the US & UK merely assisted Russia in WW2

[Owen]

T-34, notice your avatar has been deleted.
Please do not replace it.
Please, keep avatars non-political.
If anyone wants to know more on T-34's deleted avatar look here.
National Bolshevik Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[spidge]

[quote=A Potts;124139]Spidge,

That is too harsh on T-34.

I feel it is quite a moderate response! T-34 debates without acceptance of fact and the realisation that without allied support in those crucial times the result for Russia "could" have been very different.

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

We have had Russians on this forum who have "researched" WW2 and are not blinkered to cold war Soviet propaganda and have actually provided evidence and exploded a few myths which were supported by factual information.


Venting their anger in much harsher terms only puts them on the same level as T-34 in denying the collaboration of the allies.

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.

There is no reason to ignore blatant ignorance of and continual denial of fact.

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

It wasn't, it was a sniggering "inference" that no troops were sent.

There is certainly no racist intention in my post now or in previous threads as without Russia the face of the world would have been very different.

T-34 has a history of denial that any allied support, short of troops, had nil effect on the outcome of Eastern Europe.

I could make a suggestion that you do a search of previous threads and posts by T-34 and grasp the negative attitude with which he "debates".

He is consistent in his denial of historical fact, even from official Russian sources and provides nothing of note to support his views.

[machine shop tom]

Hitler had to break off the Kursk offensive to attend to the Allies' landings in Sicily.

I wonder how much more effective the wehrmacht would have been in the East had they not tied down divisions in the west in anticipation of D-Day, even a year before it happened. Plus, all of those bombs raining down on Germany and her forces, night and day, surely helped the Russians.

Sure, Russia MAY have won the war on her own, but how many more hundreds of thousands of Russians would it have taken? How many more years?

tom

[machine shop tom]

"He is consistent in his denial of historical fact, even from official Russian sources and provides nothing of note to support his views."

In another forum in which I am a moderator, guys like this are called "trolls".

tom

[machine shop tom]

Lend-Lease:

Lend Lease

"The Allies supplied 317,000 tons of explosive materials including 22 million shells that was equal to just over half of the total Soviet production of approximately 600,000 tons. Additionally the Allies supplied 103,000 tons of toluene, the primary ingredient of TNT. In addition to explosives and ammunition, 991 million miscellaneous shell cartridges were also provided to speed up the manufacturing of ammunition."

Bren Carriers - 2336
M3 Halftracks - 900
M3A1 Scout Cars - 3092
M3A1 Stuart - 1233
Valentine - 3487
Churchill - 258
M3A3 Lee/Grant - 1200
Matilda - 832
M4A2 75mm Sherman - 1750
M4A2 76mm Sherman - 1850
Half Tracks - 820
Light Trucks - 151,000
Heavy Trucks - 200,000
Jeeps - 51,000
Tractors - 8070

Not to mention that the great tank factories would have been all but impossible without the technical aide and pre-war assistance by American companies in modernising and building the Russian steel industry.

tom

[spidge]

Originally Posted by machine shop tom

"He is consistent in his denial of historical fact, even from official Russian sources and provides nothing of note to support his views."

In another forum in which I am a moderator, guys like this are called "trolls".

tom

Been there done that!

[Gotthard Heinrici]

Originally Posted by freebird

No I don't think that is correct.
T-34, it would have been very difficult if not almost impossible for UK/US to invade Germany without the Russians fighting on the Eastern front. (until the bomb?)

Now let me turn this around - suppose that the UK had been invaded or had accepted Hiler's offer of a truce in 1940 and stayed neutral. Do you think that the USSR could have repelled a German invasion against the FULL Nazi resources? The Germans would have 40 - 50 extra divisions, (no need to guard Western Europe against the British) using ALL available airpower, (remember that a big part was tied down by the Commonwealth in France & Med theaters) The USSR would not get any aid from the west, but presumably the Germans could import oil and other resources from S. America, Africa etc, as the Royal Navy is not blockading them. But perhaps the most important point, without British "meddling" in Greece & the Balkans, the Germans could launch Barbarossa 3 or 4 months earlier, so that they would be approaching Moscow, Leningrad & Rostov in June/July instead of late October.

Do you really think the Russians could have prevailed?

I would also like to hear Deadb tch & Za Rodinu's opinion on this.

Well said., with one exception. In 1941 the spring was an unusually wet one. The invasion would have been caught up in the Spring thaw in which roads were mud rivers etc. It couldnt have gone any earlier than it did. But a fine post nonetheless!!!

[smc]

I'm sure I read a Stalin quote somewhere that went along the lines of the war in Europe was won through British doggedness, American money and Soviet manpower. British doggedness for refusing to give up between 1939-41, the Americans for financing and assisting the Allies with equipment, and the Soviets for providing the bulk of the forces used to defeat the Wehrmacht.

[deadb_tch]

First of all guys I am becoming to idea to consider such threads like provocation and u know what have been done with provokers at war. Sorry if I have offenced someone but I'm little bit tired of this discussions that have no end and have no future.
The second is that how could UK accept the truce with Churchill, ah? Please explain me.

[smc]

Originally Posted by deadb_tch

The second is that how could UK accept the truce with Churchill, ah? Please explain me.

It would not with Churchill, however, during the debacle at Dunkirk there was one last attempt by a group of appeasers who coalesced around the figure of Lord Halifax to seek terms and exit the war. This all happened at a two day stormy cabinet meeting in May 1940. Halifax lost and would become British ambassador to the US later that year, a typical British maneouvre where Halifax would not lose face in being givien this post but at the same time be far enough away from any other attempts to be used as a focal point for the remaining appeasers.