No, we simply have very different ideas about what is plausible. I disagree with almost anything you wrote here in the last few days. Trying to clarify things would consume huge amounts of time. It is better invested in playing AoD.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Here I am reneging on my undertaking not to contribute further to this thread - but I'm doing it only to preserve whatever reputation I might have as a serious poster.
For Pete's sake, Commander, Josef Berndt is a fiction. I made him up to demonstrate how absurd your request for "a reliable reference to any soldier being pulled out of the Wehrmacht to return working in a factory in 1941" actually is. What do you think that reference might actually look like - a receipt from IG Farben for two engineers and four floor-sweepers transferred from 75th Infantry Division in Neustrelitz? If you're looking for a reputable author describing the general process then say that, but to demand a reference to any soldier being pulled out of the Wehrmacht to return working in a factory is naive at best - and more likely provocative.
And while I'm stating what I thought was the obvious, I should also tell you that the list of "approved" consumer goods is also an invention. There might well have been a memo generated by someone, somewhere, at some point that identified those areas of consumer goods production that qualified as preferred employment sites for 'parolled' servicemen, but if there is I'm unaware of it.
The thing that I think you should look at is what you did with this spurious information once you received it. Note how you immediately sought to find explanations for the various items other than that with which they were offered - explanations more tuned to the perspective you prefer. In debating, which you claim to be doing, there's a term for that - two actually - monster barring and monster adjustment.
The first refers to instances when the information presented shows any variation at all from the strictest demand for matching specified criteria. It permits the opposing 'debater' to fasten on the points of difference and totally ignore the points of similarity, no matter how miniscule are the former and how overwhelming the latter. The second refers to instances where the information presented is indeed a perfect fit with the specified criteria and the opposing 'debater' wholely rejects it on the basis that it is somehow illegitimate or incomplete. Neither is approved by serious-minded debaters, and if you'd like to consider yourself such you need to review your process or your going to end up claiming that "this cat has invisible teeth".
For Pete's sake, Commander, Josef Berndt is a fiction. I made him up to demonstrate how absurd your request for "a reliable reference to any soldier being pulled out of the Wehrmacht to return working in a factory in 1941" actually is. What do you think that reference might actually look like - a receipt from IG Farben for two engineers and four floor-sweepers transferred from 75th Infantry Division in Neustrelitz? If you're looking for a reputable author describing the general process then say that, but to demand a reference to any soldier being pulled out of the Wehrmacht to return working in a factory is naive at best - and more likely provocative.
And while I'm stating what I thought was the obvious, I should also tell you that the list of "approved" consumer goods is also an invention. There might well have been a memo generated by someone, somewhere, at some point that identified those areas of consumer goods production that qualified as preferred employment sites for 'parolled' servicemen, but if there is I'm unaware of it.
The thing that I think you should look at is what you did with this spurious information once you received it. Note how you immediately sought to find explanations for the various items other than that with which they were offered - explanations more tuned to the perspective you prefer. In debating, which you claim to be doing, there's a term for that - two actually - monster barring and monster adjustment.
The first refers to instances when the information presented shows any variation at all from the strictest demand for matching specified criteria. It permits the opposing 'debater' to fasten on the points of difference and totally ignore the points of similarity, no matter how miniscule are the former and how overwhelming the latter. The second refers to instances where the information presented is indeed a perfect fit with the specified criteria and the opposing 'debater' wholely rejects it on the basis that it is somehow illegitimate or incomplete. Neither is approved by serious-minded debaters, and if you'd like to consider yourself such you need to review your process or your going to end up claiming that "this cat has invisible teeth".
Last edited:
Don't have AOD, just happened to be wandering the forums.
Jeez, some of these posts have a really circuitous way of talking about things.
Why are people talking so much about the importance of lend lease to the USSR, and the importance of America to the defeat of the Nazis? Fact is, lend lease only counted for an insignificant fraction of the soviet production. The Lend-Lease received from America was orders of magnitude less than what the Soviets could turn out on their own. It can be effectively neglected for considering the Soviet military power. The Soviets did not "receive massive lend lease aid" allowing them to beat the Nazis. The Soviets suffered heavily initial defeats mostly due to confusion resulting from the DOW by Germany. Stalin didn't want to fight back because he believed the war was being perpetuated by Nazi underlings who would be reigned in by Hitler, ie. just a sort of border skirmish without official backing. Stalin was concerned that fighting back would blow up his imagined border skirmishes into the full blown war (which it really already was). Stalin's positions regarding this led to great internal turmoil in the Soviet command structure, and made it difficult to organize a proper retaliation. Once Stalin realized his error, much of the damage had already been done, however the Soviets were still able to regroup their forces and push back, because the Germans had overestimated their ability to supply their troops.
