Quote from: Darth Fife on December 15, 2014, 02:58:23 PM
No, it didn't!

Just look at the Soviet Union during the war! If it had not been for the lend lease program of Capitalist America, the USSR would have lost their part of the war.

1941 december 5, soviet army start counteroffensive near Moscow, that buried forever "Blitzcrieg" and with it, hopes for the Germany win the war. No Land lease yet, US not even in the war at this moment.
1942 . After disaster with PQ-17 in june the next big convoy was sent to USSR in december 1942. Care to remember, what was going in in the second part of 1942? A little thing called Battle of Stalingrad - "Badge of courage on the chest of human race" (c), turning point of the WWII.
So, still not to much help through LL in 1942. Real quantities of LL started in 1943, when any thinking person at this time could see - Germany will lose this war.
P.S. And Second front was opened in june of 1944. Even less doubt at that time about outcome of the war.
LL was a big help for USSR (not as big as would be actual men on the ground in time: Second front, that Allies promised open in 1942, then 1943...), and it shortened continuation of the war, but it was fields of Russia and soviet economy, created in 1930s, that keep producing and increasing production of war materials during the war, that broke the spine on nazie machine on the eastern front, the main front of WWII. People under influence of dogma, that soviet style economy couldn't beat capitalist economy of the Germany(and almost the whole Europe, which germans were using), just because it is communist economy,  are cheating themselves.
I think, the ONLY soviet economy, planned economy, could resist nazies.  US economy did extremely  good, but we will never know, how it would work under circumstances that USSR was in during the war.
Imagine enemy taken the whole eastern territory of the US, till Mississipi line, and necessity to relocate industry of Detroit and Pennsylvania to Alaska, and do it under enemy bombardment... Then we could determine, which model of economy was more effective under pressure...

Quote from: kalash on December 16, 2014, 11:53:08 AM
1941 december 5, soviet army start counteroffensive near Moscow, that buried forever "Blitzcrieg" and with it, hopes for the Germany win the war. No Land lease yet, US not even in the war at this moment.

You need to brush up on your history.

The Lend Lease Act was signed into law by President Roosevelt on 11March 1941.

The U.S. started providing materials to the Soviet Union in June 1941.

While most Soviet Armored units were equipped with Soviet tanks, (Notably the T-34) by wars end nearly 2/3 of the support vehicles were made by Capitalist America - Dodges and Stuebakers!

The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil), 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,900 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. One item typical of many was a tire plant that was lifted bodily from the Ford Company's River Rouge Plant and transferred to the USSR. The 1947 money value of the supplies and services amounted to about eleven billion dollars.

Finally, let's see what Uncle Joe Stalin had to say about the effect of American Capitalist manufacturing on the war...

"Without American production the United Nations [the Allies] could never have won the war."

-Joseph Stalin, Tehran - 1943

Darth

Quote from: Darth Fife on December 16, 2014, 01:00:22 PM
You need to brush up on your history.

The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following:

i know all that, but timing was very important, and in hardest for USSR first year and a half of the war, LL didn't had big influence on war effort on eastern front. Tide of the war was turned because of the efforts of soviet economy and then, of course LL. Once again, by the time LL come to real effect, Soviet army was winning the war. LL shortened war and saved  lives not just russians, but germans also.  Stupid to deny this  fact, but even more stupid to say that USSR won because of LL.

Quote from: Darth Fife on December 16, 2014, 01:00:22 PM
You need to brush up on your history.

The Lend Lease Act was signed into law by President Roosevelt on 11March 1941.

The U.S. started providing materials to the Soviet Union in June 1941.

While most Soviet Armored units were equipped with Soviet tanks, (Notably the T-34) by wars end nearly 2/3 of the support vehicles were made by Capitalist America - Dodges and Stuebakers!

The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil), 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,900 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. One item typical of many was a tire plant that was lifted bodily from the Ford Company's River Rouge Plant and transferred to the USSR. The 1947 money value of the supplies and services amounted to about eleven billion dollars.

Finally, let's see what Uncle Joe Stalin had to say about the effect of American Capitalist manufacturing on the war...

"Without American production the United Nations [the Allies] could never have won the war."

-Joseph Stalin, Tehran - 1943

Darth

Not quite. The Soviet Union was not part of Lend-Lease until October 1. However, the Soviets did receive stuff from the British beginning in early July. (That stuff was available for export because of shipments of replacement goods to England from the US.) The reason for the delay in the case of Russia is obvious -- until Barbarossa kicked off in late June, Stalin was in bed with Hitler, by treaty and by inclination. The invasion of Poland in 1939 should be described as a partition of Poland; the Germans did not occupy the entire country, but rather stopped their advance at a pre-determined line agreed upon previously between Hitler and Stalin, who simultaneously marched in from the east. Also, Stalin's post-Poland war on Finland had significantly damaged the Soviet Union's reputation worldwide, leading to its expulsion from the League of Nations. It took some time for Uncle Joe to become the sort of "friend" that results from being "the enemy of my enemy."

Quote from: Darth Fife on December 15, 2014, 02:58:23 PM
No, it didn't!

Just look at the Soviet Union during the war! If it had not been for the lend lease program of Capitalist America, the USSR would have lost their part of the war.

Of course, this would have enabled Hitler to concentrate all of his power on Operation Overlord! England may very well have fallen to the NAZIs.

Darth

Lately (past couple of years) I've noticed a growing trend among the young who believe that the USSR won the war with little, or no, help.  Their teachers push this.  Even had one person tell me that the USSR was never an ally of Germany, and used that time (1939 and 1940) to build up their armies for the upcoming German attack.

Quote from: TboneAgain on December 12, 2014, 10:38:50 PM
Well, you could cruise the French countryside in your monstrous, magnificently engineered, incredibly complicated, slow-moving, unreliable, underpowered, and nearly impossible to service Tiger II, or you could blast along eastward in an el-cheapo Sherman with thirty more just like it in your formation to lend fire support. I think I'd like to be in a Sherman. 

The Tiger II was a magnificent tank, but the Germans built fewer than 500 of them. The Panzer IV was the mainstay of the Western Front, and it was a good medium tank, but not significantly superior to the M4, especially the Firefly variant the British put into battle.   

All told, Germany produced and put into battle fewer than 26,000 tanks of all types. We cranked out almost 50,000 Shermans alone. Our Soviet allies came up with over 84,000 T-34s. Throwing in the British tanks and American tanks besides the M4 Sherman, the Germans were purely outnumbered by nearly 10:1.

The fact of the matter was that the US could build better tanks (see the Pershing, and the upgraded Sherman), but they were using an insane theory, whereby tanks were only supposed to be used for breakthroughs, while tanks destroyers fought tanks. As Stalin put it:"Quantity has a quality of its own". Or to quote a German tank commander: "We ran out of shells, before they ran out of tanks". Sort of hard on the tank crews though.

Quote from: ConservativeMe on January 07, 2015, 02:01:00 PM
Their teachers push this.  Even had one person tell me that the USSR  used that time (1939 and 1940) to build up their armies for the upcoming German attack.

Can you tell me what is wrong with this statement?

Quote from: mdgiles on January 11, 2015, 05:38:27 PM
The fact of the matter was that the US could build better tanks (see the Pershing, and the upgraded Sherman), but they were using an insane theory, whereby tanks were only supposed to be used for breakthroughs, while tanks destroyers fought tanks. As Stalin put it:"Quantity has a quality of its own". Or to quote a German tank commander: "We ran out of shells, before they ran out of tanks". Sort of hard on the tank crews though.

I sometimes think it's a difference in mindset based on geography. Until Barbarossa kicked off, everything the Germans tried to do was short-distance and successful -- except for the Battle of Britain, where they tried to used the tactical Luftwaffe as a strategic air force. Their entire philosophy up to that point was tactical, rather than strategic. They never built a strategic bomber in any numbers. They made a few half-hearted jabs at a strategic navy, but were never really effective beyond the ebb and flow of the U-boats. They sent semi-motorized armies into the wilds of western Russia relatively late in summer 1941 without making allowances for transportation, supply, or even winter clothing.

