[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/his/ - History & Humanities


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 157238_orig.jpg (102 KB, 1119x484)
102 KB
102 KB JPG
>85% of the Lend-Lease supplies arrived after January 1943, after the Battle of Stalingrad. At this time, the Soviet victory was clear. The Lend-Lease came too late to be the decisive factor in the Soviet victory, but it increased the speed with which the German Army was defeated

>Lend-Lease aid was slow to arrive. During the most crucial period of the war on the Eastern Front it remained little more than a trickle. Only following the Battle of Stalingrad (August 19, 1942-February 2, 1943), when the Soviet Union’s eventual victory seemed assured, did American aid began to arrive on a significant scale – 85% of the supplies arrived after the beginning of 1943. Although the vast majority of the Red Army’s best aircraft, tanks, guns and ammunition continued to be manufactured in the Soviet Union, its mobility and communications, in particular, came to rely on Lend-Lease.

>On June 1st 1941 USSR had 25932 tanks and howitzers, 6060 were produced by 31st of December, 1941. 31992 vehicles total. Approximately 20,5K was lost by the end of the year. That means 11,5K tanks left. In 1941 the USSR received 361 tanks, all from Britain, this was approximately 1% of the soviet tank forces on the eve of the battle of Moscow, and none of them took part in the battle.

a comparison between Lend Lease aid/arrival products and materials VS Soviet production
Lend Lease / Russian product (1941–1945)

Aircraft: 14,795/134,100
tanks: 7,056/102,800
artillery cannons: 8,218/825,200
oil: 2,670,000/110,600,000 (tons)
steel: 1,500,000/39,680,000 (tons)
food: 733,000/64,121,000 (tons)

During the war, Soviet factories produced more than 29.1 million small arms of all major types, while only 152,000 small arms (0.5% of the total) were manufactured by American, British, and Canadian plants. Looking at all types of artillery systems of all calibers we see a similar picture – 647,600 Soviet weapons and mortars vs. 9,400 of foreign origin, representing less than 1.5% of the total.
>>
From the onset of the war until the end of 1941, the Red Army received 1.76 million rifles, automatic weapons, and machine guns, 53,700 artillery and mortars, 5,400 tanks, and 8,200 warplanes. Of these, our allies in the anti-Hitler coalition supplied only 82 artillery weapons (0.15%), 648 tanks (12.14%), and 915 airplanes (10.26%). In addition, much of the military equipment that was sent – in particular, 115 of the 466 tanks manufactured in the UK – did not even make it to the front in the first year of the war.

If we convert these shipments of arms and military equipment into their monetary equivalent, then, according to the well-known historian Mikhail Frolov, DSc (Velikaya Otechestvennaya Voina 1941-1945 v Nemetskoi Istoriografii.[Great Patriotic War 1941-1945 in German historiography], St. Petersburg: 1994), “up until the end of 1941 – the most difficult period for the Soviet state – under the Lend-Lease Act, the US sent the USSR materials worth $545,000, out of the $741 million worth of supplies shipped to all the countries that were part of the anti-Hitler coalition. This means that during this extraordinarily difficult period, less than 0.1% of America’s aid went to the Soviet Union.

The numbers are less grim for other types of weapons: the ratio of domestic vs. allied tanks and self-propelled artillery was, respectively, 132,800 vs. 11,900 (8.96%), and for combat aircraft – 140,500 vs. 18,300 (13%).

Out of the almost $46 billion that was spent on all lend-lease aid, the US allocated only $9.1 billion, i.e., only a little more than 20% of the funds, to the Red Army, which defeated the vast majority of the divisions from Germany and her military satellites.

https://orientalreview.org/2015/05/12/wwii-lend-lease-was-the-us-aid-helpful-enough-i/
https://notevenpast.org/lend-lease/
>>
Good post anon. Glantz would be proud.
>>
File: 400px-Lendlease1.jpg (33 KB, 400x184)
33 KB
33 KB JPG
>in 1941 the United States promised to send 600 tanks and 750 aircraft, but actually sent only 182 and 204, respectively

In November 1942, i.e., at the height of the battle for the Caucasus and Stalingrad, the arms deliveries practically came to a complete halt. Disruptions in shipments had already begun in the summer of 1942, when German aircraft and submarines almost entirely wiped out the infamous Convoy PQ 17 that was abandoned (at the order of the Admiralty) by the British destroyers assigned to escort it. Tragically only 11 of the original 35 ships arrived safely into Soviet ports – a catastrophe that was used as a pretext to suspend subsequent convoys from Britain until September 1942.

A new convoy, the PQ 18, lost 10 of its 37 vessels along its route, and another convoy was not sent until mid-December 1942. Thus, for three and a half months, when one of the most decisive battles of the entire Second World War was being waged on the Volga, fewer than 40 ships carrying lend-lease cargo arrived intermittently in Murmansk and Arkhangelsk. For this reason, many were understandably suspicious that London and Washington were spending that time just waiting to see who would be left standing after the battle of Stalingrad.

As a result, between 1941 and 1942 only 7% of the wartime cargo shipped from the US made it to the Soviet Union. The bulk of the weapons and other materials arrived in the Soviet Union in 1944-1945, once the winds of war had decisively shifted.

Out of the 711 fighter planes that had arrived in the USSR from the UK by the end of 1941, 700 were hopelessly antiquated models such as the Kittyhawk, Tomahawk, and Hurricane

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/lend-lease-saved-countless-lives-but-probably-didnt-win-the-eastern-front-77715c4ce0b9
http://orientalreview.org/2015/05/13/wwii-lend-lease-was-the-us-aid-that-helpful-ii/
>>
Note that amerimutts are very quiet in this thread
>>
>>6299636

>Hurricane
>hopelessly antiquated
>in 1941
>>
>>6299719
It was. It was phased out quick by spitfires and relegated to secondary fronts or uses. The Hurricanes shipped to the USSR were also earlier outdated models.
>>
>>6299722

And yet had seen overwhelming use in the Battle of Britain only months before...
>>
>>6299726
Because it was what they had in large numbers.
Also
>1940
>months ago
Try a year to years ago.
>>
>>6299728

>October 1940 to 1941
>years
>>
>>6299733
>to 1941
Sorry I didn't realise I was arguing with your fanfiction.
>>
>>6299733
Germany used pzkpfw iii extensively just a year before the invasion of the USSR, surely they can't have been outdated in that timeframe? brainlet
>>
>>6299629
This kills the wehraboo.
Not to mention, nobody even cares about lend lease at all, nobody besides the butthurt losers that want to steal as much credit as possible from the actual victors of WW2--- the Russians.

Germany without american, russian and a dozen another countries massive material/financial aid wouldnt even be able to invade the nearest whorehouse, let alone Poland, France, or, hold my sides before they fly into orbit, the Soviet Union.
>>
>>6299741

You're the one who specified 1941.
>>
>>6299747
>Not to mention, nobody even cares about lend lease at all,
Go into any casual ww2 discussion anywhere on this board that isn't /his7, and the vast majority will just disregard the USSR completely. US exceptionalism and arrogance knows no bounds, in the public domain the fact they won both fronts almost singlehandedly is the new truth.
>>
File: who won WW2.png (253 KB, 1271x854)
253 KB
253 KB PNG
>>6299753
I cant say im really surprised, spending the last 80 years and untold billions of dollars on holywood propaganda movies really did its job.

The entire american involvement in WW2 is pretty much a hysterical meme, when people start digging into the subject it starts to show that WW2 wouldnt even start if the americans didnt help the nazis however they could since 1933.
>>
File: 1545753521936.png (338 KB, 512x512)
338 KB
338 KB PNG
>>6299764
>>
>>6299629
They would have never made it to Berlin before a capitulation to the West without lend lease.
Its sad really, thinking we could have had a whole Germany in NATO.
>>
>>6299889
swing and a miss, im not anglo.
these 16% of involvement in that picture shouldnt even be there, considering how utterly useless the anglos were during WW2.
>>
>>6299914
vivid imagination your got there, kid.
by the time lend lease started crawling the germans already lost the war and were retreating hundreds of miles a week, lol.

>capitulation to the West

the what?
capitulation to west? hahahaha who the fuck would the germans capitulate to?
the french?
or the useless anglo?

you are a prime example of the effects of holywood, just like the dude a few posts up said.
>>
>>6299937
>were retreating hundreds of miles a week
Soviets would have trouble advancing that fast without LL motorization, thus Americans would've advanced further. Even in our timeline, Patton's army was stopped from liberating Prague because of political reasons.
>>
>>6299961
Wanna bet someone posts the map of divisional numbers in Europe in 1945, ignoring differences in divisional manpower between the USSR and the Allies?
>>
>>6299937
>the useless anglo
based
>>
>>6299961
the soviets wouldnt have trouble with anything, everything after stalingrad was a steamroll to berlin.

the only thing the western front in 1944 did was make the soviets stop in germany, instead of portugal.
which, in my personal private opinion, was a terrible idea in the long run.
>>
>>6299982
Evidence?
>>
>>6299982
>the only thing the western front in 1944 did was make the soviets stop in germany, instead of portugal.
And if Soviet mobility was reduced by third, they would've met Americans further East, possibly Poland.
>>
>>6299994
evidence of what? what do you want?
you want info on how quickly the germans were retreating? google it, nigger.

>>6300002
>And if Soviet mobility was reduced by third, they would've met Americans further East, possibly Poland.

