Downplaying Russia's Role

[angie999]

Thanks plant-pilot.

That is quite a stew mountain!

[plant-pilot]

Well appart from that and the other 6 types of canned meat, making a grand total of 1,549,195 tons of canned meat alone!

But what the information on the website provided by Gerry does show, is that despite being on a war footing themselves the US (As well as Canada and Britain) were still able to provide a very substantial amount of supplies. Anyone who says that they did not make a substantial contribution to the Soviet war effort has to be living in another world, no matter what the films say!

I'm not sure what brainwashing went on in the west during the cold war, but I'm assuming that it's not as much as it was in the east. The difference of a 'free press' in the west managing to topple major political leaders while in the Soviet Union the press followed the party line or closed.

Zhukov has yet to come up with any real evidence to support his assertions that the Soviet Union could have done everything on it's own and the rest of the allies were purely secondary. I agree that they had their successes and applaud their achievments, but without the support of lend lease from the rest of the allies, the masses of German troops held away from the eastern front by the mere threat of invasion and the drain on the German war effort once the invasion had been successful, I believe that the story in the east could have been very very different.

[DirtyDick]

Shall I mention the massive French financial investment in Russia pre-1914, which arguably precipitated the outbreak of European conflict in 1914 and also allowed the Russians to survive to fight the Germans for over 3 years before their surrender?

[plant-pilot]

Originally posted by DirtyDick@Jan 8 2005, 09:51 PM
Shall I mention the massive French financial investment in Russia pre-1914, which arguably precipitated the outbreak of European conflict in 1914 and also allowed the Russians to survive to fight the Germans for over 3 years before their surrender?

Quoted post

You could mention it, but I'm sure that Zhukov will tell us that he saw in a russian film that it didn't happen and we are still brainwashed by the western press. Or is that me being a little cynical?

[Zhukov]

From: http://www.battlefield.ru/library/lend/intro.html

"In general, military aid to the Soviet Union offered a great help in the 1941-43 but becomes insignificant at the end of war with the Soviet industry growing."

And of course before you even finish reading the post, you will begin typing "... but the Soviet industry would not begin to grow if it wasn't for the aid, and the Soviet Union would be defeated in the first place if it wasn't for the aid, etc etc etc". Wrong! Shortly after Operation Barbarossa, the backbone of the Soviet industry, moved deep into Siberia (it was the only logical thing to do). Any attempt by the Nazis to destroy it would not be possible for the simple and obvious reasons of stretching the lines beyond safe and efficient measures would quickly become vulnerable to ambushes and the overall timing of re-supplying would become a tragedy of its own.

Would that result on more casualties and defeats [on both sides]? Sadly Yes. Will that affect the outcome of the war? No.

In terms of obsolete, the fact is that aside from the Sherman and a few other land vehicle, most vehicles that were shipped could not withstand the harsh Eastern Front conditions and were not only inefficient but also broke down at times too fast. Now of course it is not in US’s interest to adapt to “Russia’s War”. But the question “Were they shipped because that's all the USA could provide?” with the answer of “No” also brings up the question of “Why didn’t the US enter the war and provide troops?” Whatever the answer maybe, it should be directed to millions who were killed before the United States entered the war.

[plant-pilot]

Originally posted by Zhukov@Jan 9 2005, 01:25 AM
In terms of obsolete, the fact is that aside from the Sherman and a few other land vehicle, most vehicles that were shipped could not withstand the harsh Eastern Front conditions and were not only inefficient but also broke down at times too fast. Now of course it is not in US’s interest to adapt to “Russia’s War”. But the question “Were they shipped because that's all the USA could provide?” with the answer of “No” also brings up the question of “Why didn’t the US enter the war and provide troops?” Whatever the answer maybe, it should be directed to millions who were killed before the United States entered the war.

How can something be obsolete when it was being used by the rest of the allies until the end of the war? Just because it wasn't suitable for conditions in a Soviet winter doesn't mean it wasn't any good. Are you suggesting that the US should have designed a tank for arctic conditions specially for sending to the Soviet Union for the lend lease program? They were sending the best they could when there were plenty of other fronts they needed equipment. It was supposed to be providing aid, helping out, not doing it all for you.

And as for the suggestion that they should have sent troops to the Soviet Union to fight there? They were fighting in the Middle East, the Far East and Preparing for the invasion in the west, that seems to be enough commitment when you have to agree, that one resource that the Soviets had plenty of was manpower.

I have to agree that the Soviets suffered terrible losses, but you have to agree that it was much to do with the human wave attack tactics as anything else. Had Stalin not eliminated most of his better Generals ther might have been more scope for a better outcome.

You really should try to use valid and logical rather than schoolboy like argument if you wish to get some of your more valid point across. If originally you wanted to point out that the Soviet Union's part in the victory over the Axis Powers was understated, it was lost in the angry anti american retoric and the sugestion that D Day was not a significant event in history.

Nobody is putting the Soviet contribution down. All I would ask is that you recognise the contribution made by ALL the other allies.

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by plant-pilot+Jan 8 2005, 11:56 PM-->

You misunderstood my last post completely. But I I don't have the time to reply to everything (after all I am the only person posting one opinion against a number of induviduals posting the other, I hope that you understand that). I will just quickly mention that the I clearly stated in my original post the following: ... of course it is not in US’s interest to adapt to “Russia’s War”. With that leading to the question: "Why didn’t the US enter the war and provide troops?” to which you gave a rather strange response: "they should have sent troops to the Soviet Union to fight there". You can ship equipment for use by the Soviet Forces, you don't ship American troops, for crying out loud. What I was talking about was the opening of the much awaited "Second Front".

