# WW2



## Nielsen_Noetic (27 Feb 2005)

Sorry if this has been done; I was just talking about this with a friend yesterday, he believes we would have won.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (28 Feb 2005)

It's a good question; I think it is obviously very speculative, but the answer for me is a big NO.


----------



## T.I.M. (28 Feb 2005)

Well, I'd suggest the question needs a bit more definition.

Does American help just mean actual military intervention, or does it include _all_ aid, including lend/lease and other military supplies?

Also how does Japan (I imagine that the intent of this was to focus on Germany) factor into the question?


To summarize, my personal feeling is that without _any_ help at all, including American material aid, the Germans would have been able to achieve a favourable stalemate with regards to Britain and Russia.  Though not outright total conquest it would have meant large swathes of the Soviet Union permanently in the Reich's hands, and German hegemony over the European continent.

Without military intervention, but with continued American material aid, I think the Allies would probably still have won, though Britain would have become an insignificant factor by war's end and the conflict would have been decided by the Soviet Union, which would subsequently have become the dominant power over all of Europe, though at a higher cost in lives and subsequently resulting in a much longer war recovery process.


----------



## Nielsen_Noetic (28 Feb 2005)

I agree T.I.M it does depend on a lot of thing's, I also agree that the U.S.S.R would have eventually prevailed over Germany. I was posing the question with the premise that material support would have continued. 
You must all keep in mind as well though that Canada had quite few troops being held back in Canada as well as nearly a million troops in Britain doing nothing but training for a little over two years. Not to mention the large amount of supplies coming out of Canada.
Oh and presume the U.S. did go to war with Japan.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (28 Feb 2005)

Nielsen_Noetic said:
			
		

> I agree T.I.M it does depend on a lot of thing's, I also agree that the U.S.S.R would have eventually prevailed over Germany. I was posing the question with the premise that material support would have continued.
> You must all keep in mind as well though that Canada had quite few troops being held back in Canada as well as nearly a million troops in Britain doing nothing but training for a little over two years. Not to mention the large amount of supplies coming out of Canada.
> Oh and presume the U.S. did go to war with Japan.



Canada at no time had a million troops in the entire world, much less in Great Britain.  We had 1,000,000 men and women in all three services, over the course of the entire war.  Peak strength in Britain was probably less than 500,000, but I'd have to check to be sure.  I think 350,000 might be closer to the mark.

Canada didn't have all that many troops being "held back" in Canada - there were the Zombies, but they were eventually employed in the Aleutians, and in early 1945 a few thousand of them arrived in NW Europe, though their arrival came after the need for conscripts had largely abated (three months of rest after the Scheldt, plus many remusters, helped salvage the problem).


----------



## Nielsen_Noetic (28 Feb 2005)

I regress; your right regarding the statistics in Great Britain and those regarding our active troop strength during the war I must have meant a million troops in the entire forces. I will however back my statement that we had many troops being held back in Canada. For numerous reasons not least of which being we were holding basically every German prisoner coming out of the western theater.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (28 Feb 2005)

Nielsen_Noetic said:
			
		

> I regress; your right regarding the statistics in Great Britain and those regarding our active troop strength during the war I must have meant a million troops in the entire forces. I will however back my statement that we had many troops being held back in Canada. For numerous reasons not least of which being we were holding basically every German prisoner coming out of the western theater.



I was under the impression the Veteran's Guard of Canada guarded German prisoners of war.   Are you familiar with them?  Perhaps you can explain to me how WW I vets in excess of 40 and 50 years of age could have been better employed in a theatre of war?

I was further under the impression sizeable numbers of Germans and Italians were held in camps in the UK and in the United States of America.


----------



## Nielsen_Noetic (28 Feb 2005)

When the United States joined the war yes but until then no, many of the men from the African corps were kept in England Scotland and wales. The majority however of POW's came to Canada, and yes I am familiar with them. Your assuption however that because these men were used as gaurds all gaurds were from the veterans gaurd is inapt. In fact they had a lot of trouble with the German soldiers being abused by the younger men gaurding them.


----------



## big bad john (28 Feb 2005)

Please use the spell check, it makes it easier for all of us.