The other reason lend lease might have been thought to help is that much of the technology traded over by the USA wasn't accessible to the Soviet production, such as radio and radars. However, the soviets didn't use these much, except in distraction tactics. The Soviets also did not form walls of tanks that crushed the Germans by out producing the Germans either. Analysis of the numbers shows that they fought relatively on par in regards to production and military forces used.
Germany ran out of resources in their initial push into the Soviet Union, stretching their supply lines too thin. This exhaustion was unavoidable, and any other tactic would have led to a stalling of the front, which would have allowed the Soviets to reorganize which would weaken the German position, which was taking advantage of the confusion resulting from their DOW and swift advance. Fact is, there is nothing that Germany could have done differently that would have allowed them to win in the East. More forces would have required more supply, not less, and they were stretched thin as it was. They simply could not get sufficient resources to the front fast enough.
The reason the myth of walls of Soviet tanks exists, and also why lend lease wasn't really helpful, is that the Soviets proved very good at deceiving German intelligence about where their forces were. Radios weren't used for communication often. When they were used it was to send the Germans false information about Soviet intentions. They could consistently convince the German intelligence that their forces were considerably more spread out than in reality, and thus make powerful concentrated strikes unexpectedly. This lead to the perception of the Soviets having more forces than they really had. By studying the accuracy of German intelligence and comparing it to records of the Soviets strategies, it can be seen that it was not a German failure to conduct good intelligence. The Germans could paint a remarkably accurate picture of the Soviet military composition when the Soviets weren't actively engaged in deception tactics.
One of the most useful illustrative works for a study of why the Soviets defeated the Nazis is David Glantz's "Soviet Military Deception in the Second World War", however, other works are necessary to dispel the other possible explanations, such as the American contribution, which requires comparisons of Soviet production figures to American aid numbers, or to show that the German slowdown that allowed the Soviets their chance to regroup was due to supply difficulties.
But my point is, the US didn't really contribute all that much. The Nazis get beaten with or without them. If you want to design a very plausible alternate history, don't worry about what happens in the western front, anything short of the US or UK voluntarily joining the axis isn't going to help. Instead, find a way for the Nazis to plausibly beat the Soviets in the East. The US just prevents the Soviets from making all of Europe into puppet communist states, instead of half of it.
Jeez, some of these posts have a really circuitous way of talking about things.
Why are people talking so much about the importance of lend lease to the USSR, and the importance of America to the defeat of the Nazis? Fact is, lend lease only counted for an insignificant fraction of the soviet production. The Lend-Lease received from America was orders of magnitude less than what the Soviets could turn out on their own. It can be effectively neglected for considering the Soviet military power. The Soviets did not "receive massive lend lease aid" allowing them to beat the Nazis. The Soviets suffered heavily initial defeats mostly due to confusion resulting from the DOW by Germany. Stalin didn't want to fight back because he believed the war was being perpetuated by Nazi underlings who would be reigned in by Hitler, ie. just a sort of border skirmish without official backing. Stalin was concerned that fighting back would blow up his imagined border skirmishes into the full blown war (which it really already was). Stalin's positions regarding this led to great internal turmoil in the Soviet command structure, and made it difficult to organize a proper retaliation. Once Stalin realized his error, much of the damage had already been done, however the Soviets were still able to regroup their forces and push back, because the Germans had overestimated their ability to supply their troops.
The other reason lend lease might have been thought to help is that much of the technology traded over by the USA wasn't accessible to the Soviet production, such as radio and radars. However, the soviets didn't use these much, except in distraction tactics. The Soviets also did not form walls of tanks that crushed the Germans by out producing the Germans either. Analysis of the numbers shows that they fought relatively on par in regards to production and military forces used.
Germany ran out of resources in their initial push into the Soviet Union, stretching their supply lines too thin. This exhaustion was unavoidable, and any other tactic would have led to a stalling of the front, which would have allowed the Soviets to reorganize which would weaken the German position, which was taking advantage of the confusion resulting from their DOW and swift advance. Fact is, there is nothing that Germany could have done differently that would have allowed them to win in the East. More forces would have required more supply, not less, and they were stretched thin as it was. They simply could not get sufficient resources to the front fast enough.