And merging with the rest that you mentioned, yes it is sad as far as human life goes. But speaking of "schoolboy" arguments, you are insulting all surviving Eatern Front veterans by using the term "human wave", as is it is a false term, and is the common idea that most Westerners have about the Eastern Front, and often shows that they know nothing about the Eastern Front. May I ask you to define such term (the way you see it) and provide me with a source that confirms the vast usage of it on the Eastern Front.

Assuming that you leave in the United States, ask as many random pedestrians on the street as possible (another assumption is that they care to comment and know nothing about World War 2 history), and you will prove yourself wrong.

<!--QuoteBegin-plant-pilot@Jan 8 2005, 11:56 PM
All I would ask is that you recognise the contribution made by ALL the other allies.

I already have, re-read my very first post (the last paragraph).

[Brownag]

Originally posted by Zhukov@Jan 9 2005, 01:32 AM
after all I am the only person posting one opinion against a number of induviduals posting the other, I hope that you understand that

Zhukov

I wouldn't say that. From what I've read before on this thread there have been others backing you in some of your opinions. However the manner in which you have been replying to posts may have lost you some support and may have discouraged others from backing you up.

I don't know what internet forums you have used before but this has always been a friendly one with very little argument between users. Although you may feel you are being targeted by others because you hold different views it is probably the case that people were provoked into replying by the way you phrased your posts.

You have mentioned in a couple of posts that you don't have time for a full reply. If you don't mind the suggestion perhaps you should take some time before replying for two reasons:

1. You can provide a full reply which would help your argument.
2. You can read over your post to see if you have written anything which although seem perfectly reasonable to someone from the former Soviet Union may unintentionally irritate someone from the 'West'

Regards

Adam

ps quite a few western sailors went through a lot of hardships to deliver some of the lend-lease equipment previously discussed so I'd rather you weren't so disparaging about it.

[angie999]

Originally posted by Zhukov@Jan 9 2005, 01:32 AM
Assuming that you leave in the United States, ask as many random pedestrians on the street as possible (another assumption is that they care to comment and know nothing about World War 2 history), and you will prove yourself wrong.

Quoted post

If you ask random pedestrians on the street in any country about WWII, you may be lucky and find someone who knows some history. You are much more likely though to find someone whose knowledge falls somewhere between clueless and not interested on one extreme and vague interest, but little knowledge on the other.

Unfortunatly, I know plenty of people whose eyes will sort of glaze over at the mention of anything other than the latest TV soap episodes or the football scores.

By the way, Zhukov, I take it that you realise that this site is based in the UK, not the US, as are most of the members, not that a member's nationality or location is something many of us worry about.

[plant-pilot]

Dear Zhukov,
I'm sorry you believe that I misunderstood your post. I read through it carefully several times before writing and posting my reply, I can only hope that you will assume some of the blame in not ensuring the clarity of your points as ambiguity cannot be blamed on the reader.

I agree the final paragraph or post script of your first post stated

When I thank veterans, I thank them all along with the civilians who died for the war effort and the partisans. While a typical American for instance only thanks his own countrymen, sometimes managing to forget even the British and the French. Shame!

But despite those sentiments you have insisted to be scathing on the contribution of the US, whithout which many very prominent (and unbrainwashed!) histroians agree that the war may not have been won.

You belittle the lend lease program when the US, Canada and Britain were sending a vast amount of arms food and equipment at a time they also required it and at a great loss to shipping and the sailors of the Arctic fleet. This aid, and remember that is what it was, not a replacement for the Soviet industrial output, helped while the Soviets moved their heavy industries to Siberia out of the reach of the German airpower and enabled the Soviet arms industry to get back into full production.

My comments on 'human wave' attacks was not in any way meant to have been an insult to the many brave soldiers who lost their lives in them, but more as an indication that if many of the fine Generals who were purged between the wars by a despot dictator, had been around it is quite possible that other more conventional tactics may have been employed with a lower casualty rate. As a soldier I know that supressing and out flanking a position is always the best option, getting up and charging it, no matter how brave, is always the last.

You asked me for my definition and any proof of the Red Army using human wave attacks? Definition

Wilker was a veteran of Stalingrad and had witnessed Soviet attacks like this before. He personally held out against 14 human-wave attacks. The fighting was very similar to that at Stalingrad, with the Soviets seemingly unconcerned by their heavy losses. Wilker commanded a battalion of Hitler Youth and Volkssturm, augmented by Gottlieb's soldiers and newly arrived paratroops. The Soviet tanks halted when they entered the minefield and began to reverse their course. Wilker's boy soldiers attacked the remainder with Panzerfausts and Molotov cocktails. Still, the German defense buckled. Konev's weight of numbers--rather than any grand strategy--was winning the day.

From the site

There are many instances of Human Wave Attacks where line after line of troops with arms linked and singing advanced against machine gun fire. When the first 3 lines had been slaughtered the 4th or 5th lines sometimes fled only to return next day in fresh, doomed lines. Slaughter on this scale could continue for days leaving piles of bodies to be climbed over and the cries of the wounded. It is no wonder that German soldiers were psychologically affected by such terrible and pointless carnage.

From this site

A few examples and I can remember the pride expressed by a Soviet veteran on the award winning documentary "A World At War" how on some assaults the 'brave Red Army heros followed the first couple of waves without weapons and picking them up off the fallen'. I think you'll agree that that sort of action is only for the very brave, but it's not a tactic employed by a general who is in any way worried about the number of casualties.

Finally I would like to say that I'm sorry if you feel that everyone's ganging up on you. I have said it a few times, that the people in the west apreciate the Soviet contribution, and the people on this site more than most, yes, even the americans. But you should read and take note of the comments made by Brownag. The replies and the support you get from other posters depends as much on how you say something as to what you actually say.