I never said otherwise?
Yes i see where a removed an incorrect link.
I see where he gets LL trucks wrong, he refers to the 2.5 tons studes, 34,800 in 43, 56,400 in 44, 19,200 in 45.
1943: those studs forward lift was 3,175,000 for the year.
1944: 5,146,000 for the year.
Each SU Div slice of 10k requires 275 tons a day, that is 27* 365=1,000,000 tonsa year.
The contribution of the Studes was to logistical supply, 3 SU ID for a year in 43 and 5 in 44, makeing 8 in total assuming nota single Stude is lost in the year.
I see1945 SU RR stock 600,000 railcars and 28,000 ( haveing lost 420,000 and 16,000http://www.politische-oekonomie.org/Dokumente/Wosnessenski/kapitel_15.htm)locos, LL had sent 2000 locos and 12,000 rail cars90% of Russia's rail stock, and enough food for an army of twelve million men for the duration of the war.
LL as a % of SU stocks and production is 1% of SU rail cars, and 4% of locs, which is why its the wrong link.
It refers to the LL 5 million tons of food. War lasted 47 months, 47*12,000,000=564000000 person/months. 5 million tons of food =220*5,000,000=1,100,000,000lbs. Each month therfore, 23404255 lbs of food are availble for 12 million persons. This gies each person 2lbs of food a day, which is why its the wrong link.
1.5 million tons LL food was in route and never delivered, instead going to Europe due its impending famine, which is why its the wrong link.
It refers to boots.
Red Army had mobolised 35 million men, a combat boot has 3/4 months life expetency, each year its 12,000,000 men need 36,000,000 boots, for 4 years its 144,000,000 LL was 15 million. LL boots was 10% of the mil needs, the nation of 200,000,000 needed at 2 per person per year is 1,600,000,000 pairs of boots. LL was 1% of national needs, which is why its the wrong link
Destroyed my arguments? One of his own links proves my entire claim about how 2/3s of the truck strength in the USSR was made in Detroit and how vital LL was for Russia.
This i still false as no such link was posted by myself ever,please refrain from inventing things that have not occured, and in fact are contradicted by what has been linked or posted, i have provided both the US and SU data that contradicts your inventions, and shows you to be inventing your own numbers.
I gave you the US sent numbers that showed by end of war under a third were from from all alied imports, i gave you SU in service numbers that showed the same. You further got it wrong that all LL trucks werte assembled in US and sent, over a third were sent as parts and assembled by the SU.
Here is a right link that is the same data already given to you:http://www.o5m6.de/Numbers.html
According to US Department of State, "Report on War Aid".
Exports from June 22,1941 to September 20,1945
and has the numbers of Studes i used to show the effect of them on logistics.
It further shows that the number of trucks sent is lower than the number the SU has in service by wars end by 100s of 000s, because those trucks were assembled from parts sent to the SU, which in every acount is the same except your invented claim they were all made in the US.
Last edited by Hanny; June 13, 2012 at 02:50 PM.
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” Benjamin Franklin
The one ignoring the US and SU source is yourself, as i have shown. Prefering your own invented number that exist only in your mind and nowhere else. I have used the sources and explained them.
Once again Hanny shows you cannot count and dont know what is in the source documents.
Last edited by Hanny; June 13, 2012 at 02:56 PM.
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” Benjamin Franklin
I used your own source, a source for Wikipedia, and a source from the The role of lend‐lease in Soviet military efforts, 1941–1945.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...430160#preview
And another one
http://atethepaint.blogspot.com/2010...end-lease.html
Despite what Russian history books teach today, by 1943 nearly 1/3 of all Russian trucks and cars were American. 50% of the iron ore Russia was using for weapons production was American. 1/4 of the grain and non-perishable food Russia was surviving on came from American and Canadian farms. The US even managed to supply over 1,200 warplanes and 5,000 aircraft engines to Russia. It was only because of US Lend-Lease that Russia was able to replace the losses she was taking at the front, while Allied bombing of Germany was preventing the nazis from doing likewise.Your "numbers" probably come form Soviet sources who were known to lie about the real amount of LL that was sent to Russia.In all, Lend-Lease supplied nearly 40% of the Soviet Union's total war output and may be one of the key reasons why the USSR was able to absorb the ferocious German assault and throw them back. Between 1941 and 1945, America supplied Russia with $12 billion worth of Lend-Lease (nearly $200 billion adjusted for today's prices). Rather than repay or even thank the US for the mighty effort involved to keep Russia fighting, the Soviet Union's leaders instead chose to engage in a near-world-ending cold war and geopolitical brinksmanship for 50 years, and refuses to even acknowledge this effort today. To do so would run contrary to the myth that has developed in Russia that the Second World War was a purely Russian war, and that Russian stubborness saved the country and freed the world of fascism forever after.