The reason the myth of walls of Soviet tanks exists, and also why lend lease wasn't really helpful, is that the Soviets proved very good at deceiving German intelligence about where their forces were. Radios weren't used for communication often. When they were used it was to send the Germans false information about Soviet intentions. They could consistently convince the German intelligence that their forces were considerably more spread out than in reality, and thus make powerful concentrated strikes unexpectedly. This lead to the perception of the Soviets having more forces than they really had. By studying the accuracy of German intelligence and comparing it to records of the Soviets strategies, it can be seen that it was not a German failure to conduct good intelligence. The Germans could paint a remarkably accurate picture of the Soviet military composition when the Soviets weren't actively engaged in deception tactics.
One of the most useful illustrative works for a study of why the Soviets defeated the Nazis is David Glantz's "Soviet Military Deception in the Second World War", however, other works are necessary to dispel the other possible explanations, such as the American contribution, which requires comparisons of Soviet production figures to American aid numbers, or to show that the German slowdown that allowed the Soviets their chance to regroup was due to supply difficulties.
But my point is, the US didn't really contribute all that much. The Nazis get beaten with or without them. If you want to design a very plausible alternate history, don't worry about what happens in the western front, anything short of the US or UK voluntarily joining the axis isn't going to help. Instead, find a way for the Nazis to plausibly beat the Soviets in the East. The US just prevents the Soviets from making all of Europe into puppet communist states, instead of half of it.
I clearly understand your views. We all make our own choices as per what we deem better investment and understand your preference. My own preference is to have temporarily stopped playing AoD to permit time for a Forum discussion of other things more important to me - why did WWII go the way it did from a German point-of-view; and what might have changed to make things turn out differently. How might my life have changed?
But seems in anything that you and I have recently discussed we immediately hit a "game stopper". It seems the game stopper in this post is "definition of what is plausible". I would debate that there are actually clear meanings for different things such as history, and science fiction.
With no offense, your idea about what is plausible, seems to be very much the Reich Star scenario I just became aware of. Certainly I think your debate consisted of ideas as per that scenario being plausible. If that is correct, we clearly have radically different views of what is plausible and what I classify as science fiction.
Much of science fiction has become true history. Going to the moon was science fiction until man did it; and it became history. By it was not plausible in the 1900s to have a discussion pertaining to the Wright Brothers who flew about 300 hundred yards and have one party say it is plausible they could fly trans-Atlantic if we give it these conditions. But it was plausible to discuss that they can fly 1000 yards if we give them an altered start, increase the wind condition as might have occurred, and a bit more needed to get a further flight.
In the case of this thread the use of plausible is even further confined by the simple fact that history will see Nazi Germany defeated in a few years as per any start date we choose for the discussion. That history is unalterable. So - when it comes to asking what is needed to achieve desired outcome before the true history removes Nazi Germany, the science fiction has no time to materialize.
I hoped you could see that for a fact of simple communication and proper definition. But seems instead we are stuck with defining - or understanding - what plausible means.
Synonyms for plausible are probable, likely, credible, believable and possible. Amazingly, one definition is even, "Skilled at producing persuasive arguments, especially ones intended to deceive."
But your point is "Nazi Germany really could have gone to the moon if you give it enough needed changed conditions." And I agree. And most people have a fairly consistent understanding at what point of reference anything discussed as a projection into the future is simply called science fiction so mankind can reasonably communicate. My point is "reasonable communication" to discuss this scenario as clearly described. But you want to include science fiction as per your definition of "plausible".
That is fine, but I don't think then you should be answering my posts in the way that you did... so I did not even understand what you were doing. It would have been nice if replying to my (example) post saying "It is plausible if we get a ceasefire" to reply more clearly with "If we take a sci-fi scenario we do not need a cease fire." That would have been "effective communication". Does that seem fair, and is this new point understandable by you?
Last edited:
Well, I'm sure glad you did! Just so you know, I was distressed by your earlier comment (the bit I never quoted) because I consider you an exceptionally well orated contributor not only expressing fair views honestly but expressing clearly all you do while having a broad base of knowledge. But now you have made me wonder about another side of you.
