soviet light tanks and were well regarded. The Red Army did rate the 17,000 jeeps and more than 90,000 trucks supplied by the US highly and many Red Army commanders used jeeps as their preferred method of transport in the field.

US canned food supplies were also highly rated because this is something which the Soviet Union had supply problems with and the troops were rarely issued with enough food. Some of it may not have appealed to Russian tastes - and many American troops probably got a bit tired of Spam also - but it did supply the calories.

Lease-Lend was not decisive by any means, but it was an important addition.

[Kiwiwriter]

I'll also mention that the Soviets were extremely grateful for the miles and miles of telephone wire the Americans sent over. And the crack about "producing refrigerators and not bombs" is gratuitous in the extreme. By the time Pearl Harbor was hit, the US economy was well-advanced in converting over to wartime conditions. While the garrisons in the Pacific were not well-supplied (and the Pacific as a whole not well supplied until 1943), all the production lines for the logistics and armaments that won the war were being tooled up, including the production of Liberty Ships, transport planes and trucks. All the major warships (carriers and battleships) had been laid down and were under construction, including the entire Essex class. And every aircraft the US flew in World War II was designed, and in most cases, flight-tested, before the US entered the war. You should get your hands on Richard Overy's "Why the Allies Won the War," which has a superb chapter on both the US and Soviet economic miracles.

[Gerry Chester]

Dear Zhukov,

Having read your comments about aid to the Russia, I respectfully suggest to you to observe the cardinal rule of debate so well put by Aldous Huxley, "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

Before down-playing both the quantity and quality of matériel shipped to Russia by the United States, the wise course would have been to check first. Although Jordan's work is out of print, the relevant chapter is available on the web.
See: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html

Cheers, Gerry

[angie999]

Interesting list, Gerry. Anyone know what canned tushenka is? (listed under foodstuffs)

[plant-pilot]

Originally posted by angie999@Jan 8 2005, 01:27 PM
Interesting list, Gerry. Anyone know what canned tushenka is? (listed under foodstuffs)

Quoted post

Tushenka is a Russian stewed meat and I can only assume that tinned it would be the red armys version of bully beef. 74397.75 tons of the stuff is quite a pile of tins.