----------



## Jonny Boy (28 Feb 2005)

i think the allies would of won the war but it would of taken years and years longer.

i know the American went through some intense fighting and had many casualties ( band of brothers for example) but the allies could of done it.  although i am very happy the Americans did join  in because they assisted the allies in such a large way that it ended the war so much faster.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (28 Feb 2005)

-Hutch- said:
			
		

> i think the allies would of won the war but it would of taken years and years longer.
> 
> i know the American went through some intense fighting and had many casualties ( band of brothers for example) but the allies could of done it.   although i am very happy the Americans did join   in because they assisted the allies in such a large way that it ended the war so much faster.



Every single tank in every single Canadian Armoured Regiment in combat after August 1942 was built where?

Hint - it is not the Montreal Locomotive works.

Same goes for the majority of British Armoured Regiments in Italy and NW Europe.

Just for a couple of examples.


----------



## putz (28 Feb 2005)

I voted yes but can I go back and change it to no....  I do believe that the Germans were only a year or so away from creating an Atomic Weapon by the end of the war.  IF the US had not joined the conflict I believe that the Russians would have run over right to the boarder of France.  However, if the Germans were not fighting the Americans on the West maybe they could have used the extra forces in the east.....  I think one could go crazy going over the buts and what ifs.


----------



## Nielsen_Noetic (1 Mar 2005)

Yes the possibilities are truly gawk worthy in there magnitude, though I still hold to the idea that Russia would have eventually won the war. Also; yes the United States did make most of our armour due to the fact they were at war with Germany as well, but even if they weren't and were at war with Japan. I could not see them refusing to build our armour for our fight as well. Everyones always looking to make a buck especially those in a squeeze.


----------



## pbi (1 Mar 2005)

> though I still hold to the idea that Russia would have eventually won the war



I would suggest that we should be very careful not to underestimate the massive Lend Lease contributions by the US and British Empire to the USSR: the provision of thousands of trucks, halftracks, tanks, radios, food items, boots, etc allowed the Soviets to focus much of their industrial effort on AFVs, artillery and aircraft.

Cheers


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Mar 2005)

Not a prayer.  At the highest level, WW II was a war of attrition.

One thing to add to consideration of the East Front is the flexibility the Soviets gained to redeploy their far eastern forces once it was clear Japan was going to be heavily engaged against the US.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Mar 2005)

Winston Churchill, upon hearing that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour, was said to have exclaimed "So we did win the war, after all!" - I believe he was right.


----------



## Jonny Boy (2 Mar 2005)

-Hutch- said:
			
		

> i think the allies would of won the war but it would of taken years and years longer.
> 
> i know the American went through some intense fighting and had many casualties ( band of brothers for example) but the allies could of done it.  although i am very happy the Americans did join  in because they assisted the allies in such a large way that it ended the war so much faster.




OK after really thinking hard about this and talking to a few people (i.e my grandpa ex RCAF during 2nd world war) i would like to change my answer to no.  my grandpa told me that the Americans had 3 soldiers for every 1 British/ Canadian soldier.

they did offer a large number in the fight against the German army. although i do believe and it is in a book i have seen that the British (Montgomery) and the Canadians were the brains of the war and the Americans just had the man power to get the job done.  unfortunately patton and Eisenhower took all the credit and glory.  

for an example of how the British and Canadians were better and smarter is operation overlord A.K.A D-Day. the British and Canadian troops used armored vehicles and tanks to storm the beaches and have less casualties. however on the American side they just used man power and were nearly pushed back into the water by the germans. i believe in the book it said that the Americans had only advanced a measly 100 yard 2 days after landing on the beach. And on saving private Ryan it made it look so easy ha


----------



## Docherty (2 Mar 2005)

Germany had a stronger sence of nationalism as well they wanted the retain the goals of the "German Ambition" which took almost 20 years to achieve.  German was also ahead of us in Nuclear Engineering but we some how made the "bomb" before them


----------



## Long in the tooth (2 Mar 2005)

The military potential released by the US during the WW 2 was truly awesome.   Most of the hydro electric projects built in the Pacific Northwest were used to light Seattle, power metal smelters and run the huge Boeing plant.   The Columbia (Grand Coulee Dam) and snake rivers were harnessed and the power was used for the most part for military ends.   I mention this as in modern day industrial societies power (and the price of it) is the main determinate of output.   As the only (major) combatant with industrial infrastructure undamaged and with a true mass production philosophy, the US was the major producer of naval and heavy air assets.