My request was not absurd as you say. If anybody makes statements that seemingly jar logic it is most reasonable for anybody to request, "Please support your statement" which was the totality of what I asked you. The only thing I agree with in this specific matter is that it was unfortunate that I asked for "an example of even one soldier". That was over dramatic and would have been better to simply say, "What is your reference that men reversed". The focus on "one" being naive I agree. It was also naïve for you to not put it together with the other idea of "show reference of downsizing of military production".
So don't just blame me. What I understood about your reaction is that you were frustrated by the incorrect use of "reference to one soldier" and so would I have been. But there was a much better way to handle it to get out the frustration such as, "Well Commander, given a war occurred, sorry your exact demanding requirements for 1 soldier might be beyond the scope of research." And have a bloody good laugh instead of threatening to walk out.
So it was all fiction. Doesn't really matter except you have AAR ability. That's a compliment.
But all the last you write does matter.
You could not be more wrong. I worked on the assumption that you would not present fictitious info. Doesn't matter. I worked on research to find an explanation for your info, your statements and your point of view. And I found what I did not because I searched for hours but was the 2nd link I read.
And you know what - it explains it all perfectly. It does more - it taught me something I never knew about the war. Further, that "german production" link helps explain very much about everything regarding the German war and even impacts on AoD construction schemes if ever you wish a real debate.
If you had displayed more sense this time - instead of beginning a ridiculous discussion that you are a self-appointed judge who knows what debating is, what constitutes your phrase of "monster barring" and that you have the credentials to judge debators and debates, you would simply have said, "That is a really interesting and informative and seemingly authoritative link." But you could not because you got caught by the trap you set - totally oblivious to me. I only found the needed info to learn - and discuss - appropriately about understanding what - and why - you and Pang formed your views. I thought that was considerate of me to not say, "You views are wrong" but to say that the link explains how you and Pang got your views. WOW! I didn't do it. A most credible bunch of research equivalent to a book of numerous authors that studied the subject did it.
And when you mention "invisible teeth' please look in a mirror - right now. And hopefully you will remain here and debate not for the purpose of debating or to win; but to collectively learn about the subject. By the way, I did end my post with another fault when I asked jokingly is this arguing, being argumentative or debate. Unfortunately you beat me to my intention to also add the answer and do an edit there which would have been - "It is none of those three. It is learning about history."
Maybe try again to make a fresh start. I'm willing. There are other posts here better than what you and I are putting together that deserve attention.
Last edited:
I must say - whatever is happening in the thread - it is most special and unusual because never in 2 years in this Forum have I ever seen so many seemingly unknown new User Names enter. That is fantastic, and a voice for Forum.
Probably because I attempted to have Pang keep a focus on the discussion - but he insisted it must be eliminated for a changed history - and most others said that would not be plausible. It was not that important in terms of aid as you say. It becomes vitally important as factor of being there to create a collision between Germany and USA if it goes on for long because sooner or later some U-boat will torpedo a ship with American crew. As the thread is attempting to alter history plausibly so Germany might win against Russia, I feel an Allied-Germany cease fire needs to be arranged early to so remove all thoughts of Lend-Lease and USA as any impediment to what might then have been Germany's better chances.
Thanks for that reference and your further explanation. I hope you return here if we ever get this thread moving properly. We are trying to co-operatively achieve a plausible altered history so Germany wins in Russia, there will somehow form the conditions to re-radicalize the Nazi ideology (sounds like an impossible I know but we not even started Barbarossa yet so hope exists) and with this changed Germany they would have then wanted to research going to the moon for the sake of peace and humanity versus "star wars motives".
Can't agree that it would have been easy to beat Germany without the huge American contribution, but that is a different debate. Glad you used the key word "plausible". We must worry about the Western Front because there sits the military assets and answers which - had they been available for Barbarossa - would decidedly have improved chances to beat Russia. But we need a plausible way to get those German assets free.
The obvious solution is a cease fire with Allies (which has not yet been worked out plausibly) because most of the thread posts are still attempting to stop a fictional invasion of Pang's ideas from outer space. :wacko:
Last edited:
Here's what the Lend-Lease actually provided for the USSR:
* 77,900 jeeps
* 151,000 light trucks
* over 200,000 Studebaker army trucks (the backbone of the Soviet motorised supply system)
* 956,000 miles of telephone cable
* 35,000 radio stations
* 380,000 field telelphones
It also helped sustain much of the Soviet's industry through much of 1942, when it was facing a crisis in resources. If the USA did not get involved, indirectly or directly, it is most likely that the UK would have lost the war as would the USSR. The UK was facing bankruptcy by late-1940, it was only US helped that kept them going financially. In addition, militarily speaking, the UK did not stand a chance at all in landing in Europe without American involvement.
