The turningpoint of WWII

[Rush Limbaugh]

Tiwaz: great points made, good constructive posts on your side, really like your way of debating.
Rush Limbaugh: learn to read. and open your mind so you can understand what you read. please. this is no flame, it's a good advice you should take. nobody says US suck and had no part in the war. you had a huge part in that. still, you shouldn't try to make it bigger than it was, or make other countries' parts seem smaller. blink.gif

I never tried to make it bigger. And by the way Tiwaz was just pawned by OTZ. It was he who was trying to diminish the US aid to Russia . I was merely saying he was wrong . Maybe its you who should read peoples posts more carefully. You may like his style but his position is an incorrect one..

My last attempt to bash some sense to you.

I hope OTZ bashed some sense into that thick skull of yours.

Rush actually seems to read the barest of one's posts, there's really no point in having a proper debate with someone like him.

Screw you. If thats all you have to add to the debate shut your mouth. I was correct and he was not. I might not have exactly the right numbers but my point still stands. Without the US its almost a no brainer that Germany would have beat Russia..

[Justinian]

I just waded through eleven pages, so if I seem a bit rushed, sorry ... :getlost

For those who argue the war could have been won without America:

Imagine a scenario where America entered ON THE SIDE OF THE AXIS.

That's what you get without American aid, my friend.

I'm American and patriotic and all that crap, but I'll say this: when Germany invaded Russia, they had a good chance to win. It was only the bravery of the Russian soldiers and citizens that kept Germany from steamrolling through all of Russia and being able to concentrate not only all of Germany's resources but Russia's as well in the Western Front. We owe the Russians thanks. But they couldn't have won it alone. Nobody could have won it alone. Germany's power was simply too great.

The turning point of WWII, I would say, was both the defeat of German forces at Stalingrad, that is, the destruction of one of Germany's greatest armies, a gigantic blow to German morale and a huge raise in Russian morale,

And the entrance of the United States into the war. It's true that Roosevelte had been looking for an excuse to go into the war for some time, too.

I'm not saying D-Day was a 100% American operation, but without the US D-Day wouldn't have happened. Without D-Day, there wouldn't be pressure from the west on Germany. Therefore, Germany would be able to concentrate more of its resources of Russia. If the war couldn't be won by the Germans at this point, it certainly would have dragged out Russian victory and claimed the lives thousands more soldiers. Tens of thousands.

</rant>

[WyX]

Er..the main reason germany didnt beat Russia was the weather. Usa or not.

[Justinian]

Originally posted by WyX@Feb 7 2005, 12:14 PM
Er..the main reason germany didnt beat Russia was the weather. Usa or not.

Did I say Russia owed victory to the USA...?

It&#39;s true the weather was a huge blow, but if Russian soldiers had just been fidgeting Germany would have won anyway come summer.

[WyX]

I wasnt talking to you

But I will suggest you (and any of you other "patriots") read a non-usa book on the subject, perhaps learning about what actually happened before you helped us (the Brits). Please dont implie the US carried out D-day, I know you said not 100% but still you sound clueless.

[OTZ]

Originally posted by WyX@Feb 7 2005, 12:14 PM
Er..the main reason germany didnt beat Russia was the weather. Usa or not.

thats about as far away from the truth as you can get. winter defeating the germans is a myth that has become legend.

[Justinian]

Um ... the US ... didn&#39;t ... carry out D-Day?

Without the US there wouldn&#39;t have even been a D-Day. Strange to think the US wasn&#39;t important in D-Day. Or be the cause of victory at D-Day.

"Right, we, the British, will go take Gold and Juno, I believe the Canadians are taking Sword, and the other beaches ... well ... they&#39;re going to flank us and we&#39;re going to get blown to hell by German retaliation because we&#39;re unprotected ... but ... that&#39;s life...