If my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike.
Soviet mobility reduced by a third, how? why? lend lease barely contributed 1,5% of soviet trucks by 1944, and by that time you could already see the Red Army from Berlin.
>>
>>6299706
> Correctly noted
>>
>>6299706
i have noticed this, too, its eerie.
>>
>>6300039
>lend lease barely contributed 1,5% of soviet trucks by 1944
Sauce? Glantz says different in his "battle of giants".
>>
>>6300073
ITS IN THE FUCKING OP's IMAGE FOR FUCKS SAKE.
>>
>>6299961
Patton was the most retarded WW2 General, even Nazi German Generals weren't as stupid and conspiritard in mindset as him.
>>
>>6300087
>Patton

what a meme of a man, his armies could barely go through france occupied by 3 hitlerjugend teenagers and a german officer without an arm and a leg, and then cried about getting PTSD from shooting those poor, poor innocent hitlerjugend.
The entire american involvement in WW2 should belong in a Monty Python sketch instead of the history channel, lmao.
>>
>>6300083
it's not tho
Trucks and high-octane fuel were the only supplies delivered by USA en masse
>>
>>6300099
Let's not forget in the Pacific front they did more bar fights with their own allies than actually fighting the Japanese, kek. They really were a meme on all fronts. I bet Americans are still proud of those nukes even though Japan only surrendered because they feared Soviet occupation. They knew Americans were pussies and would let them off easy, which they did.
>>
>>6300083
>Although the vast majority of the Red Army’s best aircraft, tanks, guns and ammunition continued to be manufactured in the Soviet Union, its mobility and communications, in particular, came to rely on Lend-Lease.

Where exactely? The 1.5% number just appeared out of nowhere and is contrary to what is in the OP.

>>6300087
Your opinion on Patton doesn´t change the American Third Army was in position to liberate Prague before Soviets and the thing that stopped them was diplomatic agreement between USA and USSR.
>>
>>6300111
at no point in the entirety of World War 2 did lend lease vehicles consist a third of the entire soviet land transports.
As any and all sources show, it was barely a few percent, and didnt even start after the most crucial battles of the entire war.
>>
>>6300170
they got 400k trucks and produced some 200k
>>
>>6300039
>1944
>soviets being anywhere close to berlin
Nigga they were still fighting on their own territory for most of the year
>>
>>6300182
more like twenty million, not 200k.
>>
>>6300193
1944 was kicking out germs out of belarus, poland and surrounding regions, russia was already cleared of the german cancer by then.
>>
>>6300197
>20 million
any sources on that? ZiS-5 production (most popular Soviet truck) reached some 180k in 1933-1945 years
>>
>>6300141
the difference was the soviets didnt even want prague, they just went straight for berlin.
>>
>>6299629
>>6299631
>>6299636

Lendlease meme is actually an American AND British meme.

Now debunk the British myths such as "UK defeated Napoleon, the British army defeated the German army in WW1, British Empire defeated Nazi germany, British won the seven years war by their own ... "
>>
>>6299629
I hate USRR but it's clear that they beat Germany and their allies mostly on their forces alone, the war was already over in autumn 1941 when bad weather stop tanks assault so the Red Army could regroup and crush Wermaht with their huge numbers advantage. Nazis get to cooky beating meme armies of small countries like Poland or France
>>
>>6300210
If this was true, Stalin wouldn't request Americans to stop.
>>
>>6300360
stalin didnt request anything.
>>
Imagine if 56% of all soviet aircraft didn't fly because you didn't get plane fuel from the US
>>
>>6299629
Bump
>>
>>6300542
Imagine, if you will, that if the Soviets didn't have Lend-Lease, they'd have made different production decisions. Or is that too much for your brain?
>>
>>6300542
What the fuck are you talking about you retarded muttnik?
>>
>>6300141
T R U C K meme

01/01/42

Domestic russian trucks in service:
317,100

Lend lease trucks:
0
---

01/01/43

Domestic Russian trucks in service:
378,800

Lend lease trucks:
22,000
---

01/01/44

Domestic Russian trucks in service:
387,000

Lend lease trucks:
94,100
---

01/01/45

Domestic Russian trucks in service:
395,200

Lend lease trucks:
191,300
---

05/01/45

Domestic russian trucks in service:
385,700

Lend lease trucks:
218,100
---

A) Note: "trucks" cover any kind of military transport vehicles.

Note: By 1944 was 4-6% of the trucks in Russian service were captured from the Germans.
>>6300197
Moron
>>
File: Railways1941.png (3.21 MB, 3100x2004)
3.21 MB
3.21 MB PNG
>>6300141
Let's talk about production then

Aircraft Production

Soviet Union:
1942: 18,251 plus 4,042 lend-lease
1943: 34,637 plus 9,206 lend-lease
1943: 33,210 plus 6,459 lend-lease

Germany:
1942: 17,400
1943: 25,200
1944: 34,300

Tank Production

Soviet Union:
1942: 20,727 plus 4,582 lend-lease
1943: 28,608 plus 3,798 lend-lease
1943: 28,963 plus 3,223 lend-lease

Germany:
1942: 4,800
1943: 11,800
1944: 17,800

Keep in mind that the war was decided in the winter of 1941, before the first American trade arrived.
>>
>>6300141
Let's just compare the goods USSR received from the Lend-Lease to the goods they manufactured on their own:

Lend Lease / Russian product (1941–1945)

aircrafts: 14,795/134,100

tanks: 7,056/102,800

artillery cannons: 8,218/825,200

oil: 2,670,000/110,600,000 (tons)

steel: 1,500,000/39,680,000 (tons)

food: 733,000/64,121,000 (tons)

苏联卫国战争期间苏联接受的英美援助究竟是雪中送炭还是锦上添花? - 知乎

Lend lease sent to the USSR:

Aircraft - 7.411 (CW) + 14.795 (US) = 22.206

Automotive:

--- 1.5 ton trucks 151.053 (US)

--- 2.5 ton trucks 200.662 (US)

--- Willys Jeeps 77.972 (US)

Bren Gun Carriers - 2.560 (CW)

Boots - 15 million pairs (US)

Communications equipment:

--- Field phones - 380.135 (US)

--- Radios - 40.000 (US)

--- Telephone cable - 1.25 million miles (US)

Cotton cloth - 107 million square yards (US)

Foodstuffs - 4.5 million tons (US)

Leather - 49.000 tons (US)

Motorcycles - 35.170 (US)

Locomotives - 1.981 units (US)

Rolling stock - 11.155 units (US)

Tanks - 5.218 (CW) + 7.537 (US) = 12.755

Tractors - 8.701 (US)

Trucks - 4.020 (CW) + 357.883 (US) = 361.903

That's the entirety of Allied Lend Lease to the Soviet Union.That's barely 10% of Soviet production*, and it most certainly did not win the war.
>>
>>6300561
I can post the links to the information on total productions before and during the war but you people won't read them
Germany was out producing Russia, if Germany did not get bogged down in Africa and Western Europe there would have been no hope for the Soviets
there's a reason it's called a World War and not Russia vs Germany, hey remember what happened in WW1
>>
>>6300649
read>>6300605
>>
>>6300657
considering german KDA against your tanks and aircraft, Russia could have never pulled off what Patton did in Africa with the Sherman tank
>>
>>6300676
Russia doesn't have to, The Soviet Doctrine is different from the American one, and Russia is not pressed by time, unlike Germany, since its production capabilities greatly outmatched Germany's. The longer the war goes on, the more of an advantage the Soviets get
>>
>>6300542
Are you referring to high octane fuel lend lease that mutts desperately cling on? the soviets didn't produce much for a reason, it was too strong on the engines of their aircraft. Which already suffered from low-reliability. They used low-oct aviation fuels. Doesn't matter anyway, if 56% of VVS aircraft like you claim(wish) couldn't fly after october of '42 it absolutely does not matter. The war was already decided after those two years. The German backbone was broken in Stalingrad. The western allies barely supplied the Soviets before Stalingrad because they didn't even expect them to win. All American intel estimated the USSR would collapse in a few weeks or 3 months tops under the German offensive. They were proven wrong twice; at Moscow and Stalingrad. Right after the balances became clear and decided in Stalingrad the mutts started immediately flooding the USSR with lend lease because the Jerries sustained a decisive defeat and lost an army. They wanted the Soviets to do the heavy lifting from there and steamroll the Germans until they got too weak to defend western Europe and then they landed and made a laughably slow advance through Italy and Normandy.
>>
>>6300649
>I can post the links to the information on total productions before and during the war but you people won't read them
Of course we will, but we'll also point out the flaws in both them and the conclusions you draw from them.

>Germany was out producing Russia,
In coal and steel, and a few non-ferrous metals. Nothing else. Primary resource production is not the required end product, and the Germans had enormous inefficiencies getting in their way when it came to actually turning those raw materials into weapons and combat supplies.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e039/7d742101be41fed2589e0dff628b6af63d61.pdf

>there's a reason it's called a World War and not Russia vs Germany, hey remember what happened in WW1
The Russians politically collapsed in WW1. That was not looking likely at any point in WW2. Why is it relevant?

Also, nice goalpost shift. If the Germans could move as fast as you did that, maybe they'd have a chance.
>>
>>6300700
https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/8uatt5/how_important_was_lendlease_for_the_soviet_war/e1dw42g
https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/8uatt5/how_important_was_lendlease_for_the_soviet_war/e1dwgzs
I will honestly be impressed if you bother to read this instead of hand waiving it away
>>
>>6300730
I swear to god the only things you mutts bring to the table is this Reddit post and the Khrushchev quote.
The post does not even TRY to argue that America played a crucial role in deciding the outcome of the war it just flexes America's production capabilities( which we all already know of) and the effect of the lend-lease as a whole by the end of the war.
None of which is relevant to our discussion.
>>
>>6300745
he tries to wewuz about trucks towards the end. even though they came too late to determine anything. And the soviets would've plugged this gap anyway if mutts didn't plug it for them.
All in all burgersharts have gotten to desperate means to try to rescue the reputation of lend lease.
>>
>>6300730
>https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/8uatt5/how_important_was_lendlease_for_the_soviet_war/e1dw42g
Shows higher German production levels in

>Coal (a lot)
>Iron (very little)
>Magnesite (a little)
It is also 1937, not during the war years.