Also, Soviet production did contribute quite significantly to their victory: In 1941 the USSR produced 6,590 tanks and SPGs compared to Germany's 3,790. This dramatically rose in 1942 to 24,446 in the Soviet Union compared with just 6,180 by Germany. This is combined with the fact the Soviet Union just had one (albiet massive) front to deal with, when the German High Command were acutely aware of the possibility of a second front throughout the war.
Last edited:
That is an amazing amount of stuff. How would most of this have reached Russia - via Murmansk you think? Were the convoys direct from USA mostly or did they go first to England and then reform for the run to Russia, I'm wondering? This becomes important as thinking of what plausible flag they could be travelling under if it will not be American.
My worry is getting the cease fire before some Americans perish with their torpedoed ships to so drive the USA into DOWing Germany. But the Lend-Lease to Russia would not have been easily stopped by the Americans, I think. But if UK at cease fire with Germany... how does that stuff manage to move to Russia without creating the same situation of UK crews now being killed and so obviously breaking the cease fire?
This Lend-Lease to Russia is becoming very problematic as regards keeping a cease fire. Is there a safer route that would work to avoid a collision between the cease fire parties in the Eastern Arctic Ocean? Or might it be plausible to get Russian crews to take the ships out of England under SU flag and then the rest would be as however German-SU war?
But I guess it really doesn't even begin until Barbarossa starts, so all really depends on WHEN Allies and Germany might arrange cease fire. So maybe we can just skip worrying about Lend-Lease to Russia for now?
Aren't these figures - although already impressive - even somewhat lacking, Mr_B0narpte?
AFAIK, the Allies provided the USSR with large amounts of aircraft (a typical example being the P-39 Airacobra over which US wing roundels the Soviets painted a Red Star
), tanks (yeah, the Germans faced M4A1 Shermans already before Africa, Italy and France) and other miscellaneous but vitally indispensable equipment like boots, canned meat etc.In fact, IMO the Lend-Lease to the USSR needs to be seen it its right perspective: it doesn't simply boil down to the (important, but probably not critical) amount of machines it supplied the Soviets with. The possibly most important side of it lies just in all the "smaller" but nonetheless crucial equipment sent - like the aforementioned boots but also clothing, food, telephone cables etc. The reason why the Soviet industry had been able to churn out so much vehicles during the war lies in the fact that a significant part of the remaining stuff needed to keep its army fighting were being provided by an external source.
Well, this already happened in RL but didn't prove to be enough for the US to DOW Germany (the destroyer USS Reuben James being torpedoed and sunk by Erich Topp's U-552 in the night of October 31st, 1941), the reason probably being that the US needed a more "spectacular" casus belli to enter the bloodiest conflict in mankind's history (actively and officially, since it de facto already was at war against Germany at least since 1940, most and foremost because of it escorting UK convoys with American ships - a patent violation of their alleged state of neutrality).
Luckily for the US, the chance to throw off the mask came when the Japanese providentially attacked Pearl Harbor, and the Reichskanzler - now this really providentially - declared war on America four days later.
Last edited:
The Soviets may have been able to outproduce the Germans, but they also took high initial losses, meaning that they fought relatively on par in terms of units fielded.
I don't see how a motorized supply system is all that helpful to the soviets, considering their front is closer to home. I also find it difficult to believe that they couldn't have produced trucks on their own, considering their ability to turn out tanks. The Soviets were fighting closer to home, and, as you point out, any lengthening of the conflict allows the Soviets to produce a greater amount of materials to create a wider gap. Attrition and a slow front would favor the Soviets, basically, and a motorized supply system only makes it easier on a fast moving front.
Much of the legitimate Soviet communication was done by runners especially when conducting deception operations, somewhat mitigating the helpfulness of the other equipment. However this equipment only really makes a fast moving front easier.
So perhaps the Americans contribution made the Soviet victory faster. It did not make the difference from victory and defeat, however.
Well, unless there's something to this resource crisis. It's the first I've heard of it. Anything more concrete? Comparison numbers between materials produced and materials sent via aid would be the most helpful (to show the contribution was actually significant).
