the US & UK merely assisted Russia in WW2

[spidge]

Originally Posted by T-34

and what did those ''Arctic Convoys'' transport to Russia - troops, i suppose ???...
.

As usual T-34, this is the kind of sniggering inference that precludes people having a sensible debate with you.

What troops the US and the British Commonwealth could have spared in those days to assist Russia would have jeopardised what was happening in every other theatre around the world.

Russia was not prepared for war so it signed a pact with Germany looking after its own interest at the detriment of Britain, France and the rest of the allied nations by agreeing not to assist those other nations if Germany invaded its neighbour Poland. Stalin asked for and received a piece of the pie that was half of Poland.

America was preparing for war but was not ready when it came in 1941. Britain and the Commonwealth forces were fighting in many theatres and just had its head above water.

The allies did not supply troops however they supplied nearly every other subsequent product to ensure that your men and women who were able to fight could be clothed and fed. They supplied the locomotives and tracks and rolling stock to move them and trucks to get them to where the battle was.

Then in North Africa the defeat of the Afrika Corps saw 250,000 Axis troops surrender.

Then there was the bombing of Germany where over 120,000 American, British and Commonwealth forces lost their lives delivering those payloads that decimated Germany's ability to continue adequate war production.

This was not just assistance, it was a working partnership that should be respected, not demeaned.

[4th wilts]

it would have been a long walk for a lot of very hungry soviet soldiers,without ammunition,spam,corned beef,boots,lorries to carry them,lorries to carry the food,ammunition etc,petrol for the lorries,steel,locamotives for the destroyed russian ones,new track etc,destroyed by the retreating germans,grond attack aircraft,fighters and tanks.i do not have any stats but stalingrad to berlin on foot is rather a long walk,remember comrade,not all brave,tough soviet soldiers went to germany on the back of a t34.yes,a long walk that.yours,lee.

[A Potts]

Originally Posted by spidge

As usual T-34, this is the kind of sniggering inference that precludes people having a sensible debate with you.

What troops the US and the British Commonwealth could have spared in those days to assist Russia would have jeopardised what was happening in every other theatre around the world.

Russia was not prepared for war so it signed a pact with Germany looking after its own interest at the detriment of Britain, France and the rest of the allied nations by agreeing not to assist those other nations if Germany invaded its neighbour Poland. Stalin asked for and received a piece of the pie that was half of Poland.

America was preparing for war but was not ready when it came in 1941. Britain and the Commonwealth forces were fighting in many theatres and just had its head above water.

The allies did not supply troops however they supplied nearly every other subsequent product to ensure that your men and women who were able to fight could be clothed and fed. They supplied the locomotives and tracks and rolling stock to move them and trucks to get them to where the battle was.

Then in North Africa the defeat of the Afrika Corps saw 250,000 Axis troops surrender.

Then there was the bombing of Germany where over 120,000 American, British and Commonwealth forces lost their lives delivering those payloads that decimated Germany's ability to continue adequate war production.

This was not just assistance, it was a working partnership that should be respected, not demeaned.

Spidge,

That is too harsh on T-34.

I have met many Russians and this is a common point put to me and often in much harsher terms.

T-34 states that he is from Moscow. I appreciate that his view may be offensive.

However, I think that it is much better to give reasoned opinion (not to say that most of your post was not reasoned and correct) and debate if need be. If it is too silly to argue then let it languish.

I don't think it was 'sniggering interference'.

[raf]

i posted a thread recently. were i work with slovaks...they to said the war was wonin the east...

maybe its a eastern block thing??? and there teaching of wwII

[the_historian]

Here we go again............

[4th wilts]

i saw a professor erikson on t.v one day,talking about the percentage of the german army fighting on the eastern front.does anyone know how much of the german armed forces were drawn from east to west after overlord.yours,lee.

[A Potts]

Originally Posted by 4th wilts

i saw a professor erikson on t.v one day,talking about the percentage of the german army fighting on the eastern front.does anyone know how much of the german armed forces were drawn from east to west after overlord.yours,lee.

I don't know the figures after Overlord. But I remember the rough figures were 5,500,000 german soldiers killed in the war. Of which 90% were attributed to the USSR and about half of those occured in the last 18 months.

Bear with me I could be wrong.

[T-34]

Originally Posted by A Potts

... We assumed you stated that Russia won the war (without help)...

no, actually i meant that help provided by the Allies doesn't entitle them for the status of being a victors in WW2 ; helpers - yes, but not a victors.


.

[deadb_tch]

for what this thread, huh? war have no winners. dot.

[A Potts]

Originally Posted by T-34

no, actually i meant that help provided by the Allies doesn't entitle them for the status of being a victors in WW2 ; helpers - yes, but not a victors.


.

T - 34 they were not 'helpers'. Maybe something is lost in translation. However, I think I know what you are trying to say.

I will ask you this simple question:

Who were the Commonwealth 'helping' before Hitler invaded the Soviet Union?