It shows a higher national income in billions of dollars and a higher percent spent on defense. Percentage share of world manufacturing output is higher in the USSR than Germany starting 1937.

Total wartime production shows igher German levels in coal, iron, and steel, but far less in oil.

Then, when we get actual weapons systems and munitions, the Soviets outproduce the Germans in everything except for trucks and planes of all types, which that last one seems inconsistent with other sources I've read.

Which pretty much supports what I've been saying earlier: Even if the Germans had a slightly larger industrial base (something which I would point out, the Harris essay I cited to agrees with) it was not as efficiently utilized for warmaking purposes, leaving the Soviets with a higher end product production value.

On to
https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/8uatt5/how_important_was_lendlease_for_the_soviet_war/e1dwgzs/
This mostly seems to be some guy talking, without clear citations of his sources except a list at the end. It also doesn't justify many of its claims, like what soviet sources claim that without American aluminum imports, it could not have had its aircraft production. Furthermore, since Soviet raw material production did not stay static during the war, why does this author assume that only American raw material input could have bridged these gaps?

Both links seem primarily interested in comparing U.S. war production with Soviet war production, not German war production with Soviet war production; which is irrelevant to the case at hand.
>>
>>6300745
Anon who wrote >>6300700
>>6300764
here. I'm American too.
>>
>>6300758
Exactly, I love the way they deny the war was decided when the Germans failed to blitz Moscow or the failure at Stalingrad. They try to push the decisive date of the war as close to 1945 as possible so that they can suck off as much importance of the lend-lease by giving it more time to be in effect.
>>
>>6299706
It's almost like it was 4 a.m. in the US when you posted this
>>
>>6300768
>>6300764
Nothing against most Americans, since you clearly more or less understand the influence of America in the European Theatre but you have to agree with us that most people who try to shill America as a decisive force are Americans since that's what they are thought in school and by movies
>>
>>6300800
I dunno. School teaching about the actual operational and strategic intricacies of WW2 is pretty abysmal everywhere I've looked into basic curriculum. It wouldn't surprise me that other countries in Europe, especially ones on the west side of the Iron Curtain, downplayed Soviet roles in the war. And to be fair, Soviets tend to overstate the importance of their contribution as well, just in the other direction. You'll never hear about the redirection of resources from the strategic bombing campaign (which was actually mostly British, by a slim majority), or the huge reallocation of forces to Southern Europe following Avalanche.
>>
>>6300856
Clarification to above post, when I say "soviets tend to overstate the importance of their contribution", that means both the Soviet Union back when it was an active political entity, and former Soviet states that exist now.
>>
>>6300616
>and it most certainly did not win the war.
If you haven't noticed I didn't go full burger saying LL won the war. I was speaking about the mobility it granted to Soviet offensives of 1943-195.
>>
>>6299764
Other than, you know, the Battle of Britain, Africa, the Middle East, Italy...
>>
>>6300889
this is the problem with tankies, they only consider history in absolutes when it is much more complicated than that
for them LL either has to be proven to have won the war or have been not needed, there is no in between
and as >>6300903 points out they will consistently ignore that Germany was fighting on multiple fronts and still went down slugging
at the end of the day, they lost, but it's terrifying to think if the entire world at the time just went "oh russia's got this, we won't help"
>>
>>6300856
>>6300877
Well of course cold war made the overstatement of achievements in WW2 a standard but we are able to look past that now.
>>
>>6300913
Won't even try.
Absolute moron
>>
>>6300924
Yes, but in practice, I haven't been much aware of increased focus on what "the other allied team" did in WW2 after the Soviet Union collapsed. I mean, people who really study history have a much better idea, but it hasn't filtered down to childhood education.
>>
>>6299629
>assuming that Stalingrad is the turning point if the supplies to capitalize with a counterattack weren't there
You know nothing about war a myriad of catastrophes could have befallen the Russians if their counterattack offensives weren't overwhelmingly better supplied than the Germans. Without lend-lease Stalingrad could easily be known as the heroic victorious stand that gave the Russians a glimmer of hope only to be smothered when the spring offensive became exhausted and the Nazis eviscerated the vulnerable Soviet salient; encircling whole divisions capturing or killing a million men.
>>
>>6301011
you will never get through to these people, their thought process is literally the equivalent of "the South wins at Chancellorsville, they will obviously push through to D.C." the concept of Pyrrhic victory is lost here
>>
>Yeah, those supplies didn't help at all and nobody benefitted from an industrial powerhouse to enter the war like in WW1.... even though the Allies couldn't beat Germany then or in WW2.
>>
>>6300039
>If my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike.
Hello fellow wop
>>
>>6301011
Are you literally retarded? read the OP. Barely any resources were there for the USSR to utilise from lend lease throughout the entirety of Stalingrad. As a matter of fucking fact the US thought that Stalingrad was going to be a German victory so much that they halted lend lease throughout the majority of Stalingrad. The counterattack went through too quick for lend lease to impact it.
Fuck off muttnik. The Russians lifted their weight and Lend Lease barely had any part of that. You can argue something more moderate like ''it speed up the end of the war'' but Stalingrad and Uranus were pure Soviet victories.
>>
File: fatAmerican.jpg (54 KB, 600x462)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
>>6301093
WAAAH MOMMY MAKE THEM STOP SAYING MEAN THINGS WE WON ALL WARS ON OUR OWN BY SITTING ON OUR ASS
>>
>>6301153
the only one who is saying they won a world war on their own is you
>>
>>6299706
Why would we talk? Khruschev and Stalin do it for us.

Communication and logistics are more important than tanks, FYI.
>>
>>6301135
WAAAAH NOT TRUE US HEROIS AMERICANS STORMED IN ON OUR FAT SCOOTERS TO SAVE THE DAY
>>
>>6301170
>Communication and logistics are more important than tanks
No. Trucks and Radios don't win wars. Tanks do.
But they are not mutually exclusive. Although a gargantuan army of tanks with barely any logistics is more imposing than a gargantuan army of trucks with established logistics and communications.

Now try making a real argument.
>>
>>6301135
I agree that those were pure Russian victories. I do not agree that those victories were enough to permanently keep the Nazis on their heels without the substantial support the USSR received after them
>>
>>6301191
>without the minimal support
ffy
>>
>>6301197
>drawing away the enemy to another front
>minimal
>>
File: 1hzgyg.jpg (222 KB, 674x506)
222 KB
222 KB JPG
WAAAAH GUIZE WE WUZ RELEVANT IN THE FIGHT AGAINST NAZIS I SEWAR RUSSIANS ONLY ONE BECAUSE OF A COUPLE OF OLD TRUCKS WAAAH
>>
>>6300616
How much rolling stock or locomotives did they produce?
How much airplane fuel VS regular oil did they produce?
>>
>>6301199
Your retarded
>>
>>6301205
he will never answer, to him all things are the same even if the USSR was unable to make a lot of the stuff they were receiving
>>
>>6301208
not an argument
>>
File: OperationLittleSaturn.png (157 KB, 891x690)
157 KB
157 KB PNG
>>6301191
Yes they were. The Nazis were finished and on their knees after Stalingrad. Even if the Spring Offensive didn't culminate fast enough (and it did without any major thanks to Lend Lease, most of which was arriving on the far east and through Persia) the Germans wouldn't have been able to turn the war no matter what. After Stalingrad every second of wartime tipped the scales for the USSR with it's gargantuan industry.
>>
>>6301199
Quite minimal considered the wehrmacht was at all times from operation Barbarossa onwards deployed into the eastern front (where it took 80%+ of its casualties iirc) and even then from Stalingrad onwards it was getting hopelessly steamrolled by Soviets way before captain Murica stepped in to save the day.
A few divisions more against the Soviets would have prolonged the war just a bit, ot certainly stopped it. That's mostly american wet dreams, like being decisive in WW1
>>
>>6301197
So are you moving the goalposts and claiming the USSR never received substantial aid? Because OP states that 43 forwards there was significant aid particularly in communications and mobility (the most crucial elements of a modern military offensive)
>>
>>6301205
Pre-war they had 20,000 locomotives and half a million railcars
>>
>>6301176
>Although a gargantuan army of tanks with barely any logistics is more imposing than a gargantuan army of trucks with established logistics and communications.
Chase my trucks until you run out of gas and tell me again.
>>
>>6301222
I did not set any post, I am not OP, I am just here and I like to semurrigans cry their eyes out

>significant aid
Anon already answered this here
>>6300593
>>6300605
>>6300616
>>
>>6301205
For reference
>The output of mainline locomotives in the USSR changed as follows, in 1940: 914, in 1941: 706, in 1942: 9, in 1943: 43, in 1944: 32, and in 1945: 8. Five main-line diesel locomotives were produced in 1940, and only 1 in 1941, after which production ceased until 1945. Nine mainline electric locomotives were produced in 1940, and 1 in 1941, after which their production also ceased.20 During the war years, 1,900 locomotives and 66 diesel-electric locomotives were supplied to the USSR through Lend-Lease.21 Thus, Lend-Lease deliveries exceeded total Soviet production of locomotives from 1941-1945 by 2.4 times and electric locomotives by 11 times

>>6300593
>Lend lease trucks: 191,300
Kill yourself you dishonest fucking tankie
>Thus, from the beginning of the war until the end of 1945, the overall production of motor vehicles can be fixed at 265,000. During the war years, 409,500 motor vehicles were supplied from the U.S to the USSR.
>>
>>6301236
*see murrigans
>>
>>6301230
How many did they lose to the Nazis in the first six months and how many did they produce during it?

I ask because locomotives are fairly complex constructions that just kill you if you're using poor materials, and their impact is clearly much more significant than a tank brigade.
>>
>>6301238
keyword "in-service"
time to kill yourself, el atrocidad.
>>
>>6301246
I stand corrected, still doesn't change the fact that nearly 1/3rd of all in-service Soviet trucks were from lendlease and locomotives were predominantly lendlease-shipped
>>
>>6301260
Arrived too late to impact the war in a significant way.
>>
>>6301264
you have no proof that without it you could have kept up an offensive by spring
>>
>>6301260
Apart from the 20,000 they already had? Yes, those which they predominantly sent after the Nazis had already lost the front and were pushed back sure helped speed up the process of unavoidable victory.
>>
>>6301264
It was crucial in the 1943 Summer offensives of the Red Army as most ZiS Soviet trucks were irrecoverable by 1941 and production was too low to make up for the losses
>>
>>6301270
>Apart from the 20,000 they already had
Give me evidence they had 20,000 locomotives post-Barbarossa
>>
>>6301273
Give me evidence they had lost a significant portion of them
>>
>>6301268
>you have no proof that without it you could have kept up an offensive by spring
Sorry bro I'm not gonna stoop to your slippery slope niggerism. I'm going to remind you that Saturn rolled only a few months after the Jerries were ejected from Stalingrad.
>>
>>6301284
You were the one who made the claim they had 20,000 locomotives. The burden of proof is on you.
>>
>>6301215
I simply do not accept that there is any measure of certainty that the USSR prevails throughout the duration of the war minus the communications equipment, intelligence, and vs 100% of the German military. I'm not saying they couldn't I'm just saying there's no way to actually tell when we delve into alternate histories in an attempt to explain real history. There is a certain butterfly effect that just isn't measurable when hypothesizing what could have happened.
>>
>>6301295
Not him but you're getting desperate and grasping at straws at this point and going full texas sharpshooter fallacy. Refer to OP for statistics next time.
And no, the burden of proof is on you, my dear friend. You're the one claiming lend lease had an impact on the war.
>>
>>6301309
>can't back up his own statistics
then they're not very good statistics
>>
>>6301309
>You're the one claiming lend lease had an impact on the war
I never claimed that. My only post was providing statistics with regards to the production of locomotives and U.S shipment of trucks.
Sounds like you're the one who's getting really desperate not to actually provide evidence.
>>
LL retards blown the fuck out once and for all. Saving this for future use, especially when that ''b-but Khrushchev said it...!111'' autist arrives.

FYI, no one ever argued LL was irrelevant, it did help Soviets go on offensive a lot easier, it saved time and blood.
But it certainly didn't save Soviets from defeat, and it certainly didn't make German defeat inevitable. Soviets fighting and prevailing did that. Case closed.
>>
>>6301284
They lost significant amounts of rolling stock and probably locomotives when the Nazis rolled through eastern Europe. They seized trains full of materials being sent west, after all,and rail depots.
>>
File: 1520543605460.png (113 KB, 403x334)
113 KB
113 KB PNG
ITT
>>
>>6301316
>can't back up his own statistics
First of all, they're not mine.
2nd of all, they're absolutely backed up.

Cope harder.

>>6301320
>I never claimed that. My only post was providing statistics with regards to the production of locomotives and U.S shipment of trucks.

http://mikes.railhistory.railfan.net/r097.html/
>Recent figures show that the Soviet Union contains about 20,000 locomotives of various types

>including 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars[29] which augmented the existing prewar stocks of at least 20,000 locomotives and half a million railcars
1,900 locomotives and 11,200 railcars VS 20,000 and 500,000, do the math el goblino.

And reminding you
>they arrived too late
>they arrived too late
>they arrived too late
>>
>>6301328
>can't back up statistics
>attempts to take his ball and go home
a literal child
>>
>>6301328
Blown the duck out by what? Your dubious claims, bad attitude, and atrocious odor?

Go back to picking on the Ukraine and crashing into Korean bridges.
>>
>>6301342
>>can't back up statistics
Which statistics, mutt?
>>
File: 1545335254161.jpg (80 KB, 1005x640)
80 KB
80 KB JPG
>>6301342
You tell him!
>>
File: a5MZ4DL_700b.jpg (18 KB, 326x294)
18 KB
18 KB JPG
>>6301341
>that source
>>
File: 1508796318028.png (152 KB, 750x629)
152 KB
152 KB PNG
Holy shit they're getting desperate at this point
>>
File: fallacy.png (186 KB, 779x579)
186 KB
186 KB PNG
>>6301352
>>
>>6301359
>providing unsourced material as evidence
>accuses me of logical fallacy
I'm willing to bet if we tracked down all of your sources, they are much the same
>>
>>6301342
>>6301346
I'm not OP and I just checked his numbers. According to some sources food supplies were larger, up to 2 million tons. Still a fraction of what Soviets produced.

Most significant aid was in specialist equipment and trucks.
As I said, that's significant, but point is LL didn't SAVE USSR, and it didn't make German defeat INEVITABLE.
Soviets fighting did that.
People like you are literally implying that material on it's own, even if it was provided in far greater quantity than it was, wins battles on it's own.
I suggest you look into history of Arab-Israeli wars for an example of how accurate is your idea.
>>
>>6301362
>providing unsourced material as evidence
(You)
>>
File: 1552304660053.png (59 KB, 840x544)
59 KB
59 KB PNG
>>6301362
Provide a better source.
>>
>>6301371
personal blogs that don't cite their sources of information are not a source
but you're some retarded euronigger so it's to be expected you never received an education
>>
>>6301375
you make the claim, you provide the source
>>
>>6301376
>>6301377
You claim a source is not credible? time to provide a credible one. Burden of proof is on you.

Substantiate your argument.
>>
>>6301383
not how it works brainlet
>>
>>6301175
Lol you’re so upset it’s great
>>
>>6301385
It works that source > no source.
If you don't like a source of information, you are obliged to provide an alternative instead of turning into a shitflinging ape.
>>
>>6301341
Thanks for the 20,000 locomotives resource. With regards to the losses during Operation Barbarossa, we have CCCP documents indicating that the Soviets lost 15,800 locomotives
>Дoкyмeнт CCCP-35). И тaм cкaзaнo вoт чтo: "Oни paзpyшили, пoвpeдили и yвeзли 15800 пapoвoзoв и мoтoвoзoв и 428 000 вaгoнoв."
So in other words they lost more than half of their locomotives according to your source.
>>
File: 81f.png (21 KB, 646x655)
21 KB
21 KB PNG
>>6301392
the alternative is only that Americans heroically saved the day dude
>>
>>6301350
>>6301357
I never knew someone could get so upset over shit that happened nearly a century ago. It’s really great to see
>>
>>6301401
Since 4chan isn't letting me upload the link, I'll butcher it a bit, add dots between spaces
izmerov narod ru (slash) rstories (slash) reihsbahn html
>>
>>6301392
you heard it here from the euronigger, works of fiction can now be given as sources because of retarded slav logic
>>
>>6301401
And the 428 000 is the number of railcars destroyed. Or ore than 3/4ths of every soviet railcar as indicated in your source.
>>
>>6301409
> Reinhardt in that the same paper reports that only 1,000 steam locomotives were seized by October 1941.
>that is, these are losses not only of NKPS, but also of all locomotives and locomotives of industrial vehicles, including narrow gauge locomotives, which could not be evacuated to the east due to the lack of a single network of narrow gauges. The losses of the NKPS, according to the data of the already mentioned book by Kumanev, were the heaviest from the summer of 1941 to the first quarter of 1943, when the locomotive fleet decreased by 3,900 locomotives, or by 16%. And in 1943 the park grew again by 2 thousand cars.
>As for locomotives, then until 1943 the Allies sent only 44 of them (with a total fleet of 25,000 locomotives), and the rest were sent from 1944 to 1947, that is, half after the war. Even more fun was the case with diesel locomotives, which were sent in 1945-1946
>>
>>6301401
>of particular note are the 2,237 captured rail wagons and 231 locomotives. Captured rail stock would only have been of limited use on Jan 1st 1943 because the Soviet rail gauge was different from the German rail gauge, but they would probably still have been useful on November 1st 1941, when the railroad troops were still panting to catch up with the German advances.
According to German sources, only 231 soviet Locomotives were captured or destroyed throughout 1941-42.

According to various sources, the Soviets had different numbers of trains, locomotives in general and railcars

>28,000 Soviet locomotives in 1935, the Deutsche Reichsbahn had 21,656 locomotives, 596,597 freight cars and 60,343 passenger cars in 1935. German railroads carried 408,000 thousand tons in 1935 which compares favourably with the Soviets' 388,533 thousand tons - although German trains of course travelled shorter distances.

It is important and worth noting that Lend Lease itself had an influence on Soviet Railroad transportation and increased locomotive demand - the LL supplies had to be distributed, thus, LL in itself was increasing locomotive demand.

To get a better picture on the importance of locomotives in the Soviet union, here's a table with Year/Turnover (mlrds tons*kms)/Cargoes transported (mlns tons)/Average number of cars loaded per day (thousands)
1940/415.0/592.6/97.9
1941/386.5/527.9/85.0
1942/217.8/277.2/42.6
1943/238.8/296.6/45.5
1944/281.3/356.3/55.4
1945/314.0/395.2/61.8

The significance of locomotive LL to the USSR is exaggerated because users often cherrypick a favourable comparison (Locomotives shipped v. Locomotives produced in the USSR, and in this case LL is implied as "significant") but in comparison to how much locomotives and rail cars the USSR possessed in total by Barbarossa, LL accounts for less than 10% of total Soviet locomotives.
>>
>>6301405
you seem upset
>>
>>6299629
Can you slavshits give up, Khrushchev and Zhukov already wrote their opinion on Lend Lease decades ago.
>>
Lend Lease is just one part of the equation and at this point I would agree it's overrated. The Anglo-American air-sea war against the majority of German war production output and employment is much more underrated, though. These articles from the Journal of Slavic Military Studies take a look at both these factors and conclude that the Soviet Union could not have won without them:

https://sci-hub.se/10.1080/13518046.2017.1307058
https://sci-hub.se/10.1080/13518046.2017.1377013

>Western aid in the form of Lend-Lease and military intervention was of far greater importance to the Soviet Union than claimed by Soviet historiography. The Western Allies were responsible for engaging and destroying an overwhelming majority of the Luftwaffe; at the same time they were solely responsible for the disruption of German industry through bombing... Without Lend-Lease and Western military intervention, Soviet superiority would have been smaller or might have even been even reversed. In both cases this would have meant fewer casualties for the Germans and more casualties for the Red Army. The results would have been either a Soviet defeat, stalemate, or a slow and costly advance through Eastern Europe, which would have forced the Soviets to abandon the war.
>>
>>6301526
>the Journal of Slavic Military Studies
Obviously a bunch of seething amerimutts, right? Find an unbiased source, anon.
>>
>>6301526
The strategic bombing campaign started after the war was decided. Even at full output the Germans wouldn't have been able to reverse the losses they suffered in Barbarossa, Moscow, Kharkov and Blau/Stalingrad/Uranus.
The first major strategic bombing operations started in august of 1943, too late to actually influence the German collapse, and they were mostly failures and defeats. Tidal wave for example was a major failure.
>>
Why do russkies get so insecure about american brawn?
>>
>>6301461
>no u!!!!
Cope lol
>>
>>6301547
>if i say it doesn’t count, it dosn’t count, right?
Kek
>>
File: 1531050216033.jpg (35 KB, 515x790)
35 KB
35 KB JPG
>>6301595
>The strategic bombing campaign started after the war was decided
Decided in the paradigm of British-American involvement in the war. We don't know when the turning point would be in a hypothetical 1v1 scenario.
>Even at full output the Germans wouldn't have been able to reverse the losses they suffered in Barbarossa, Moscow, Kharkov and Blau/Stalingrad/Uranus
German manufacturing was more than able to make up losses in these engagements (Kharkov is far from a "failure", by the way) and manpower losses didn't really start to ramp up until 1943-45. See Enduring the Whirlwind for the author's thesis that the Wehrmacht in the East was able to effectively sustain their losses until 1943.
>The first major strategic bombing operations started in august of 1943, too late to actually influence the German collapse, and they were mostly failures and defeats. Tidal wave for example was a major failure.
Stemming the tide of German armaments output is not a "major defeat".
>>
according to balck and mellenthin soviets couldnt really mount offensives until summer 1944. they wrote it was lend lease trucks which enabled them to exploit tank breakthroughs on grand scale.
your argument relies too much on stalingrad as turning point when its only the final culmination point of german offensive followed by relative stability for more than a year.
>>
>>6301715
Didn't they already push back the southern front for thousands of Kms by late 1942?
>>
>>6301763
More early 1943, but definitely before the summer of 1944.
>>
>>6300593
>The raw statistics show that Western aid supplied only 4 per cent of Soviet munitions over the whole war period, but the aid that mattered did not come in the form of weapons . In addition to radio equipment the United States supplied more than half a million vehicles: 77,900 jeeps, 151,000 light trucks and over 200,000 Studebaker army trucks. One-third of all Soviet vehicles.
t. Richard Overy Russia's War, chapter 7

the statistics probably aren't so easy for trucks because they were not only brought via ships but came over landroute from persia, or assembled in soviet union from delivered parts.
>>
>>6301763
Until they overstretched themselves like usual and got BTFO at Third Kharkov. Trucks vastly increase the range you can advance, especially when the Studebakers' qualitative superiority isn't sufficiently captured in the raw numbers.
>>
>>6301775
Yes, those trucks they had produced and cumulated by then (plus the few the allies sent) sure speeded up things quite a bit
>>6300593
>>
>>6299706
>Note that amerimutts are very quiet in this thread
>4am in usa
my sides, how is this board still free
>>
>>6301817
>These Lend-Lease supplies of trucks made the rapid and deep Soviet advances of 1943–45 possible. The Studebakers not only carried 50% more tonnage, on average, than similar Soviet trucks, they were considerably more robust and could stay in operation much longer. They were also far more numerous than Soviet-built models. Up to two-thirds of the trucks in the Russian army in the second half of the war were from Lend-Lease supplies, overwhelmingly Studebakers.
"Logistics by land and air" in the Cambridge History of the Second World War, p. 628 quoting Evan Mawdsley, Thunder in the East p. 199 for Studebaker comparisons and Glantz & House, When Titans Clashed p. 150 for the percentage of trucks.
>>
>>6301923
100 to 200k is not 2/3rds of 500-600k though, it's one fifth to a third
>>
>>6301930
Is Glantz wrong then? There's no source provided for this post: >>6300593
>Lend-Lease trucks were particularly important to the Red Army, which was notoriously deficient in such equipment. By the end of the war, two out of every three Red Army trucks were foreign-built, including 409,000 cargo trucks and 47,000 Willys Jeeps. It is no coicidence that even today "studabaker" and "villies" are familiar words to Russian war veterans. Lend-Lease trucks solved one of the Red Army's greatest deficiencies: the inability to resupply and sustain mobile forces once they had broken through into the German rear areas. Withot the trucks, each Soviet offensive during 1943-1945 would have come to a halt after a shallower penetration, allowing the Germans time to reconstruct their defenses and force the Red Army to conduct yet another deliberate assault.
>>
>>6301176
>No. Trucks and Radios don't win wars. Tanks do.
You could only cultivate such a fine grasp of military strategy by playing World of Tanks and Hearts of Iron.
>>
>>6301775
overstretching doesn't denote to "lack of logistics" you retard. 3rd Kharkov was hardly a victory. It was a sneak attack on an offensive that took so much land and ran over so many germans & satellites that they thought they could drive straight to Berlin from there. If the Soviets had 5 gorillion muh GMC mctrucks behind Kharkov they would've still gotten BTFO, the majority of their forces were behind the Donets line and they were exhausted from a long series of offensives. The Germans couldn't even hold the few kilometres they gained and had to desert Kharkov and Belgorod soon after.
>>
>>6301982
>By 17 February Soviet forces were within 30 miles of the Dnieper, but these last few miles proved to be beyond their powers. "The Red Army troops had already outrun their support and supplies, and they were beyond the range of effective air support since many of the captured airfields were not yet in use. The supply, reinforcement ant maintenance system was functioning badly over the extended lines of communication and many formations and units had been reduced by casualties to skeleton form." In this last bid to duplicate the success at Stalingrad, on a much vaster scale, the Soviets had finally outreached themselves. This was not so much because of any strategic shortage - the factories and the induction centres were still working flat-out and producing munitions and men on a prodigious scale - but because their armies as yet lacked a well oiled supply and replacement system that could quickly reinforce the armies at the front in the tactically decisive sectors.
Brute Force: Allied Strategy and Tactics, p. 99
That's what it sounds like to me. Are you seriously going to argue that logistical difficulties played no part in Third Kharkhov? What deliveries of certain supplies would have made something like Bagration so spectacularly successful?
>>
this thread got interesting now that people are calling tankies out on their unsourced stats and conjecture about hypothetical situations where the war was decided
>>
y did they give so little lend lease to china
>>
>>6302043
massive incompetence from the chinese government and no way to get it to them
throughout WW2 until the very end, Japan and USSR had a strict neutrality so they never tried to fire on LL shipments
>>
File: China Burma Road.jpg (917 KB, 2178x989)
917 KB
917 KB JPG
>>6302043
Because the Nip Army in China wasn't a mechanized force itself so the Ameriyanks gave the KMT/Whoever else was fighting in China a modicum of weapons and equipment to even the scales with the Nips like Shermans, some artillery, a some trucks, and planes.
>>
>>6301205
All info on trucks from "Journal of Slavic Military Studies" Vol. 10, June 1997, "Motor Vehicle Transport Deliveries through Lend-Lease" by V.F. Vorsin.

Additionally many of these people ignore the fact that the mathematics of soviet production do not include products from the previous decade of industry, which is why these statistics

Railroad Rails
Soviet Production 48,990
Allied Deliveries 622,100
Total 671,090
Allied Proportion 92.7%

Locomotives
Russian Production: 442
Allied Deliveries: 1966
Total: 2408
Allied Proportion: 81.6%

Rail cars
Soviet Production: 2635
Allied Deliveries: 11,075
Total: 13,710
Allied Proportion: 80.7%

Explosives (tons)
Soviet Production: 600,000
Allied Deliveries: 295,600
Total: 895,600
Allied Proportion: 33%

Copper Ore (in tons)
Soviet Production: 470,000
Allied Deliveries: 387,600
Total: 857,600
Allied Proportion: 45.2%

Aluminum (thousands of tons)
Soviet: 263
Allied Deliveries 328.1
Total: 591.1
Allied Proportion: 55.5%

Tires
Soviet Production: 8,368,000
Allied Deliveries: 3,606,000
Total: 11,974,000
Allied Proportion: 30.1%

Machine Tools
Soviet Production: 115,400
Allied Deliveries: 44,704
Total: 160,104
Allied Proportion: 27.9%

(Beaumont, Joan. Harrison, Mark. Accounting For War: Soviet Production, Employment, and the Defense Burden, 1941-1945)