And get them there. And keep them fed and supplied with oil. Russian train tracks are a different gauge than German ones, and their roads weren't well built, which strained the German supply effort considerably. Germans were considerably father away from home, so needed a good supply system to keep its army going. Any MORE military assets would exacerbate the problem, not help it.
Beans and bullets do not get to the front on there own. With out a "Supply system" motorized, pulled by horse, or drug on pallets by prisoners in Penal battalions, No logistics means your army is not going to win anything or hold ground.
1 rinky dinky little 4 banger jeep with a trailer means a Company of 100-150 men can eat and get an ammo resupply. That my friend is what we called a force multiplier. Without that Jeep we did not eat or get resupplied.
Those T-34s did not get fuel and ammo from the local Shell station. Some guy in a Studebacker 2 1/2 ton truck had to haul it forward to a log point.
I found an article on Lend lease. The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military Efforts, 1941-1945" by BORIS V. SOKOLOV
According to Zhukov, I am cherry pickling and paraphrasing the biggest and greatest lend lease item was explosives and gunpowder as the USSR was critically short.
To further boost the logistics side I also found the following list of items
80% of all canned meat.
92% of all railroad locomotives, rolling stock and rails.
57% of all aviation fuel.
53% of all explosives.
74% of all truck transport.
88% of all radio equipment.
53% of all copper.
56% of all aluminum.
60+% of all automotive fuel.
74% of all vehicle tires.
12% of all armored vehicles.
14% of all combat aircraft.
The fuel, food and Rubber are the really big force multipliers in the Lend lease to the USSR.
1 rinky dinky little 4 banger jeep with a trailer means a Company of 100-150 men can eat and get an ammo resupply. That my friend is what we called a force multiplier. Without that Jeep we did not eat or get resupplied.
Those T-34s did not get fuel and ammo from the local Shell station. Some guy in a Studebacker 2 1/2 ton truck had to haul it forward to a log point.
I found an article on Lend lease. The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military Efforts, 1941-1945" by BORIS V. SOKOLOV
According to Zhukov, I am cherry pickling and paraphrasing the biggest and greatest lend lease item was explosives and gunpowder as the USSR was critically short.
To further boost the logistics side I also found the following list of items
80% of all canned meat.
92% of all railroad locomotives, rolling stock and rails.
57% of all aviation fuel.
53% of all explosives.
74% of all truck transport.
88% of all radio equipment.
53% of all copper.
56% of all aluminum.
60+% of all automotive fuel.
74% of all vehicle tires.
12% of all armored vehicles.
14% of all combat aircraft.
The fuel, food and Rubber are the really big force multipliers in the Lend lease to the USSR.
Last edited:
...which most likely end every possible discussion about the real impact on Lend-Lease for the Soviet war effort.
(Surely we will never know what would have happened should all these goods have not been delivered to the USSR, but some of the percentages alone make IMHO very clear that Stalin would have had an extremely hard time repelling the Germans without Uncle Sam's tin cans, gas and whatnot)
I'll admit those are impressive. The numbers I have seen appear to be from the bottom of that list (combat vehicles and aircraft), which are clearly much smaller. I can't argue then that the lend lease aid in terms of materials is insignificant, I guess, so I stand corrected. The significant contributions in terms of aviation fuel, explosives, copper, and aluminum seem to be pretty large, and don't seem to be something the Soviets could have produced on their own if they weren't receiving them.
More to satisfy my own curiosity than to argue the points (cause it is an interesting time to me), what exactly is meant by "all" here? "All" across the entire period from 1941-45? OR "all" in some limited respect? "All" used by the army? And the percentages are in terms of US aid sent over? Or foreign aid?
I don't mean to sound sarcastic but the USSR did lose a lot of territory in 1941.
The consequences of this were:
* Grain supplies were halved for the remaining 130 million Soviets under the remainder of the USSR (including the loss of the entire 'breadbasket' of Ukraine), meat production fell by more then half
* 33% of its' rail network was lost
* 40% of its' electricity generating capacity lost
* The supply of iron ore, coal and steel was cut by 75% (!!!)
* By December 1941, the loss of 4 million men; 8,000 aircraft and 17,000 tanks
And all this amidst the greatest industrial migration in history, coupled with the need to supply 200 divisions in the field; maintain production; keep up morale; handle fleeing civilians and much more.