All of them refer to LL being one third of SU stocks by end of war, which is what i have shown, and took it further to show 44 and 43 and 42 and the impact it had in those years, when the SU won the war in the east when the number was far smaller, what you have posted on many occaisions, is that its not a third but 2 thirds. And of those in 45, 1 third of them were assembled in the SU from parts sent, which is the only way the number can exist, as the source data from the US shows it sent 00s of 000s less than existed at the end of the war. The only way the 1945 number can be reached is by adding the completed articl;es sent, and the parts sent and assembled in the SU, to reach the number in service by wars end.
Nope they all support what i have been posting and contradict you.
The blog entry is odd wrong, as the RF and the US have agreed in a payment of LL since before then , Putin thanking the people of the US for its LL, which he phrased as "Noticible contributing to our common victory".
My numbers come from the US War Dept, for sent, lost in transit etc, and SU for in service and when, as i have sourced them and explained them in many posts.Your "numbers" probably come form Soviet sources who were known to lie about the real amount of LL that was sent to Russia.
Just like Harriosons
THE USSR AND TOTAL WAR: By Mark Harrison
Why didn't the Soviet economy collapse in 1942
SU spent 826.4 Billion.Recieved 49 billion in LL.
LL was 5% of SU war expenditure acording to Harriosn.
SU souces of recived LL.
1941 - 0 - 0
1942 - 2 - 0
1943 - 14 - 5
1944 - 27 - 10
1945 - 36 - 10
Absolute total - 4%
Harrison Billion spent: LL imports LL as a %
1941
1942 166.8 : 7.8 : 4.6%
1943 185.4 : 19.0 : 10.2%
1944 220.3 : 22.9 : 10.4%
Harrison ( and every other economist) agress that the value of LL is 4/5%range of the total outlay of the SU, this 4% has never changed in any economic comparison since the numbers were first calculated. What they differ on is what it means.
118,000,000 tons of grain alone the SU produced in a year, 125,000,000 the next, the 5,000,000 LL looks like a drop in the ocean.
Last edited by Hanny; June 13, 2012 at 06:21 PM.
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” Benjamin Franklin
That is complete and utter rubbish - even Munting a LL Minimalist says (published before the fall of the USSR allowed a more clear picture of the nonsensical/mythical nature of Soviet data):Harrison ( and every other economist) agress that the value of LL is 4/5%range of the total outlay of the SU, this 4% has never changed in any economic comparison since the numbers were first calculated. What they differ on is what it means.
"It is nonsense to repeat the figure of 4% of Soviet wartime production and disingenuous to disparage western aid..." (pg 506 Lend-Lease and the Soviet War Effort Journal of Contemporary History Jul 1984 pp 495-510)
Last edited by conon394; June 13, 2012 at 09:49 PM.
IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites
'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'
But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.
Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.
Why is it so controversial that the US basically financed and outfitted the Red Army? It doesn't take away from the fact that Russians got absolutely bled white by the Wehrmacht.
It's not like we're claiming the US did most of the fighting in the European theater.
America won the World War. Russia was obviously the primary player in Europe.
America was crucial to operations in Europe, Africa, West Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, East Asia, Oceania, and if there had been fighting in the Americas it would have been by Americans.
All glory to the Soviet Union's war dead, but the Arsenal of Democracy pretty casually decided to fight a two THEATER war. Hitler couldn't even handle the 3 front war in France, Italy, and Eastern Europe. He was terribly successful fighting one front wars. Poland, Scandinavia, France, Britain, and then Russia were all very successful. But when America starting meddling in North Africa and the Mediterranean while he was bogged down in the East it got tricky. In pulling off Normandy it was all over. We were in his base, behind his Atlantic Wall, killing his dudes. Sort of like the obvious bypassing of Maginot was basically game over for the French.
A team of historians and bookies should do an in depth book structured around a week by week handicapping of world war 2. That would be far more useful than a bunch of figures without calculated utility.
Last edited by Col. Tartleton; June 13, 2012 at 08:02 PM.
The Earth is inhabited by billions of idiots.
The search for intelligent life continues...
How can you so easily be that dishonest? This is mind boggling. It's nice to see that that you are consistent. It's been what, 4 years now, that you've been pushing the whole 4% argument on TWC?
Harrison on the "4%" issue: "the tremendous contribution to the Russian war economy made by scarce commodities delivered under lend-lease cannot be significantly measured in terms of a 'global percentage'"
Who are these "other economist" of which you speak?