Let&#39;s go&#33;"

[ned-kelly]

:whistle

it was a combined effort on all countrys involved &#33;
no 1 country can take the glory

whats been asked and i think alot are missing the point is that what turned that corner into a a win win situation &#33;

after carefull thought i would say stalingrad as germany was in full retreat from then on

[Justinian]

it was a combined effort on all countrys involved &#33;
no 1 country can take the glory

Exactly&#33;

And if one country had skipped out, D-Day would have been crushed, which was exactly my point.

[Rapax]

Originally posted by ned&#045;kelly@Feb 7 2005, 06:39 PM
after carefull thought i would say stalingrad as germany was in full retreat from then on

So, after careful thought, what do you call "Operation Citadel" then, a defensive maneuver?

[RusskiSoldat]

no 1 country can take the glory

I&#39;m nto too knowledgable on the subject but weren&#39;t the Canadians the onyl ones to successfully complete their objectives?
As for USA entering on the Axis side it&#39;s ahrd to ay what would ahve happenned although most likely we would ahv ebeen screwed. I say mos tlikely because this reply took me about two minutes and I did no research ont he tens of factors involved. As for Russia taking tens of thousands mroe casualties without SUA IO beleive that numebr is more like millions ratehr than thousands.

[Tiwaz]

Originally posted by OTZ@Feb 7 2005, 09:00 AM

so wrong. why generalise to try to make your point? meat - canned or otherwise actually constituted 15% of an average army ration not 8%. furthermore the other componenets of a russian soldier&#39;s ration would have included grain products - which, lo and behold, came primarily from the USA after the Ukraine/Donets basin was lost to the germans in the summer of 1941 - so much wheat that some of it rotted in storage bins. how much the USA actually provided the USSR is unclear but it certainly was not 8% - the soviets would have starved if it was not for the aid provided by the US.

.

as should you. the infrastructure that existed east of the volga was inadequate to handle the wartime needs of the soviets. from the BBC - on the USSR&#39;s infrastructure from 1942 onwards: most of the Soviet rail network was supplied with locomotives, wagons and rails made in the USA. to be exact - 2000 locomotives, and 11000 freight cars - not to mention the 540,000 tons of rail. during the first 6 months of barbarossa the USSR lost 75% of its rolling stock. you can see how much of an impact this had by examining the replacement levels in men and ammunition in the winter of 1941. the russians were not able to adequately resupply their units - so much so that many divisions taking part in the great moscow counter-offensive only had 6 rounds of artillery per gun.



they didnt have one because it was decimated by the germans. many soviet aircraft produced after 1942 (the pre-1941 designs would have run on water) required high-octane aviation fuel to fly. the soviets did not even have the capacity to produce enough oil/petrol for their own needs - let alone re-establish an aviation fuel industry.




what are you trying to say here? are you conceding that the aluminum that was provided through lend-lease was absolutely criticical to Soviet industry, or are you saying that the americans would have traded it to them anyays? either way, you&#39;re not doing much to defeat the argument that metals of all sorts were in serious short supply from december 1941 onwards, and without the american supplies, soviet industry would have collapsed by late 1942.



where do you get these ideas from? check the OOB for some of the Russian Guards units in 1943/1944/1945 and you will be surpised to see that the Soviets equipped entire divisions with shermans alone&#33; the use of allied armoured vehicles is almost always glossed over by words like yours: "bah, they sucked and were only good for nothing." ridiculous given the fact that the production of T-34s in 1941 and 1942 was inadequate, and those that were produced were squanderd (IE Kharkov-1942.) the Red Army required the matildas/churchills/stuarts and lees to beef up their decimated armoured corps. from 1943 onwards, the sherman found a welcome home in the soviet tank forces.



first of all - the war was not "turned at stalingrad." any respectabled historian of the ost-front will tell you otherwise. it was a setback, but it defintiely did not rout the germans from russia - nor did it permanently swing the momentum in the red army&#39;s favour.
secondly - to completely disregard the impact of lend-lease on soviet operations during this period is ignorant. lend-lease by this time provided the machine tools which were opertating in the factories in the urals producing the tanks/guns etc needed for the sustained counteroffensive in early 1943. without US chemicals and raw materials the soviets would not have been able to take an offensive posture from september 1942 onwards - in all likelihood they may not have been able to maintain an already tenous position in stalingrad itself. by the summer itself - aside fomr the 100s of thousands of tons of food and other materials - the US had contributed 3000 planes, 2000 tanks, and 30000 other motor vehicles. do a quick search on soviet armoured production (as well as losses) for that period and you will finally realise how absolutely vital this equipment was.