I for one cannot believe the sheer strength of morale and resolve of the Soviet people. What they had to endure is unimaginable, what the state had to deal with would've seemed impossible to any democratic government. The sheer scale of loss, chaos and suffering is just mind boggling. The USSR needed all the help it could get at this point in time, and no wondering why!
Another point for logistics: 20% of the Lend-Lease supplies sent to USSR was food, which was enough to feed every Soviet soldier (presumably from 1941 until the end of Lend-Lease to USSR in 1944, the author doesn't specify).
I know all this still begs the question 'What did the Lend-Lease do to help alleviate this?' I am still trying to find the figures relating to the resources given, although Sten has thankfully pointed out the figures for copper and aluminium. All I can find at the moment is that within two weeks of Roosevelt offering Lend-Lease to the USSR (on 2nd August 1941), the Soviet government had made a 29 page list of demands. Khrushchev also revealed in 1964 taped interviews of Stalin admitting to his inner circle that without Lend-Lease the Soviet Union "would not have been able to cope" with the war.
Thankyou Sten for your very interesting contribution. I didn't know those facts or figures before, thanks for bringing them up.
Ha, very funny picture, Count of Reval, it certainly made me laugh.
But I wonder who you think is the wrong person. :huh:
To be fair, that's an explanation for a resource crisis after the fact that they suffered a resource crisis is accepted. That in and of itself does not mean there was a resource crisis. So its not obvious there was such a thing just from this fact alone.
Is all this information from the same author? He seems to confess in his abstract to having a minority position. That doesn't make him wrong, in and of itself, history is a complicated subject with many interested parties at play, and so things get muddied rather easily, especially considering its a Russian author (the actual article was apparently translated by the author of the book I mentioned earlier), commenting about Soviet authors, who would probably have a greater interest in making a strong case for the Soviets being independent of US aid (of course the opposite extreme is true of people who were hostile to the soviet government), and so the authors he's talking about (who would be arguing in favor of the Soviets being independent of US aid) would be likely biased. Does he state where the numbers came from? Unfortunately I'm not in a position where I have easy access to the article.
If the figures are legitimate, it at least makes it plausible that without US aid, the Soviet Union could have been defeated.
Ha, very funny picture, Count of Reval, it certainly made me laugh.
Well, it's a classic.
And true. I have a deepest respect for all the knowledge of paradoxplaza forum users and enjoy the discussions we have, but in the same time I can't stop wondering how we sometimes can get carried away with our version of truth especially in difficult speculative themes in which even different professional war historians disagree among themselves. Surely there can't be "truth" in alternate history and maybe "wrong" neither. But as you asked, I think you are all wrong because, you see, I have read a book about WWII logistics where a prized author claimed that...
Point taken, I'm still trying to find the figures regarding Soviet industry and lend-lease.
Yes it's all from the same author:
Richard Overy, Why the Allies Won, 2nd edition, 2006. He cites A. Nove, An Economic History of the USSR (London, 1982), p. 262. So now I am starting to doubt his claims, but since I donnot have Nove's book then I don't know for sure anyway. But I'm pretty sure the USSR did loose the Ukraine, a lot of its' industry and resources and ~60 million people (who then became under German control).
Yeah it's very true! A classic for the (internet) ages. Well maybe sometimes people can come to a consensus. But yeah, since History isn't a science then there can never be complete agreement on any period of the past. It's still fun to debate anyways!Well, it's a classic.
I don't have and haven't had access to the book, but I have read good words about John Ellis's Brute Force: Allied Strategy and Tactics in the Second World War. As I have understood it is one of the best books analyzing WWII from the economic and production aspect and is backed by a lot of numbers. It seems this book might contain some reliable information and answers to the problem. Maybe someone here owns a copy (or can buy or borrow it)?
While it isn't the book, this particular link gives an extensive summary of what John Ellis wrote. Not sure if that helps and may well be what you are already referring to with your having read good words about his book.
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-11-18/books/bk-6717_1_world-war-ii-book
Wait - I got the wrong link (it changed). Trying again.
OK - FIXED NOW.
NOPE - not fixed. Every second time I click it, it goes elsewhere to hardly discuss much and instead advertise other things. I'll figure this out in a bit.
Well, does seem to work if I refresh here. Maybe it works for you. Try refresh here if 1st attempt is a short discussion only and advertising cleverly diverting. You will know it if you get a 2 page document all related to only discussing the book. A most interesting read that 2-page summary is, and very relevant to the discussion, IMO. If desired, I can post it.
Last edited: