Ollie Garchy
Active member
The only difference is that I will lead German troops to final victory...stress on the word will. lol
FREE EAST PRUSSIA!
Most decisive battle in WW2?
The only difference is that I will lead German troops to final victory...stress on the word will. lol
FREE EAST PRUSSIA!
Ollie Garchy
Active member
Fact one: Germany has a manufacturing economy, Russia does not. In terms of machine tools, Germany is still number one. Russia, the last time I looked, was down in the nothing range. And, this counts for the WWII period as well.
Fact two: the Russians/Soviets produce/produced junk. Period. Which Russian products have you purchased lately...milk products do not count.
A question: Do you live on planet Earth or are you some kind of slavic visionary?
Please start a war...I have been waiting all my life for a war!
Last edited:
Ollie Garchy
Active member
Another matter....please demonstrate to me how the Soviet economy could have survived without American help! Is that enough chew for you?
Look at that Ollie, the genie is out of the bottle. I am a fan of his, you know.
Now boys, keep it nice and clean, no biting or gouging, that way you both stay here with us, and we can enjoy the campaign.
Good to see you both back, alive and kicking.:horsie:
Those are not 'facts' but rather delusions, provide SOURCES to back up your so called 'facts.'
Lend Lease made up 4% of the Soviet war time economy, see "Soviet Planning in Peace and War, 1938-1945" by Mark Harrison. The end.
Ollie Garchy
Active member
God, are you for real? Quoting Mark Harrison is all nice and dandy, but do not just quote those sources that fit your bizarre worldview. You could also have mentioned other scholars like Overy, but...no...
4%? Jesus, what planet do you really live on? Hello!!! Do you even have the slightest clue about manufacturing. No...and that is rather obvious. Earth to Kunikov!
Your comment is so stupid, I do not even know where to begin. So, here:
(1) If we think about Soviet transportation, the matter becomes hardcore. The stupid Soviets, who pumped 80-90% of their economic resources into direct weapons, could no longer produce the dual-use materials necessary to run the economy. Even though the idiotic USSR needed trains, for example, they only produced 92 during the war -- the 1,981 American locomotives sort of helped. Likewise, the 14,000 to 18,000 American aircraft had a similar function. (I even included a slavic article for you)
(2) From my own research, the matter becomes even more intense. Without American copper exports (and this is just one of many examples in the area of primary metals), the Soviet production cycle would have collapsed. Jesus, and this will be hard for you to realize, the moronic Soviets could not even mine enough copper to run their war economy. No copper, no hardened steel or other products.
(3) The Americans pumped far more than $10 billion into the primitive Soviet economy. They did NOT send money or gold --except during the first year. Washington sent machine tools, locomotives, copper, etc. You are openly lying when you rely on morons like Harrison, but that is in your nature. The $10 billion figure alone represented several years of Soviet GNP.
(4) Even if Harrison would be correct, and I am not even going to check anything that stupid, the Americans and British still pumped over 40% of their economies into the war effort. So, please....do you honestly believe that this total did not count for anything. Jesus, please read some Overy or anything. Richard Overy was professor of modern history at King's College, London. I feel a certain affinity to KCL.
(5) Here are some numbers: (US to the USSR)
Aircraft 14,795
Tanks 7,056
Jeeps 51,503
Trucks 375,883
Motorcycles 35,170
Tractors 8,071
Guns 8,218
Machine guns 131,633
Explosives 345,735 tons
Building equipment valued $10,910,000
Railroad freight cars 11,155
Locomotives 1,981
Cargo ships 90
Submarine hunters 105
Torpedo boats 197
Ship engines 7,784
Food supplies 4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment $1,078,965,000
Non-ferrous metals 802,000 tons
Petroleum products 2,670,000 tons
Chemicals 842,000 tons
Cotton 106,893,000 tons
Leather 49,860 tons
Tires 3,786,000
Army boots 15,417,001 pairs
You cannot compete against me, so your "end" is your own. I wanted a war, but not against simpletons like you. But, try to fight me. It will be funny.
http://www.aviation.ru/articles/land-lease.html#b8
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/documents/index.htm
Overy, Richard, Why the Allies Won.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
FREE EAST PRUSSIA!
Last edited:
Internet sites are not a valid source. You've made a fallacy in only providing the numbers for what the US sent via Lend Lease while ignoring all that England sent, you also ignored everything that the Soviet Union made during the War, which would put your numbers into a context. Sorry, I don't waste more time than that on ignorant fools. As for Overy, I'm reading "Why the Allies Won" right now, an author who claims Model headed the 9th Panzer Army at Kursk, that two Panzer Divisions at Kursk had around 1,000 tanks, or that the T-34 had a crew of two, is not one to be trusted with any detailed information.
Ollie, keen as you are to get at it, I hope you won't mind my suggesting that littering your case with personal attacks on your opponent and his country does not add anything to your cause. In fact I believe the opposite effect is achieved, in that Kunikov's dignity in the face of this becomes impressive.
Why is this approach necessary? It does not promote your verisimilitude.