thats one heck of a bloody big "if"... and not he likely outcome.

i posted this earlier - you may have missed it. from Zhukov himself:



"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the war, one must not leave this out of one&#39;s reckoning. We would have been in a serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers&#39; [sic], we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series ofAmerican deliveries."

"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and ***could not have continued the war*** . . . we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."




yikes&#33; american help started before the war&#33; - this from your link:


"Because of the United States and all of the economic help it (and Germany to a lesser extent) provided to the Soviet Union during the 1930’s, the Soviet Union essentially advanced technologically 50 years in only an eight to 10 year span. When the U.S. engineers and specialists were forced to leave in the late 1930’s (some were never allowed to leave the Soviet Union despite the fact they were U.S. citizens), the Soviets were really only left with one realistic economic option - continue to utilize the basic systems and the mass production methodologies the Americans had left behind. And that is what they did during the Second World War. They were understandably crude copies of their American counterparts, but never-the-less, they were effective copies."





yeah, you&#39;re right - but this is when the war ended - not when the equipment was needed the most - during the 1942-1943 period. why does it matter how much they had at the end of the war - the conflict was already over. your point has no bearing on the debate. to further debunk this, by the end of 1944 lend-lease had virtually dried up. to this effect, by june 1944 over 600,000 US built/supplied motor vehicles were in use by the soviets - which accounted for 75-90% of their actual needs.




once again you are making the mistake of what essentialy is a post-war statistic. it does not fit into the debate. "in reality" LL trucks only made up 33% of the soviets 1945
truck pool.




just because you said LL materials had not reached the USSR by late 1942 in significant amounts doesn&#39;t make it true - in fact, as has already been pointed out, the ability of the red army to launch any type of offensive operation in late 1942 was a direct result of the amount of crucial materials needed to form the reserves used for operations saturn and uranus. and yet again i have to remind you that the war was not lost at stalingrad - nor was it over in the winter of 1941. the "nifty" manouveours you refer too are quite significant battles on the eastern front. despite losing 300K men, and moving backwards through hostile terrain for several months - the germans were able to inflict a defeat upon the russians at kharkov yet again - that completley halted their offensive. they were smashed by the germans in march - april of 1943 - andf it took them months to recover.

Soviets preferred to use aviation fuel. If there was no aviation fuel they could use low quality fuel (not aviation fuel) and refill the tanks of the planes with that and fly the sortie anyway. Do you know understand it? Soviet robust aviation engines were able to fly the plane without need for high quality aviation fuel. Using regular fuel was not as efficient but they could still fly the sorties with regular fuel.

yep the I-15&#39;s and 16&#39;s could run on junk - as could anything that did not require speed. but the later yaks and laggs did need a high octane fuel to get off the ground.

And finally. When you are counting those numbers remember this. LL formed 10-15% of total Soviet production. In terms of military gear let&#39;s stay it this way. From 10 T-34 tanks in row the last one was made by LL. Rest were 100% Soviet. Of course there were some critical substances which were not either possible to produce or not produced in required quantities in Soviet Union. Here, however, we once again meet the option of seeking to purchase it from global markets since Soviets and British had access to those. You might recall that for example USA was selling Britain plenty of equipment before any LL was invisioned. It was this trade which bled UK dry.

what do you think lend-lease was? it was the USSR purchasing materials on the "world market" - with a pay later option. they had no choice but to get it from the americans. who else would have shipped the soviets the material and equipment they needed? the USSR did not have an option to go fishing around for a country that was willing to supply the necessary materials. it baffles me that you think otherwise. there was "no global market." there was only the United States.