Without the US there is no Torch, Husky, Anzio or D Day.   The bombing campain would never have gotten off the ground.


----------



## Jonny Boy (2 Mar 2005)

OK but the whole planing and organizing of d-day was done by Montgomery. all he needed was the bodies to do it. and after the invasion was complete whole got all the credit and who still gets all the credit?

thats right the Americans


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 Mar 2005)

-Hutch- said:
			
		

> OK but the whole planing and organizing of d-day was done by Montgomery. all he needed was the bodies to do it. and after the invasion was complete whole got all the credit and who still gets all the credit?
> 
> thats right the Americans



Unless people start actually reading some actual history texts/quoting sources or at least make an attempt to look intelligent, I think this one may need to be locked up, too.  I have no idea which comic book you pulled this information out of, but if you can cite a credible source I for one would love to hear it.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Mar 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Unless people start actually reading some actual history texts/quoting sources or at least make an attempt to look intelligent, I think this one may need to be locked up, too.   I have no idea which comic book you pulled this information out of, but if you can cite a credible source I for one would love to hear it.



Thanks Michael, I was going to say that as well.

Please use "Real History" to back your claims up instead of just saying anything that comes to your mind.

Hutch, Docherty - look into the actual planning for "Overlord" and the British resistance to it (due to its interference in their Mediterranean strategy).   As well, look at the high level strategic relationships and the nature of the Anglo-American alliance.   Finally, try reading actual battle studies of the respective beaches of Normandy instead of just going off of Saving Private Ryan for analysis of tactical approaches.   You kids have some homework to do.


----------



## Torlyn (2 Mar 2005)

Wow.    I've wanted to jump in here a few times, but it's hard to type when your jaw is on the floor.  So, Michael, Infanteer, you mean war ISN'T like private ryan, Band of Brothers, Full Metal Jacket, JAG, (am I missing any here?)...  Sigh.  I was all confused for a while there...   :

As to the actual question, there IS no answer.  I mean, there are a million what if's that could have changed the outcome of WWII.  What if the treaty of versailles was more lenient?  What if the great depression had never happened?  What if England and France had mobilized sooner and attacked Germany in Poland?  (Er, I know they weren't ready to, M & I )  What if Hilter's drawings had actually got him in to art school?  IT's a great opinion question, but it seems to be leaning towards a "we didn't need the Americans then and we don't now" sort of bend, which has been rehashed too many times on this board already.

Could we have won without them?  Doesn't really matter now, as we did win with them.   

T


----------



## Infanteer (2 Mar 2005)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> As to the actual question, there IS no answer.   I mean, there are a million what if's that could have changed the outcome of WWII.



Yup.

That is why I like to stay away from "What If's", they really are pointless.  I think that the only point that can be made here is that with a cursory examination of the historical record the US contribution to the Defeat of Fascism was just as important as that of the British Commonwealth and/or the Soviet Union.

Infanteer Out.


----------



## pbi (2 Mar 2005)

> they did offer a large number in the fight against the German army. although i do believe and it is in a book i have seen that the British (Montgomery) and the Canadians were the brains of the war and the Americans just had the man power to get the job done.  unfortunately patton and Eisenhower took all the credit and glory.
> 
> for an example of how the British and Canadians were better and smarter is operation overlord A.K.A D-Day. the British and Canadian troops used armored vehicles and tanks to storm the beaches and have less casualties. however on the American side they just used man power and were nearly pushed back into the water by the germans. i believe in the book it said that the Americans had only advanced a measly 100 yard 2 days after landing on the beach. And on saving private Ryan it made it look so easy ha



 :  ???  :-X.  Go back and read a few history books, please!

Cheers.


----------



## Jonny Boy (2 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Thanks Michael, I was going to say that as well.
> 
> Please use "Real History" to back your claims up instead of just saying anything that comes to your mind.
> 
> Hutch, Docherty - look into the actual planning for "Overlord" and the British resistance to it (due to its interference in their Mediterranean strategy).   As well, look at the high level strategic relationships and the nature of the Anglo-American alliance.   Finally, try reading actual battle studies of the respective beaches of Normandy instead of just going off of Saving Private Ryan for analysis of tactical approaches.   You kids have some homework to do.



i will get the book that all the information is in. it is a 800 page novle all about mongumary. i dont just make up history. and i am *NOT A KID* you do some reserch and find the defanition of a "kid". if it has anything to do with being a son or daughter than guess what so are you

it is true that mongumary had the whole idea of d-day before the americans joined the war. it may of been changed a bit when the americans joined though. 

 i was told by the person (which is a ww2 vet) that is reading the book that the americans were only like 100 yards or meters off the beach after 2 days of fighting.

so when i find out what book it is i will put it on.

i dont think that we need to lock this. i think we are all old enough and mature enough to keep it appropriate.


----------



## Gunner (2 Mar 2005)

Hutch, if you want to be treated like an adult, I suggest your first action should be working on your grammer, punctuation and spelling.  Who or what is mongumary?  Your post make no sense at all and I can only guess what the point of it is.


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Mar 2005)

-Hutch- said:
			
		

> i was told by the person (which is a ww2 vet) that is reading the book that the americans were only like 100 yards or meters off the beach after 2 days of fighting.



You may wish to check your facts before posting. Some assault beaches met heavy resistance, others saw good advances made even on D-Day itself.


Utah Beach - http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/dday/utah.aspx



> By the end of the day, the 4th Division had established a 4-mile deep penetration inland and were within reach of Ste-Mere-Eglise, where the 82nd had fought throughout the night.



Omaha Beach - http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/dday/omaha.aspx



> The landings at Omaha Beach had incurred significant casualties and in fact, the enemy defenses were stronger than expected. Very little progress had been made in the push to the interior and this caused significant backups on the beach. Of the 2,400 tons that were planned to arrive on the beach on D-Day, only 100 tons were delivered. Operations on the 7th and 8th of June would be spent deepening the bridgehead.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 Mar 2005)

-Hutch- said:
			
		

> i will get the book that all the information is in. it is a 800 page novle all about mongumary.



Oh...a NOVEL!   Well why didn't you say so?   Of course it is correct.



> it is true that mongumary had the whole idea of d-day before the americans joined the war.



WHO??????

The Americans joined the war in 1941, and in 1942 planned for an invasion of Europe - the British actually vetoed the plans (do a google search on ROUNDUP and SLEDGEHAMMER) because the bulk of the force would be British.   Churchill insisted on the Mediterranean route to Germany - Italy and the Balkans.   The Americans fought vehemently for a NW Europe landing and wanted to do so in 1942, then 1943.   The British kept refusing, insisting the Mediterranean route would be much easier.   Poltically, both sides eventually agreed that the NW Europe route would be necessary.




> it may of been changed a bit when the americans joined though.



WRONG



> i was told by the person (which is a ww2 vet) that is reading the book that the americans were only like 100 yards or meters off the beach after 2 days of fighting.



WRONG - Utah and Omaha beaches were both cleared on 6 June, ie D-Day itself and troops were well inland by early evening.   


> so when i find out what book it is i will put it on.



Can't wait.




> i dont think that we need to lock this. i think we are all old enough and mature enough to keep it appropriate.



I have a hard time believing anyone posting drivel as inane as yousr could actually be genuinely that ignorant - so unless you can prove that you're not simply trolling for a response, I'd suggest this thread gets locked up.


----------



## Jonny Boy (2 Mar 2005)

i usually do a spell check and i think you know who i meant.
the spell checker was acting up and not working right. for example if i miss spelt today the spell check would correct it and put todtoday. so that is why my last post had bad spelling.
and since when is spelling a factor on how much of an adult you are? it doesn't. there are plenty of very smart intelligent and good people that may be bad at spelling.

also if people want to get there point across or correct me is it really necessary to do it in a demeaning and sarcastic way?  so if they want to be treated like an adult than maybe they should act a little more mature. also if it would not kill them act like staff here and offer guidance instead of criticism

you know just a thought




			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> You may wish to check your facts before posting. Some assault beaches met heavy resistance, others saw good advances made even on D-Day itself.