Why is this approach necessary? It does not promote your verisimilitude.
Last edited:
Doppleganger
Active member
How could Kunikov wipe the floor with Ollie when the numbers back Ollie up? The generally accepted, most accurate figures for Soviet casualties in WW2 were compiled and published by a former Soviet general, Grigoriy Krivosheev. I attach a link to a table which I invite you to read. The numbers can only be described as staggering.
http://www.magweb.com/sample/sgmbn/sgm80soj.htm
Even when the Germans were being pushed back, and perhaps partly because of it, Soviet losses remained very high, nearly 7 million casualties of all types for 1944 alone. The Red Army lost nearly 14000 tanks in 1944 alone, although there is some debate as to what constitutes a 'loss'.
What is clear to me is that, had the Germans initiated a strategic elastic defence posture (defence in depth if you like), the Soviets, who continually used brute force up until the fall of Berlin, may have ran out of manpower as they were beginning to in 1945. Assuming we believe the generals, Hitler's stubborn insistence on refusing to give up ground unless absolutely necessary literally saved the Soviet Union from a catastrophe.
Despite what some might otherwise believe, the Soviets got lucky in WW2. They were lucky that Hitler made the 'Lotzen Decision' and diverted the German schwerpunkt away from Moscow and towards Kiev in July 1941, when Guderian and Hoth's panzers were less than 200 miles from Moscow. They were lucky that the Germans were delayed by 4 weeks as a result of the Kiev operation as there was mass panic in Moscow (on October 18th in particular) where the Germans could have rolled in and taken the city without a fight. They were lucky that Hitler lost his nerve, reigned in his most adventurous and able commanders and proceeded to resort back to WW1 tactics for major operations. They were lucky that Lend Lease kept their railroad system operational, which allowed the Red Army to conduct large scale operations.
They were lucky but they also paid a terrible price. I am quoting this from memory but I believe that for every 1 British or American soldier who died in WW2, 20 German soldiers died and 85 Russian soldiers died. The Soviets were in a hurry to finish WW2 because they knew it was killing them. They were lucky that they just had enough men to see the job done.
http://www.magweb.com/sample/sgmbn/sgm80soj.htm
Even when the Germans were being pushed back, and perhaps partly because of it, Soviet losses remained very high, nearly 7 million casualties of all types for 1944 alone. The Red Army lost nearly 14000 tanks in 1944 alone, although there is some debate as to what constitutes a 'loss'.
What is clear to me is that, had the Germans initiated a strategic elastic defence posture (defence in depth if you like), the Soviets, who continually used brute force up until the fall of Berlin, may have ran out of manpower as they were beginning to in 1945. Assuming we believe the generals, Hitler's stubborn insistence on refusing to give up ground unless absolutely necessary literally saved the Soviet Union from a catastrophe.
Despite what some might otherwise believe, the Soviets got lucky in WW2. They were lucky that Hitler made the 'Lotzen Decision' and diverted the German schwerpunkt away from Moscow and towards Kiev in July 1941, when Guderian and Hoth's panzers were less than 200 miles from Moscow. They were lucky that the Germans were delayed by 4 weeks as a result of the Kiev operation as there was mass panic in Moscow (on October 18th in particular) where the Germans could have rolled in and taken the city without a fight. They were lucky that Hitler lost his nerve, reigned in his most adventurous and able commanders and proceeded to resort back to WW1 tactics for major operations. They were lucky that Lend Lease kept their railroad system operational, which allowed the Red Army to conduct large scale operations.
They were lucky but they also paid a terrible price. I am quoting this from memory but I believe that for every 1 British or American soldier who died in WW2, 20 German soldiers died and 85 Russian soldiers died. The Soviets were in a hurry to finish WW2 because they knew it was killing them. They were lucky that they just had enough men to see the job done.
Last edited:
Doppleganger
Active member
Why can't internet sites be a valid source, if they are properly footnoted/and or referenced?
I agree with you regarding Overy though. He is a little unreliable when it comes to correct information regarding the Eastern Front and German data in particular.
Would you not agree though that the US/UK Lend Lease kept the Soviet railroad system operational?
Doppleganger
Active member
Haha you are welcome my rather angry and pompous friend. Disputing Krivosheev are we?
The only internet site I would trust would be one which has the archives as its source. Wikipedia is not that site. Lend Lease was not felt in significant amounts until 1943 by which time all three turning points had already occurred on the Eastern Front. It helped, it was not critical or decisive.
You never quoted Krivosheev, rather your unsubstantiated, and highly ignorant, ratios speak for themselves.
Last edited:
Doppleganger
Active member
The table I linked to was taken directly from Krivosheev...
Doppleganger
Active member
I never said that EVERY result was brought on by luck. The Germans got lucky sometimes too. The Russians got breaks due to German shortcomings in grand strategy.
I called him 'angry' and 'pompous'. Big deal. Right from the start Kunikov has been posting in an abrasive and sometimes rude manner. Why then should I give him any respect when he gives others none?