Tiwaz: great points made, good constructive posts on your side, really like your way of debating.
Rush Limbaugh: learn to read. and open your mind so you can understand what you read. please. this is no flame, it&#39;s a good advice you should take. nobody says US suck and had no part in the war. you had a huge part in that. still, you shouldn&#39;t try to make it bigger than it was, or make other countries&#39; parts seem smaller

lol. no one is trying to make the US contribution to the soviet victory any bigger than it was - if you actually examine the facts you will see how significant it really was.

edited for spelling.

Let&#39;s start with about meat. That statistic I referred to was talking about CANNED meat. Not "canned or otherwise". It was very specifically canned meat as mentioned and to my knowledge canned meat was 10% of Soviet food ration.

As for grain. I never said anything about grain. If you have numbers to show on how large part of Soviet grain supply came from USA we are all most interested to hear.

Your arguments try to be of similar style as ones posted by Rush "they used it so they must have been desperate for it". Hell, of COURSE they used everything they could. What kind of idiot does not use all means at their disposal? For example those tank divisions you mention. If they had tankers but not enough better tanks like T-34 hell yes they would give them anything that has tracks, armour and gun. Even if it is Lee or Churchill or other such tank which would be more hazardous to the crews using them than more advanced enemy armour. For British did not christen the Sherman "Ronson" for no reason... Though this unfortunate habit to "light every time" was later on fixed.

Same with aviation fuel. They were promised aviation fuel from allies so of course Soviets took advantage of it. You yourself have admitted that their plane designs for early part of war were capable of flying with lower quality fuel. Yes, it did not give same performance and since Soviets gained access to source of aviation fuel they preferred to switch to use it for better performance fighters. Again because every advantage in war is usually taken even if it is not absolutely necessary.

I don&#39;t know what history books you read but every respectable historian agrees that Stalingrad turned the tide. Of course you may be supporter of Ambrose who as a historian does not really qualify in the average group, rather far below it on general opinion.
Again when you want to only look at the production numbers of tanks compared to losses you try to twist the discussion to wrong rail. Once more you try to ignore the EXISTING reserves, which granted were mainly light tanks but LL tanks were not best possible either, to make the numbers look more impressive. LL was most useful and even important on some items but it did not decide the war in the east. Soviets had ability to defeat Germany without LL but with much greater losses.

For your comment on Zhukov. You take opinion of ONE general and claim it to be the holy truth? Don&#39;t you know of Soviet era habit of altering the truth? For example there were serious claims at one point that in wars against Finland Soviets would have lost a million men as dead. Truth at highest is closer to half of that number.


As for help from USA pre WW2... OMG&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; USA and USSR had actual contact pre-WW2&#33;&#33;&#33; Incredible&#33; Or not&#33;
Don&#39;t mix trade deals of thirties with actual LL. Yes, Soviets copied much US practices. So? It was in the thirties and has no connection to LL in any way. Hell, Stuka divebomber used by Germans was very much work of swedish hands. It has about as much to do with it&#39;s actual WW2 use as these truck factories of USSR. Which is.... None&#33; They were products of peacetime.

And since you are so eager to claim that US LL trucks formed 75-90% of TOTAL motorpool of USSR 42-43 please post us the list with source if possible. I have not claimed that LL trucks did not form 75% of new trucks entering use during WW2 but you are trying to claim they actually formed 75% of motorpool.

[OTZ]

Originally posted by Tiwaz@Feb 7 2005, 01:50 PM

Let&#39;s start with about meat. That statistic I referred to was talking about CANNED meat. Not "canned or otherwise". It was very specifically canned meat as mentioned and to my knowledge canned meat was 10% of Soviet food ration.

As for grain. I never said anything about grain. If you have numbers to show on how large part of Soviet grain supply came from USA we are all most interested to hear.

1.5 million tons of grain per month + 10,000 tons in converted mineral/cooking oil

Your arguments try to be of similar style as ones posted by Rush "they used it so they must have been desperate for it". Hell, of COURSE they used everything they could. What kind of idiot does not use all means at their disposal? For example those tank divisions you mention. If they had tankers but not enough better tanks like T-34 hell yes they would give them anything that has tracks, armour and gun. Even if it is Lee or Churchill or other such tank which would be more hazardous to the crews using them than more advanced enemy armour. For British did not christen the Sherman "Ronson" for no reason... Though this unfortunate habit to "light every time" was later on fixed.

did i say the red army was desperate? nope - but i will now. at the height of the conflict in the summer of 1942 they were desperate. the russians were scrambling to shore up their lines - and lend lease equipment was extremely valuable.
in regards "to those tank divisions" i mentioned - a "guards" unit had benefits over regular units - they got the best equipment available. they were not given shermas b/c they had nothing else - they were given shermas because they were valued by soviet commanders for some of their technical superiorities over the T34s.

Same with aviation fuel. They were promised aviation fuel from allies so of course Soviets took advantage of it. You yourself have admitted that their plane designs for early part of war were capable of flying with lower quality fuel. Yes, it did not give same performance and since Soviets gained access to source of aviation fuel they preferred to switch to use it for better performance fighters. Again because every advantage in war is usually taken even if it is not absolutely necessary.

so they designed and built better planes b/c the allies gave them the fuel to power them? seriously? this makes no sense. the laggs/migs/yaks were a necessary evolution for the red air force. they needed better planes to battle the luftwaffe - whether the fuel was available or not. the I-15s and I-16s were bi-planes, with weak engines and overall poor performance. low grade fuel was not going to power the next generation of soviet fighters...the russians did not take advantage of this fuel - it was a necessity.

I don&#39;t know what history books you read but every respectable historian agrees that Stalingrad turned the tide. Of course you may be supporter of Ambrose who as a historian does not really qualify in the average group, rather far below it on general opinion.

lol - how does ambrose figure into this. his specialty was the US infantryman in europe. i have yet to see any publication with his name on it that refers to the ost-front. for the war in russia turn to people like Galntz or Lucas and you will see that the "average" historian disagress with you. Glantz is the formeost historian on the war in russia and he would have some serious misgivings with claiming stalingrad was the turning point - similary he would be rather quick to affirm that LL was crucial to the survival of the USSR. it would be best if you selected some scholars who actually deal with the right part of the war.

Again when you want to only look at the production numbers of tanks compared to losses you try to twist the discussion to wrong rail. Once more you try to ignore the EXISTING reserves, which granted were mainly light tanks but LL tanks were not best possible either, to make the numbers look more impressive. LL was most useful and even important on some items but it did not decide the war in the east. Soviets had ability to defeat Germany without LL but with much greater losses.

i dont only want to look at production numbers. i am not twisitng any facts - but you have done a mighty fine job of it. i am not ignoring existing reserves (reserves of what i might add). in 1942 they had no reserves of anything - in terms of production material, food stuffs, ammunition - or the weapons needed to equip any formations. what are these "reserves" you speak of - apparently they were significant enough to outweigh any of the gains provided by lend lease.

how would the soviets have equipped their men, let alone feed them, fuel their machines, provide them with ammo - let alone maintain their industrial capacity without LL.

how do you figure the soviets would take more losses and still be able to defeat the germans? i fail to see the connection. if the soviets did not have LL - which according to you was an insignificant contribution to their war effort - why then would they suffer more losses? if LL&#39;s impact was mininmal - then too shouldnt the losses of a LL-free USSR? your logic is puzzling.

For your comment on Zhukov. You take opinion of ONE general and claim it to be the holy truth? Don&#39;t you know of Soviet era habit of altering the truth? For example there were serious claims at one point that in wars against Finland Soviets would have lost a million men as dead. Truth at highest is closer to half of that number.

haha - yeah i&#39;ll take the word of this guy over your conjecture any day. i referrenced him because you cited mosco and stalingrad as the turngin points - 2 battles that he personally directed, so i might think that his comments on the importance of LL are significant to the argument.
i am also well aware of how the USSR created its own version of the war - which is exactly why zhukov&#39;s comments are even more poignant - or were you trying to reinforce this?