Absolutely comical.
I dont think he was terribly succesful in britain... quite the contrary.All glory to the Soviet Union's war dead, but the Arsenal of Democracy pretty casually decided to fight a two THEATER war. Hitler couldn't even handle the 3 front war in France, Italy, and Eastern Europe. He was terribly successful fighting one front wars. Poland, Scandinavia, France, Britain, and then Russia were all very successful. But when America starting meddling in North Africa and the Mediterranean while he was bogged down in the East it got tricky. In pulling off Normandy it was all over. We were in his base, behind his Atlantic Wall, killing his dudes. Sort of like the obvious bypassing of Maginot was basically game over for the French.
It got tricky in 1941, when Britain won the BoB and made the war last longer than what Hitler expected, hence the invasion of russia to get fule (or something)But when America starting meddling in North Africa and the Mediterranean while he was bogged down in the East it got tricky.
As i said some pages back, North Africa and east africa were defended by the british,the americansUSA didnt changed the course of the north african theatre, as soon as El Alamein happened, the tide was set, Besides, even with the americans coming to assist, it was the british who captured tripoli, tunis (the two most important cities in the threatre, and and went through the mareth line (3rd time i say this in this thread lol)
Then, as throngs of his enemies bore down upon him and one of his followers said, "They are making at thee, O King," "Who else, pray," said Antigonus, "should be their mark? But Demetrius will come to my aid." This was his hope to the last, and to the last he kept watching eagerly for his son; then a whole cloud of javelins were let fly at him and he fell.
-Plutarch, life of Demetrius.
Arche Aiakidae-Epeiros EB2 AAR
The German objective was to keep the British Empire in place (I would imagine more sovereign than Vichy but aligned with German interests) and to force a British cease fire by cutting off trade to the British Isles and maintain military pressure through an air war. Invading was not really feasible.
Britain was bogged down and Germany was waiting for concessions. He figured it was a prime time to get the jump on Stalin before he gave the Germans a good old fashioned Bolshevik stab in the back. Stalin was his ally. It would have been easier to buy Russian fuel. Russia had extensive trade with Germany.
The British efforts in North Africa wouldn't have mattered if Britain had succumbed to the Germans. There were three things keeping Britain alive. The Royal Air Force, The Canadian Merchant Navy, and The American Merchant Marine.
The Earth is inhabited by billions of idiots.
The search for intelligent life continues...
Last edited by ggggtotalwarrior; June 13, 2012 at 09:45 PM.
The food, clothing, etc. was very welcomed by the Soviets, since their economy had been designed to focus on heavy industry and the Bolsheviks had wrecked their agriculture. OTOH i believe they considered most American equipment to be of dubious quality (at least early in the LL program).
Compared to what? In any case since the Soviets would not let American experts see the equipment in the field and report back it was almost impossible for the US (or UK) to deal with Soviet complaints.OTOH i believe they considered most American equipment to be of dubious quality (at least early in the LL program).
IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites
'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'
But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.
Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.
British Empire was a joke in WW2. They lost all their ww1 glory by letting their best dude to be defeated by a maniac. They even couldn't hold the stronghold of Asia aka Singapore for a week and their best batteship in the region was sunk to bottom. Indeed, after the war, their 'victory' was they lost all their colonies and international prestige. Without US and Russia, British may speak Japanese and German instead of English right now.
Yeah! Like, I can't believe they only fought on all by themselves for six months after all their other allies had been crushed in the space of a month! Pussies! You're welcome, Britain!
قرطاج يجب ان تدمر
Britain wouldn't of fallen in such a manner without the U.S or Russia, more likely just lost its colonial empire like it did anyways and forced into some bad reparations to Germany, at least from what i gather Germany wasn't aiming at annexing Britain.
That is if they manged to make Britain concede defeat at all.
That doesn't make sense. What impact did the UK decision to "keep fighting" (in Africa, presumably?) have on Barbarossa? That it delayed it slightly, or that it diverted a minute portion of German personnel?
What exactly was so "pivotal" to the war about it, and in what way?
Something along these lines:
> Maintained a Threat from Western Europe
> Kept a Front open in Africa
> Restricted German Naval Aspects
> Provided a Spring board for the Bombing war and eventually for the invasion of France.
Without Britain continual involvement, there would not be a western Theater since there is no were else to support the mass troop movements and bombers, and supplies to Russia from the western direction would be completely cut off.
Theirs also the free run for Italy to occupy North Africa and maybe even provide something of worth to Germany.
Though of course i don't consider Britain's continual fighting to be thee pivot point, but it sure did help a lot.