Cant handle few farmers, definitely could handle germuts without LL.
2 Likes
Just say yes to APC, guys.
1 Like
Dude, halftrack mean - one half wheels, second half tracks.
It’s often use as apc, but it not make it apc in any case.
They was has very nice place to defence, also they has support like lendlease from Germany to UK.
And USSR won this war, with big casualties, yes, but it not make it lose. Btw, same victories named by name of one ancient general.
it has was fabulous place defense.
None from said countries.
how is this
win ?
Referring to pyrrhic victory ?
Exactly
thanks.
and finally,
someone that see’s reason.
Hardly, if lend lease never came, you can cut every thing the Russian every produced like tanks and rifles by %20-%25, and then also soldiers would have been underfed and then less effective, and to top it all off, there would have been 1 rifle per three troops
The red army was so close to breaking, and the lend lease was life support
It’s not that the germans were superior but rather the poor state of red army
Pyrrhic victory means empty victory
Indeed - which is pretty much the reason why the war would hten have dragged on for much longer.
Arrant nonsense.
Your assertion is unsupported by any actual evidence - the Soviets stopped the Axis at Moscow before any significant lend lease arrived.
the war would have dragged on in the germans favour
the russian had a severe logistics problem in the war untill the us started sending the studebaker us6
on ratio across the entire war there was 2.4 zis trucks per 1 studebaker so there we can cut all russian logistics by %30, but hold up the GAZ jeep was a copy of the american lendlease jeeps so if lend lease never came then the gaz jeep would have never been made so we can the bumb the %30 to about %35,
so that means %35 less blankets, boot, uniforms, ammo and weapons, fuel, replacement parts, tools and food
now as most unlearned people wont know
- less blankets = troops not getting a good nights sleep and thus not as effective in combat, it also means that troops will be sleeping near fireplaces more often in the night and this leads to more losses
- less boots = more troops getting taken off the line and sent to the hospital for foot related diseases
- less uniforms = more disease as they cant replace wore or soiled uniforms, thus more sent to the hospital for foot related diseases
- less ammo and weapons = less fighting, and more taken POW
- less fuel = slower advancement/retreat letting the Germans fortify or rout
- less replacement parts = more tank losses, and logistics having to deliver whole weapons rather then parts bogs down the supply chain
- less tools = slower fortifying
- less food = lower troop moral and troops are less combat effective
now this is only one of 6 key points of why the lend lease save the red army
now this also fully does not cover the british lend lease that supply 2000 odd trains to the red army while they only ever had 500, need you need me to post about this aswel?
No, hte War would not have dragged on in Germany’s favour - American lend lease like trucks didn’t kick into top gear until 1943 - after Stalingrad already.
After 1943 what you say is completely true - before 1943 it is not true, and the war was already unwinable by Germany by 1943.
Eg see JSTOR article https://www.jstor.org/stable/260606
The idea that LL was not a great help is a post war Soviet bullshit, the idea that it saved hte USSR is post war Western (mostly American) bullshit.
The objective evidence points to exactly what I said - Germany could not win, and LL shortened the war appreciably.
Stalin and many other top officials have many times stated that they would have lost if not for the lend lease
and the red army was having set back after set back untill then but there is much more going on but i see it as a waste to explain to some one that does not understand how important logistics is
stainlin him self said in the tehran that they would have lost by 1943 if not for the lendlease
this is invalid as it was published during the cold war, WHERE no one from out side was allowed into ussr state archives, and any information that could have a negative impart on the superior ussr was repressed
Where is the source for this ? I have seen a lot of sources supporting Joseph’s point of view which I share. I have linked an educational video that cites appropriate sources to support the current understaning of Lend Lease effects on the course of the war in the East. But you will need to provide some evidence where the Soviets, who from day 1 have remained adamant that LL did not contribute much to their victory, all of a sudden have documents to the contrary.
quite many sources available for subject.
Well, just so you understand this guy is a journalist, so that already flags him as an agenda writer for the news/opinion outlet he’s working for. He’s also not citing primary sources, he’s sating an opinion basis of secondary sources and a cherry pick of those as well. Most importantly he discounts Soviet sources for the opinion of Sokolov who is often described as a controversial historian and a revisionist by others who prefer a more direct perspective.
The key takeaway that this is an opinion piece not an evidence based presentation.
Are you implying that soviet “sources” arent written in the way that pleases the employer?
1 Like
Just helping you a bit here by providing some source material.
http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/khruschev1/28.html
1 Like
That’s not source material, I’m not sure if you know what source material implies, nevertheless the first is just a page from somewhere … ie no source, and the 2nd is a US govt site link which is even worse.
You need solid counter-arguments and proof of burden is on you in this one. GL debunking.