[Rush Limbaugh]

I just want to add a ittle something about the claims of aircraft reserves and not needing our aircraft.

June 23. The Luftwaffe (German Air Force) destroys over 2,000 Red Air Force aircraft. Many are caught on the ground in the first hours of the assault. The numerically strongest air force in the world is wiped out in 48 hours. The Commander of Russian Aviation, General Rychagov, is given the death sentence for "treasonable activity" (i.e. defeat.)

Alss no one has mentoned operation torch or the fact that its very doubtful that Britain could have even held back the Germans in Africa before that thanks to the US helping them. Also our contribution to the battle of the Atlantic seems to be being ignored here. You start adding all these things together and its clear without our help Germany most likely wins WW2. I am in no way taking credit for the US winning WW2 as has been said remove any of the major allies and the results are probably the Germans win. I also from the begginig have said that the Russians by far did most of the fighting and most of our support was in supllies and weapons until we entered the war. Personlly I would have preffered that the Germans beat the Russians . I see Russia of that time to be far worse than Germany. It seems many americans of the time thought the same way including Patton.

[Eric]

Originally posted by Rush Limbaugh@Feb 2 2005, 10:11 PM


Is that from Catch 22? Great movie.

I don&#39;t even know what the :wub: Catch 22 is

[Rush Limbaugh]

You dont. Lets see if I can help

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he was sane he would have to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn&#39;t want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle. “That’s some catch, that Catch-22,” he observed. “It’s the best there is,” Doc Daneeka agreed.

[Tiwaz]

Originally posted by OTZ+Feb 7 2005, 02:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td> (OTZ @ Feb 7 2005, 02:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Tiwaz@Feb 7 2005, 01:50 PM

Let&#39;s start with about meat. That statistic I referred to was talking about CANNED meat. Not "canned or otherwise". It was very specifically canned meat as mentioned and to my knowledge canned meat was 10% of Soviet food ration.

As for grain. I never said anything about grain. If you have numbers to show on how large part of Soviet grain supply came from USA we are all most interested to hear.

1.5 million tons of grain per month + 10,000 tons in converted mineral/cooking oil



did i say the red army was desperate? nope - but i will now. at the height of the conflict in the summer of 1942 they were desperate. the russians were scrambling to shore up their lines - and lend lease equipment was extremely valuable.
in regards "to those tank divisions" i mentioned - a "guards" unit had benefits over regular units - they got the best equipment available. they were not given shermas b/c they had nothing else - they were given shermas because they were valued by soviet commanders for some of their technical superiorities over the T34s.



so they designed and built better planes b/c the allies gave them the fuel to power them? seriously? this makes no sense. the laggs/migs/yaks were a necessary evolution for the red air force. they needed better planes to battle the luftwaffe - whether the fuel was available or not. the I-15s and I-16s were bi-planes, with weak engines and overall poor performance. low grade fuel was not going to power the next generation of soviet fighters...the russians did not take advantage of this fuel - it was a necessity.



lol - how does ambrose figure into this. his specialty was the US infantryman in europe. i have yet to see any publication with his name on it that refers to the ost-front. for the war in russia turn to people like Galntz or Lucas and you will see that the "average" historian disagress with you. Glantz is the formeost historian on the war in russia and he would have some serious misgivings with claiming stalingrad was the turning point - similary he would be rather quick to affirm that LL was crucial to the survival of the USSR. it would be best if you selected some scholars who actually deal with the right part of the war.



i dont only want to look at production numbers. i am not twisitng any facts - but you have done a mighty fine job of it. i am not ignoring existing reserves (reserves of what i might add). in 1942 they had no reserves of anything - in terms of production material, food stuffs, ammunition - or the weapons needed to equip any formations. what are these "reserves" you speak of - apparently they were significant enough to outweigh any of the gains provided by lend lease.

how would the soviets have equipped their men, let alone feed them, fuel their machines, provide them with ammo - let alone maintain their industrial capacity without LL.

how do you figure the soviets would take more losses and still be able to defeat the germans? i fail to see the connection. if the soviets did not have LL - which according to you was an insignificant contribution to their war effort - why then would they suffer more losses? if LL&#39;s impact was mininmal - then too shouldnt the losses of a LL-free USSR? your logic is puzzling.