Are not the same as what amount of domestic production was used in the war. If these railcars and trains were not sent the USSR would probably made do with the 20,000 locomotives and half a million freight cars she already had. This was displayed earlier when I counted the number of tanks the Soviet union had for 1941 including both pre-war stock and production of 1941. It is self-evident, that for tanks the USSR had over 2x more from pre-war production than what they produced in the first year meaning they started off with a significant number, which tips the balance from 20-50% and down into the previous 10%
>>
>>6301205
>>6301209
A study on soviet transport details the extent of soviet railways, shipping and other transportation: https://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/Soviet%20Union%20Study_8.pdf

>he will never answer
>the absolute state of
>>
File: 1552053421699.jpg (22 KB, 480x360)
22 KB
22 KB JPG
>>
>>6302043
They didn't actually want to give any to China. They did, because Stilwell was (the only one) arguing for it.
>>
>>6301943
see >>6302073
and >>6302075
What else? I have been debating this for years
>>
It appears my superiority has caused some controversy
>>
File: Zhukov_Quote.png (31 KB, 889x137)
31 KB
31 KB PNG
>>6302076
Good thing Zhukov's memoirs exist.
>>
>>6302037
Link me to an unsourced comment made by me and I will source it for you
see>>6302073
and>>6302091
Calling people tankies without providing evidence is beyond pathetic
>>
>>6302108
Georgy Zhukov is not a reliable source, he wouldn't know anything about Russian military capabilities in 1943
>>
>>6302109
your (arguably uncited sources) do not match up with cited and accepted sources from historians
>>
File: 1469359257389.jpg (18 KB, 204x202)
18 KB
18 KB JPG
>>6302115
>The most important Soviet Red Army General didn't know anything about Russian military capabilities
>>
>>6302037
>unsourced stats
Name one unsourced stat in this thread, I'll wait.
By the way, sitting in the backseat and flinging shit while others do your arguing is pathetic as fuck and doesn't change the established and verified narrative that LL was useless in deciding the eastern front ;), you can backseat seethe about it how much you want, though.
>>
>>6302091
>>6302109
Ignore him, he had a meltdown hours ago and started calling everything itt as "unsourced", he's trying to shill a narrative that he can stand on because he got his shit pushed in so hard he didn't know what to do. Note that he WILL reply to this post with some simmering mumblings about "unsourced statistics" that he can't point out, while absolutely refusing to cite anything on his own part.
>>
>>6302174
The post from the slave jounral of militaty studies has long been debunked as Commie propaganda

Also everything Glantz writes isnt worth the paper its written on. The man is a devout cultural Marxist
>>
lol
>>
>>6302192
>The post from the slave jounral of militaty studies has long been debunked as Commie propaganda
[citation needed]

>Also everything Glantz writes isnt worth the paper its written on. The man is a devout cultural Marxist
[citation needed]
>>
>>6302073
Nice Soviet propaganda Tumblr
>>
>>6302195
Not an argument tanki. How about some sources that didnt come from a biased source?

Oh wait

You have none. And even that rapid commie glantz aggress they couldnt have won the war without it
>>
>>6302192
The man is a 30 year veteran of the American military and fought in Nam. How the hell would he be a cultural Marxist?
>>
>>6302192
>idpol
This post isn't worth the metadata and the electrical power that published it and the 4chan server space that is going to be used to contain it.
Delete your post, rescind your double-digit IQ statement and discard yourself unto the trash where you belong.
>>
>>6302195
>slavic journal of military studies
>grand total of 271 citations (98 of them self citations) for no less than 817 published articles
oh no no no no no
>>
>>6302192
>>6302210
whats up with the rebbit spacing?
>>
>>6302210
>How about some sources that didnt come from a biased source?
Do you have a reading problem, or a thinking problem? You made two claims, that the Journal of Slavic Military Studies is "commie propaganda", and that Glantz is a "cultural Marxist". I'm calling bullshit on both. Prove your shit.

> And even that rapid commie glantz aggress they couldnt have won the war without it
Come on, show how Glantz is a commie. You clearly haven't read him, since his stance on LL is that it shortened the war and "saved lives" but did not change the ultimate outcome.
>>
>>6302214
>praises the commies at every chance
>did NOT see combat
>has a position at the RUSSIAN militay Academy

Idk anon you tell me. How would a 30 year veteran of the American communist party not be a Communist?
>>
>>6302091
Not seeing any numbers on trucks here, Glantz's figures have yet to be proven wrong.
>>
>>6302227
nice rebbit spacing lol
>>
File: Reddit Spacing.png (53 KB, 866x475)
53 KB
53 KB PNG
>>6302227
>>
>>6302225
>>6302231
>>6302237
the absolute state of this anon
>>
>>6302227
Do you have any proof of Glantz' membership of the American Communist Party? What Russian military academy does he have a position at? Are you aware that Russia is no longer communist?
>>
>>6302220
This, sadly, isn't actually too bad for a history journal
>>
>>6302243
OH NO NO NO NO HE'S HAVING A BREAKDOWN
>>
>>6302245
for a military history journal you are correct, for any other history journal this would get thrown in the trash
another reason why military """history""" is a joke
>>
>>6302249
I don't know, American Historical Review only has 1.145. Citation numbers in history journals are really pretty low unless there's a big fervent about something because of the focus on primary sources.

(I don't disagree with you about military history being a joke, but I don't think we can pull it up on this metric)
>>
>>6302119
sure they don't
not an argument
post sources that make mine invalid or don't reply
no one cares about your burger "opinion"
>>
>>6302179
I see, thanks
>>
>>6302201
not an argument
post sources that debunk mine or don't reply
>>
>>6302303
they're already in this thread, why post them again if you refuse to read anything
>>
>>6302210
sources that debunk those sources or don't reply
>>
>>6302318
>they're already in this thread
Not him but you're literally mentally challenged. Please consider getting a trip.
>>
despite the fact that this is one of the most controversial topics on /his/ and inevitably leads to shitflinging, this is one of the most well sourced threads by both sides that i've seen in a while, well done anons
>>
>>6302229
>All info on trucks from "Journal of Slavic Military Studies" Vol. 10, June 1997, "Motor Vehicle Transport Deliveries through Lend-Lease" by V.F. Vorsin.
Reading comprehension people
>>
>>6302324
David Glantz from "When Titans Clashed":

Lend-Lease trucks were particularly important to the Red Army, which was notoriously deficient in such equipment. By the end of the war, two out of every three Red Army trucks were foreign-built, including 409,000 cargo trucks and 47,000 Willys Jeeps.
>>6301943
>>
>>6302316
link them to me I won't scroll through all the American garbage spewing
>>
>>6302318
see>>6302333
>>
>>6302329
Exactly what are you responding to, with this statement? What point are you even trying to convey?
>>
>>6302338
>your numbers are wrong
>prove it
>it's already proven in the thread
>no
>look here
>what do you mean though
time to lay off the krokidil buddy
>>
>>6300798
is there an enforced curfew in america?
>>
>>6302358
it's called having a job, I guess this might be a mystery to people from Russia
>>
>>6302329
>Lend-Lease trucks were particularly important to the Red Army, which was notoriously deficient in such equipment. By the end of the war, two out of every three Red Army trucks were foreign-built, including 409,000 cargo trucks and 47,000 Willys Jeeps

Who argued against this? The statistics posted above that are relative to this data although David Glantz is one of the worst "historians" you could have given me since he is notoriously biased.
The discussion is about whether the supplies America sent before the decisive point of the war tipped the scale. The decisive point is commonly Acknowledged as August 1942( which is already too generous) anything after that only sped up the process but did not influence the outcome.
Even if the states hypothetically sent 900k Trucks( Vehicles capable of transporting) in 1945 would you still argue that that made America's role in deciding the war crucial?
>>
>>6302371
>although David Glantz is one of the worst "historians" you could have given me since he is notoriously biased
????
>>
>>6302371
I think he's schizoid. Be easy on him.
>>
>>6302108
How much sheet steel DID we give them?

And I heard Japan never (even after dow) interfered with pacific shipments to the Soviets for fear of provoking them. Is that true?
>>
>>6302371
you do realize historians only say the battle was decided at Stalingrad for a compounding list of events that happened not only within Russia bout without, correct?
it is disingenuous to imply that Russia solely decided the war, because without allied help even if they won at Stalingrad we have no idea if the Germans would have been able to recover for a strong spring and summer offensive or if the Russians would have been able to prolong their offensive
it's too many ifs and possibilities that make arguing events like this ridiculous
thankfully we have the people who were actually in charge of these matters to state that, yes allied help did give Russia the push to move forward>>6302108
>>
>>6302403
Good thing that you know better than Most Historians, how come you aren't a University Professor then?
>>
>>6302043
Lend lease gave humongous amounts to koumintang
Don't get me started on how hilariously incompetent they were. They made the Soviets look like they cared about their peasants.
>>
>>6302403
Maybe Historians have access to a greater deal of data and a better world picture than contemporaries of the war?
>>
>>6302414
pretty sure Zhukov had a better idea of what his military needed to win than some armchair /his/torian
>>
>>6302403
There is nothing to suggest a German recovery but we have the preceding 5 years, at least, to suggest that the Germans were running with chronic deficits of key materials.
No serious historian takes the word of the generals at a) face value or b) as anything resembling the final say, because it isn't how to do historical research. This is historiography 101
>>
>>6302412
Overall amount given to the KMT was relatively small compared to other beneficiaries of it.

https://www.scribd.com/document/270450475/United-States-Army-in-World-War-II-Statistics-LendLease

From pages 10-11
>The War Department furnished lend-lease goods or services to about 50 countries during the war. The British Empire, with the exception of Canada, received approximately 58% of the dollar values of shipments and transfers. The USSR received nearly 23 precent, French Forces 8 percent, China 7 percent, and Brazil and Canada a little less than 1 percent each.
>>
>>6302418
Not once did I mention any man on /his/ but academically accepted historians
>>
>>6302429
this thread can't even agree, either side, if Gantz is an accepted historian
>>
>>6302414
Doesn't matter the benefit if hindsight changes nothing for the contemporaries war planning in the moment. Even if statistically true the effect of morale on the Soviets planning a bold offensive believing that they would have the resupply later can't be understated.
>>
File: 4chan history.gif (62 KB, 768x695)
62 KB
62 KB GIF
>>6302466
>>
File: 1517249904982.jpg (30 KB, 503x604)
30 KB
30 KB JPG
Can somebody explain to me why should i even care about lend lease in the first place, considering the germans without foreign aid wouldnt be even able to invade the nearest starbucks?
>>
>>6302477
apparently France was closer than the nearest Starbucks
>>
File: 1552066950506.png (62 KB, 386x386)
62 KB
62 KB PNG
>>6302115
>>
File: 1514505311742.jpg (34 KB, 560x407)
34 KB
34 KB JPG
>>6302481
no, seriously, why do americans have such a fixation on the subject?
dont they learn at school that germany without foreign aid wouldnt be able to invade a whorehouse, let alone another country?
>>
>>6302501
because they invaded a lot of countries without foreign aid
currently they've invaded every member of the EU
>>
>>6302501
I don't even think the average American could tell you what Lend Lease is. Just nationalistic retards on the internet screeching as usual.
>>
>>6302471
WTF did /his/ ever do to Dr. Seuss?
>>
>>6302501
>fixation
What do you mean?
>>
>>6302501
Generally speaking the German war performance is lionised thanks to many of the Wehrmacht generals being the sole source of US information on their conduct during the war
>>
>>6302507
they wouldnt even invade Poland if they didnt get 90% of oil from the Soviet Union, and gigantic financial aid from a dozen other nations, let alone invade France, or, im holding laughter here, the Soviet Union.
Do you even know how many million non-german troops invaded Russia on Barbarossa's 1st day?
>>6302518
americans have an obvious fixation, or in other words, an obsession, on this subject.
Every other country is educated enough not to even care about this, because there is no reason to care about this, but americans seems intent on making themselves feel more important in WW2 European Theatre by reminding everybody non-stop about lend lease, and its absolutely over-exaggerated influence in the Russian successes against the germans.
>>
>>6302427
Yeah. Because we couldn't get any of it to them (there were hundreds of thousands of tons sitting at the dock in Burma when the nips overran it) and they wouldn't use it when they did get it.

I'll pull out my copy of Stilwell and the American Experience in China (Tuchman) when I get home.
>>
>>6302538
Do you think op was an American?
>>
>>6302558
Oh, to be sure, and I've read Tuchman's work myself (I particularly liked the business about Chiang being unaware of monsoon season in Burma), but the anons I was responding to >>6302412
>>6302043
seemed to be under the impression that China got a lot. At least by LL budgetary concerns, it didn't, and a lot of that was transporation issues; with the coast occupied, the Burma Road cut off for almost all of the war, and the Ledo Road only finished a few months before the war ended, almost everything had to be flown over the Hump, and that's not a very efficient way of moving things.
>>
>>6302560
absolutely.
>>
>>6302575
Do you think it's bait, contrarian belief, or some American who genuinely believes that?
>>
>>6302560
>>6302575
I'm OP
I'm not an American nor a Russian nor a Euro.
>>
>>6302607
Condolences, but that still doesn't excuse the person you've become.
>>
>>6302625
I'm sorry I destroyed the fanfiction you used against tankies when they called you a walmart shitting landwhale.
>>
>>6302564
Let's see what stands out...

Descriptions of the hilarious corruption endemic in everything, to the point of the one Chinese regiment that suffered 40% attrition in one year with zero enemy contact.
The lend lease catalogs being thrown open to the Chinese, and the Chinese going, "I want this, and this, and this -" up to, and including, heavy tanks that could not use a single Chinese road or bridge.
Chiang telling an officer, in command of six well equipped, western trained divisions bordering occupied Burma, "Only use one division at a time. Because were you to use two, and they were both destroyed, we would only have four [of six] well equipped, western trained divisions."

And possibly my favorite, Stilwell visiting a Chinese company, the most valuable in the current OOB, because it has *organic artillery*, the night before action. He visits them the next day to find they've already packed up and stowed their artillery for transport because "It's the reason we're the most valuable company. If we lost it, we would no longer be the best company. Therefore, we can't risk it in combat."
>>
>>6302633
Destroyed with what, brother? Your own fanfiction? Were you the one claiming an army of tanks with no logistics or communication was more important than an army of trucks?

For real, brother. This doesn't become you.
>>
>>6302655
tanks without logistic and truck support are just really bad artillery emplacements
he doesn't know any better
>>
File: Strawman.png (378 KB, 664x628)
378 KB
378 KB PNG
>>6302655
When is the time when you stop utilising faecal matter for arguing?
>>
>>6302746
Try posting something relevant, like statistics or quotations from a primary or secondary source, anon!
>>
>>6302771
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear that from the top of my pile of sources and citations.
>>
File: ww2-jun2010-glantz (1).jpg (135 KB, 443x265)
135 KB
135 KB JPG
>>6302771
>>6302780
You guys are both communists and degenerates. Just like your hero (((((glantz)))))
>>
>>6302788
I don't know anything about this guy. What's wrong with him? Some people seem to think he's a commie, but like... Do you think there are historians who don't have opinions on how human society should be organized?

Can you give evidence that he showed bias in his work, rather than evidence that he had a bias he might have let show in his work, if he was unprofessional enough?
>>
>>6302798
His work wanking off the most brutal regime in human history, and his heritace are proof enough. That and his Association with the Russian Federation
>>
>>6302806
>subjective opinion
>retarded reason
>retarded and unrelated reason
How low should my IQ be to think like this and still call someone else biased?
>>
>>6299629
>>85% of the Lend-Lease supplies arrived after January 1943, after the Battle of Stalingrad. At this time, the Soviet victory was clear. The Lend-Lease came too late to be the decisive factor in the Soviet victory, but it increased the speed with which the German Army was defeated
This is simply wrong. Germany could still have beaten the soviets after Stalingrad.
>>
>>6302821
>t. wehraboo
>>
>>6302823
Nope, more like a realityaboo. Germany had some 40% of their military focused away from the fighting in eastern europe from 1943 onward, combine that with indisputable fact that the Soviets received vast quantities of food and assorted other forms of logistical support from abroad which is what ultimately allowed them to conduct the highly mobile counter-offensives that occurred after the German offensives in 1943 were halted and the actual reality of the matter is quite clear to anyone who isn't a Sovietaboo.
>>
>>6302836
Based on what do you make this extremely contrarian statement?
>>
File: 1447050138376.gif (3.46 MB, 377x372)
3.46 MB
3.46 MB GIF
>>6302836
>"no im a realibtyboo"
>followed with unbelievable levels of revisionism
>>
>>6302844
Which part? The 40% figure?
>>German deployments to the Western Front (including North Africa and Italy) reached levels as high as approximately 40% of their ground forces, and 75% of the Luftwaffe. During 1944, there were approximately 69 German divisions in France, in Italy there were around 19. (Approximate data is given because the number of units changed over time as a result of troop transfers and the arrival of new units.) Keegan, John. The Second World War.

The importance of lend lease? Well let's see now, armies do not march on an empty stomach, trucks are really helpful for keeping up with tanks when you're on the offensive, and radios along with other assorted logistical supplies are really important for conduction military operations. Any other obvious questions?

>>6302861
Ironic, coming from someone who takes that revisionist faggot glantz seriously.
>>
>>6302879
>Stalingrad was not the turning point
What was the turning point then, Mr. Turborevisionist?
>divisions stationed in France and Italy
were literally bottom of the barrel late war scrapings and conscripted/auxiliary units.
>reached as high as 40%
Maybe only after the ones in the eastern front got annihilated.
https://www.axishistory.com/axis-nations/134-campaigns-a-operations/campaigns-a-operations/2085-number-of-german-divisions-by-front-in-world-war-ii
>>
File: 1531333735269.jpg (30 KB, 470x470)
30 KB
30 KB JPG
>revisionist nigger gets so desperate he starts downplaying stalingrad's significance
>>
>>6302879
>>6302908
>armies do not march on an empty stomach
The foodstuff delivered to the USSR was like 1% of what they produced.
>trucks are really helpful for keeping up with tanks when you're on the offensive and radios along with other assorted logistical supplies are really important for conduction military operations
Case in point. Can you make a meaningful argument in regards to their importance to deciding the war, though?
>>
>>6302908
>>6302918
Why are you still arguing with this shiteater? He's gonna run through miles of fake history cope instead of admitting LL came too late to change the course of war.
>>
File: David 004 (2).jpg (788 KB, 2048x1536)
788 KB
788 KB JPG
Why is he so smug

(Is it because he's right)
>>
>>6301526
>>6301714
>still not refutation of this
>>
The architect of Soviet victory.
>>
>>6303220
Based Khan

T. Russian
>>
File: 1080x360_1.jpg (83 KB, 1080x360)
83 KB
83 KB JPG
>>6303195
>still qoating blatant Russian propaganda
>>
>>6303338
>still quoting nonhistory sci fi
>still cant refute anything
>still btfo
>>
>>6303220
>Soviet Union actually benefited from Great Depression, because it enabled them to hire unemployed talent from US
Soviets took a rural backwater shithole, and turned into a supowerpower. Can you imagine the sort of power US could achieve if it wasn't capitalist?
>>
>>6302501
>when you make an absolutely retarded post.
>>
>>6303374
do you not really understand what the industrial revolution was for the US?
>>
>>6301412
Bro, not him but you are providing no argument nor sources but instead rely on miningles insults and proving your case to be true.
You look very incopetent and like you're simply lacking any alternative information besides personal emotion. You look like a goof in other words...
>>
>>6303568
He's a pseud and probably a bideo gamer zoomer. He doesn't have any sources. He probably never even read anything Glantz but jumped on the bias bandwagon when he saw others calling Glantz a biased historian (in addition to going full schizophrenic and calling everything itt uncited).
>>
File: americans itt.png (18 KB, 612x516)
18 KB
18 KB PNG
Americans are still crying over their uselessness a day after? lmao
>>
I'm so confused by this thread. Tons of people citing data and sources yet they don't know anything about them? You guys know that the Journal of Slavic Military Studies is one of the best journals about the eastern front in WW2 right? You also do realize that all the researchers there are under the tutelage of DAVID GLANTZ, the person that wrote all those old and outdated works you're citing in refutation?
>>
>>6299629
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/31608689/#31614291
>>
>>6299629
>this meme again
>>
>>6304708
cope
>>
>>6303338
>not reading the quoted posts
How are they "russian propaganda" you dunce? I'm 100% certain you're a Russian trying to make American posters in this thread look retarded.
>>
>>6303568
>provides a bad source that is the equivalent of "I saw it in a dream"
>still butthurt about getting called out about the bad source
I've provided a ton of sources in this thread, some from Glantz
it's not my fault you dumb slavnigers don't read and still can't refute this>>6301526
>>
>>6299629
Truman was still right when he said that…
>If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany and that way let them kill as many as possible…
>>
>>6304854
>some from Glantz
you've provided one quote by Glantz which didn't even address the points you were trying to make.
Stop sperging you fucking retard.

>it's not my fault you dumb slavnigers don't read and still can't refute this>>6301526
This was probably not even your post. But even if it is, no one cares about it. This is a thread about LL and you're trying to cope by getting trumped so hard by running to a completely external thing to salvage yourself.
>the absolute state of you
>>
>>6304714
cope about what? something that's been refuted countless times already?
>>
>>6303906
Slav brainlet, please see. >>6303220
>>
>>6305083
Sorry you can't argue, muttnik.
>>
>>6305105
0/10
>>
>>6305133
Are you of the G. goblino mutticus species or the C. hepatitis americanus species?
>>
>Military history
>>
>>6305083
How is this an Argument. Tbe Soviets KNEW America was the most industrial nation on earth. Which is why they employed them. Its not like the Soviets kidnapped Albert Khan so his work to industralize SOVIET industry under the leadership of the SOVIET government doesnt count
>>
>>6305083
Not a Slav, keep grasping at straws amerimongrel lmao
>>
>>6301153
dumb post
>>
File: l01_02_07_01_img01.jpg (134 KB, 720x574)
134 KB
134 KB JPG
>>6305207
>>6305290
STILL Booty-blasted that the USSR couldn't beat a resource bankrupt state the size of Texas three years late to the rearmament party without Americanskii know how.

>>6305207
Goblinos that trained your engineers, designed your factories and provided you with precision machine tools to industrialize. What's worse being a mutt or having the beg for their technical expertise so you don't get beat by Germany (again)? LOL

>>6305282
Its an argument because American tech transfer in the 1930s was a key component to Soviet victory. Extracting tech transfer is what nations with smart leadership do (USSR, Japan, Korea, China). Stalin gets big props for doing in record time, though he had greater resources and human capital than the Asian tigers. Failing nations (UK, USA) give their hard earned technical advantage away.

Pic is Toyoda at River Rouge in 1950, who brought back precision American machine tool and scaling techniques back to Japan to make the greatest auto company on earth. So say it with me /his/ brainlets:

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events (truck statistics); small minds discuss people."
>>
>>6305538
tldr lmao
cope harder
>>
>>6304915
>Gantz opinions and numbers on LL have nothing to do with LL
yikes
>>
File: xgorxiy1z4s11.png (61 KB, 500x500)
61 KB
61 KB PNG
>>6305544
*beep* *boop* Engage though terminating cliche
>>
>>6301526
Dvorkin´s work is quite frankly usatisfactory
>He inserts way too much politics into the work, that's a HUGE red flag
>Unsatisfactory sourcing, author uses only 2 Russian (Krivosheyev and Gribanov) authors for minor information. When he finds a contradiction between Russian and western sources, he finds one western source that would fit his narrative, then he claims the Russian one is lying and ignores other western sources, that might be in the middle or even support the Soviet one
>He substantiates his politics by using Incorrect statics (page: 292). Wiki has good explanation why he's wrong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin)
>On page 300 author claims that USSR had "numerical advantage" during Barbarossa, doesn't even bother to substantiate this claim
>On page 303 author accuses Krivosheyev of falshehood, but doesn't understand what the numbers mean. German sources count total captured personel (arriving at number around 3M), while the numbers cited for Krivosheyev counts only mobilized soldiers.(that being 2.3M), if we add the Russian number for captured reservists (~0.5M) we'll note that the numbers of POWs will now match. Not sure about the deaths, that would require quite a lot of reserach.
>On page 305 he claims that BT-series and T-26 were superiour to PzKpfw II, PzKpfw 38(t). Then he claims that the early T34 were "far superiour" to PzKpfw III and IV. Basis for this reasoning? Russian tanks had guns of bigger caliber. In this whole debate about tanks he ignores the lack of radios, which was critical.
>Most importantly it doesn't even properly engage the fucking lend-lease, where are the details for OP Barbarossa and OP Blau?

cont.
>>
does anyone other than muttoids actually think they had any impact whatsoever on the war?
>>
>>6305739
no
>>
>>6299753
Only brainlets believe this.

>"American industry was important to the war effort."
>"N-Nuh uh the Russians didn't need it!!!"

You'd be right if it weren't for the fact that American aid provided a huge stopgap for the Allies early into the war. It'd be equally silly to just assume Russia would automatically lose, but the Allied invasion of France and the diversion of resources it required coming years later due to not having the equipment certainly would have had an unknow impact on the course of the war. A world where the USSR loses is not impossible in that scenario.

"America won the war" is a myth, but the outcome would not have been the same had they stayed quiet. To claim otherwise is just as small-brained, Ivan.
>>
>>6305582
>On page 307 Dvorkin again accuses Krivosheyev of lying over 230-300 tanks. He doesnt go into detail what's going on, he just uses the broad numbers. He then immediatly uses this as a proof that Soviet tank casulties were underrated.
>From page 303: "The kill ratio between German and Soviet tanks in 1941 was 6 or 7 to 1, meaning that Rommel and a potential ‘Russland Corps’ could have destroyed an additional 2,000 to 3,000 Soviet tanks, had they been deployed to Russia instead of North Africa." This is ridicilous statement that shows author's inability to understand war.
>From page 313"The greatest problem (of fall blau) was the slow loss of air superiority on the Eastern Front". Unsurprisingly he doesn't source this claim, because no one else claimed that the fall blau was won on the skies.
>From page 313: "At Stalingrad, the Soviets forced German mobile units into costly close-range urban warfare, similar to World War I trench warfare, where they were unable to use their tanks and tactical skill." When you enter city, you suddently lose "tactical skill"? Excellent logic, mr. Dvorkin.
>From page 315: "the Red Army continued to use Western tanks and aircraft in large quantities. This indicates that the Soviets truly needed them; otherwise they would not have used equipment they considered inferior." That's not how war works, mr. Dvorkin. When you have tank you use it, regardles if you have other tanks that are better.
>From page 594: A military way of knocking out Britain from the war was difficult but possible. Had the Luftwaffe pursued different tactics during the Battle of Britain, it could have achieved air superiority, which would have enabled German units to invade Britain safely and defeat the weak and ill-equipped British forces on the island." Sourced by W. R. Townshend. In Dvorkin's work there are other examples of "extraordinary" claims sourced by this guy.
>>
>>6302358
No but we have something called sleeping
>>
>>6305918
Looked further into this Townshend character and got this:
>https://www.amazon.com/OPERATION-GOLDFINGER-FREEDOMS-AGAINST-SLAVERY-ebook/dp/B00D09DGNG/ref=sr_1_3?qid=1552767582&refinements=p_27%3ARoger+Townshend&s=digital-text&sr=1-3&text=Roger+Townshend
I think we can conclude that he's not a reliable source.

But that's not the only "problematic" source, Dvorkin goes all out and cites even B.V. Sokolov, literature historian infamous for his dishonest scholarship. Wiki has info on his methods
>https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coкoлoв,_Бopиc_Baдимoвич
See chapter "kritika"

tl;dr
>Dvorkin is blatantly biased, this article is basically a propaganda piece outright speaking about contemponary politics
>His sources lack in quality and quantity, some of his critical points lie on unreliable authors
>He doesn't do research himself, he merely does a review
>He doesn't understand how does military work
>He accuses his seniours of lying, while only tackling their work only superficially. Generally he's eager to jump to conclusion without searching for evidence to the contrary.
>>
>>6305799
>e, but the Allied invasion of France and the diversion of resources it required coming years later due to not having the equipment certainly would have had an unknow impact on the course of the war.
Would have a minimal impact, the Germans were getting hopelessly steamrolled with ease by then, a few divisions more would not have changed jackshit when the overwhelming majority of the wehrmacht was helpless and could not do anymore than retreating
>>
>>6305990
they were shit divisions, too. mostly scrapings and understrength volksturm intended to just slow down an allied advance from the west.
>>
>>6305999
True as well
>>
>>6305799
The war was decided by the time D-Day occurred, brainlet.
>>
>>6306052
haha bro what if rommel just became leader of the reich after july 20 and beat up montgomery and zukov in a fist fight to end the war
>>
>>6306771
The Russians would have sent Russokovsky, he'd fold Rommel in two.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.