I think they had a poor concept of continental conflict.

Quote from: kalash on January 12, 2015, 03:04:52 AM

Quote from: ConservativeMe on January 07, 2015, 02:01:00 PM
Their teachers push this.  Even had one person tell me that the USSR  used that time (1939 and 1940) to build up their armies for the upcoming German attack.

Can you tell me what is wrong with this statement?

Well, besides the fact that you deliberately edited the quote to make it sound different...

Quote from: ConservativeMe on January 07, 2015, 02:01:00 PM
Lately (past couple of years) I've noticed a growing trend among the young who believe that the USSR won the war with little, or no, help.  Their teachers push this.  Even had one person tell me that the USSR was never an ally of Germany, and used that time (1939 and 1940) to build up their armies for the upcoming German attack.

The thing wrong with it is that Russia DID have a non-aggression pact with Germany, and their military build up between 1938 and 1940 had much more to do with worries over Japanese activities to the east than worries over their buddy to the west. Russian intel basically ignored warnings from Britain and the U.S. that Hitler did not take the non-aggression pact seriously. They also ignored western intelligence reports of the buildup of German, Italian, and Finnish troops and equipment along their border.

Russia was not particularly weak at that time, but their assets were poorly located when the initial German attack came in June of 1941 because the Russian leadership allowed themselves to be bamboozled by Hitler and his non-aggression pact. As a result, a large portion of Soviet military assets were caught off guard, and destroyed. It was only due to unrealistic expectation of the German forces, far outpacing their ability to resupply forward units, that allowed the Soviets to regroup and push back. Then the weather added its voice, which the German forces were ill prepared for because they had outrun their supply lines.

Bottom line, while there is some possibility the Russia could have pushed the Germans back out of Russian territory, it is highly doubtful they could have defeated Germany had the U.S. not entered the war. Conversely, there is also little doubt that the U.S. could have eventually defeated Hitler without the assistance of Russia, though it probably would have taken a couple more years.

Quote from: zewazir on January 12, 2015, 08:30:10 PM
Conversely, there is also little doubt that the U.S. could have eventually defeated Hitler without the assistance of Russia, though it probably would have taken a couple more years.

Little doubt among who?  Mentally challenged people?
USA by themselves couldn't defeat even North Korea or North Vietnam... So, "eventually", without USSR, who know what could happen.

Quote from: kalash on January 13, 2015, 06:16:49 AM
Little doubt among who?  Mentally challenged people?
USA by themselves couldn't defeat even North Korea or North Vietnam... So, "eventually", without USSR, who know what could happen.

Speaking of mentally challenged, there is NO doubt we would have won eventually. U.S. wartime materiel production set global standards for rebuilding a war machine after pacifist trash had allowed standing equipment, ships and the like to lay idle, rust and become useless.

North Korea was us getting stuck with the UN's problems. Vietnam was a crooked Democrat named Johnson, lining his pockets from war profiteering through cronies. Both were considered "police actions" and not a declared war as was our 1941-1945 conflict in the longer European war.

Quote from: quiller on January 13, 2015, 06:41:33 AM
Speaking of mentally challenged, there is NO doubt we would have won eventually. U.S. wartime materiel production set global standards for rebuilding a war machine after pacifist trash had allowed standing equipment, ships and the like to lay idle, rust and become useless.

North Korea was us getting stuck with the UN's problems. Vietnam was a crooked Democrat named Johnson, lining his pockets from war profiteering through cronies. Both were considered "police actions" and not a declared war as was our 1941-1945 conflict in the longer European war.