For your comment on Zhukov. You take opinion of ONE general and claim it to be the holy truth? Don&#39;t you know of Soviet era habit of altering the truth? For example there were serious claims at one point that in wars against Finland Soviets would have lost a million men as dead. Truth at highest is closer to half of that number.

haha - yeah i&#39;ll take the word of this guy over your conjecture any day. i referrenced him because you cited mosco and stalingrad as the turngin points - 2 battles that he personally directed, so i might think that his comments on the importance of LL are significant to the argument.
i am also well aware of how the USSR created its own version of the war - which is exactly why zhukov&#39;s comments are even more poignant - or were you trying to reinforce this? [/b][/quote]
All right... Let&#39;s see...

Nice that grain supply. But remember how I asked little more than just rough number?

As for guards units... Honestly, do you know how many guards units there were? They were not the "elite" often tried to make out of them. If unit had won few battles and needed a little morale boost they became "guards" units to declare their "eliteness". And for logistical reasons it is smart to form full division out of them as opposed to putting some here and there.
And you are right, Shermans could be useful. They were not too much inferior to early T-34 and therefor definitely preferred over light tanks in early times. Sherman was not bad tank, it was simply... Very, very average.

And Ambrose comes to this in very simple way. He is the type of historian who came up with myth of US GI winning the war by showing up at the front. Glantz is one of US leading historians in eastern front yes, but not only one. Stephen Walsh has differing opinion, Anthony Beevor as more well known writer does not agree exactly either. Overall agreement is that Stalingrad turned the tide.

Germany had no means of winning the war after failures of Moscow and Stalingrad. Nothing short of act of God could have enabled Germany to take Russia at that point. Most of the men who had excellent prewar training were exhausted by war. Britain was still very much alive and Royal Navy was superior to Kriegsmarine and had ability to cut off Germany from outside world far more efficiently than U-boot fleet of Germany could isolate Britain.

Troops had to be posted all over Europe so there really was quite little sources for good quality reinforcements available. Add to all these hardhips the fact that German logistics were still by and large horsedrawn, rail system of Russia was incompatible with German rolling stock and roads in German controlled areas of Soviet Union were simply horrible one can only come to a conclusion that since fast victory over Soviet Union failed Germany did not really have realistic hope of success anymore. Losses would have been huge for Soviets, time would have been consumed much more but Germany had lost it&#39;s only chance for victory in the east with those two failed battles.


Now, to

[Rush Limbaugh]

Overall agreement is that Stalingrad turned the tide.

Germany had no means of winning the war after failures of Moscow and Stalingrad. Nothing short of act of God could have enabled Germany to take Russia at that point. Most of the men who had excellent prewar training were exhausted by war. Britain was still very much alive and Royal Navy was superior to Kriegsmarine and had ability to cut off Germany from outside world far more efficiently than U-boot fleet of Germany could isolate Britain.

Stalingrad is indeed the turning point as far as the war in the East is concerned but thats not what were arguing here. Stalingrad would not have happened without help from the US and other allies. I dont see how you can deny this.

[shmuck]

I have not read the entire post but I was sad to see someone say that Australians did not fight against the Germans.
It was the &#39;rats of Tobruk&#39; who first defeated the Germans (succesively) despite lacking in supplies, armour, and on the most part artillery.
Obviously these victories were not on the same scale as the psychological blow at Stalingrad, however it did prove to the allies that the Germans were not invincible.

As for the turning point I would have to say the decision of Operation Barbarossa. At the time Stalin was falling over himself to supply Germany with oil and other supplies. Basically the operation showed that Hitler had truly lost reason and so because of this eventually would have lost the war.

[Tiwaz]

Damn