Correct, right, and spot on! In addition, it should be noted that we had the capability of immolating North Korea or North Vietnam at any time. Never during either conflict was it a question of 'can we win?' It was always a question of 'are we willing to do what it takes to win?' In both instances, the answer was a political 'no.' I think it's not possible to overemphasize the fact that Korea and Vietnam were 'wars' run by politicians, which is actually why they were never declared to be wars, and why they were never 'won.'

Quote from: zewazir on January 12, 2015, 08:30:10 PM
Can you tell me what is wrong with this statement?

Well, besides the fact that you deliberately edited the quote to make it sound different...The thing wrong with it is that Russia DID have a non-aggression pact with Germany, and their military build up between 1938 and 1940 had much more to do with worries over Japanese activities to the east than worries over their buddy to the west. Russian intel basically ignored warnings from Britain and the U.S. that Hitler did not take the non-aggression pact seriously. They also ignored western intelligence reports of the buildup of German, Italian, and Finnish troops and equipment along their border.

Russia was not particularly weak at that time, but their assets were poorly located when the initial German attack came in June of 1941 because the Russian leadership allowed themselves to be bamboozled by Hitler and his non-aggression pact. As a result, a large portion of Soviet military assets were caught off guard, and destroyed. It was only due to unrealistic expectation of the German forces, far outpacing their ability to resupply forward units, that allowed the Soviets to regroup and push back. Then the weather added its voice, which the German forces were ill prepared for because they had outrun their supply lines.

Bottom line, while there is some possibility the Russia could have pushed the Germans back out of Russian territory, it is highly doubtful they could have defeated Germany had the U.S. not entered the war. Conversely, there is also little doubt that the U.S. could have eventually defeated Hitler without the assistance of Russia, though it probably would have taken a couple more years.

The instant the first Wehrmacht soldier set foot in the USSR, Hitler's war was over, and the result was utterly predictable, with or without the US. It was just a matter of time. The Germans overreached badly, taking on a foe far too powerful and physically vast. In fact, the Russians had already stopped the German advance -- after horrendous losses of men, materiel, and land, to be sure -- before the US entered the war. Army Group North and Army Group Centre never again made significant advances. Army Group South advanced to Stalingrad and into the Caucasus in 1942, and we know how that turned out.

Quote from: TboneAgain on January 13, 2015, 09:14:41 AM
Correct, right, and spot on! In addition, it should be noted that we had the capability of immolating North Korea or North Vietnam at any time. Never during either conflict was it a question of 'can we win?' It was always a question of 'are we willing to do what it takes to win?' In both instances, the answer was a political 'no.' I think it's not possible to overemphasize the fact that Korea and Vietnam were 'wars' run by politicians, which is actually why they were never declared to be wars, and why they were never 'won.'

Spot on!

As Topper Harley says in Hot Shots, "Fighting without trying to win is like sleeping with your sister. Sure, she is a great lay with a blouse full of goodies, but it just isn't done!"

Quote from: kalash on January 13, 2015, 06:16:49 AM
Little doubt among who?  Mentally challenged people?
USA by themselves couldn't defeat even North Korea or North Vietnam... So, "eventually", without USSR, who know what could happen.

Little doubt among any reasonably educated individual who does not have their head up the ass of soviet socialism and modernized history. (ie: rewritten to diminish the role of capitalism while inflating the role of socialism). The Soviet victory had as much to do with German mistakes as their own ability - though if they'd listened to British intel they'd have had a much easier time of it. Because the German advance outran their ability to supply the front lines, Russian troops were able to counter attack successfully. Because the German advance outran their ability to supply the front lines, the effects of winter weather were far more punishing to the forward German troops. Simply put, Hitler screwed the pooch by expecting way too much way too fast, and that allowed Russian forces the opportunity to hit back while the Germans were waiting for relief and supplies.

For that matter, one of the reasons the British were able to hang on as long as they did before the U.S. entered the war is Hitler screwed up by shifting the German bombing campaign from British industry and air field to bombing London as often as possible in some sort of psychological gambit.

Frankly, Hitler was not much of a CinC when it came to strategic principles, though he was pretty good at the tactical aspects of battle.