OK but as far as i know (not saying it is true) Juno beach had the heaviest resistance. the reason the Canadians could get through faster than the Americans was because they used tanks to storm the beach. and please if it is not true than don't say anything degrading just offer guidance to somewere that will help me learn different.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 Mar 2005)

Omaha Beach was the costliest of the beaches, not Juno.   Canada suffered about 900 casualties on D-Day, the Americans on Omaha several times more; the terrain was unsuited to a landing there, the American DD tanks did not deploy correctly, and the pre-invasion bombardment missed their targets (this also happened on Juno IIRC).

Resistance was tough on ALL the beaches; opposed landings are always difficult.   Comparing Omaha to Juno is silly; both were well defended by the Germans, but terrain and circumstance made the day's experiences on each beach very much different.

There are hundreds of books out there on D-Day and the Normandy landings - suggest you go down to your local library and look over the shelves.   Corenelius Ryan's THE LONGEST DAY is a good start for a readable account, but there is little Canadian content.   Ted Barris wrote a book on D-Day but it only covers the Canadians.   There are many others if you are truly interested.   C.P. Stacey covers the day well in a general overview in THE VICTORY CAMPAIGN and also THE CANADIAN ARMY 1939-1945.   These are the official Canadian histories.

Also try Max Hasting's OVERLORD.

Best suggestion is to read the books first, THEN proclaim that you know what you're talking about.   Veteran's memories 60 years later are as fallible as my memory trying to remember what I had for lunch last Tuesday.

Good luck.


----------



## dutchie (2 Mar 2005)

Canada made a significant contribution, as did Britain, to WW2. You don't need to minimize the huge impact the US effort had on the War to legitimize the sacrifice and effort by Canada - it stands on it's own, thank-you very much.

This thread COULD have morphed into an intelligent discussion on the pivotal points of WW2, the contributions made, or not made, by various nations, etc. Instead, it has degenerated into a 'we did it all, you tool all the credit, blah, blah, blah' due to ridiculous claims of 'facts' of 'history' made by a man-child and others (I am not a kid, I am a Cadet!).   :

I suggest this be locked.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Mar 2005)

I am not an historion Hutch, but the problem here is you are not asking for guidance, you are trying to sound knowledgeable  by giving what you think you know.
These guys you are trying to compete with ARE historions and, why not take the next 24 hours and start googling the subjects mentioned by these people, and then come back with a report.
 If you are really that interested, it should make for a fun day.
Thanks
Bruce

EDIT :a few people posted but I'll put this up anyway.


----------



## Jonny Boy (2 Mar 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Omaha Beach was the costliest of the beaches, not Juno.   Canada suffered about 900 casualties on D-Day, the Americans on Omaha several times more; the terrain was unsuited to a landing there, the American DD tanks did not deploy correctly, and the pre-invasion bombardment missed their targets (this also happened on Juno IIRC).
> 
> Resistance was tough on ALL the beaches; opposed landings are always difficult.   Comparing Omaha to Juno is silly; both were well defended by the Germans, but terrain and circumstance made the day's experiences on each beach very much different.
> 
> ...



thank you that is the kind of guidance that should be offerd thank you. 

the reason i was acting like i know what i am tlaking about it becouse i really honestly thought i did know. ever since i was a little kid my dad and grandpa have been reading books and reserching the ist and 2nd world war. i was just saying what they have always told me. whitch you would concider true if you grew up being taught it all. 

i will still get the book i was talking about though. i is a documentry novle i would belive it to be true

(if the spelling is off agian it is becouse the spell check is acting up again)


----------



## Infanteer (2 Mar 2005)

-Hutch- said:
			
		

> OK but as far as i know (not saying it is true) Juno beach had the heaviest resistance. the reason the Canadians could get through faster than the Americans was because they used tanks to storm the beach. and please if it is not true than don't say anything degrading just offer guidance to somewere that will help me learn different.



Tanks don't "storm beaches", read up on amphibious assaults, you'll find that they all tend to be heavy on Infantry and Engineers.

You've already been given your guidence - go read the basic history on the subject (searching this thread will give you a good start); you keep pressing the issue here, hence the reason the replies are starting to get testy....


----------



## Jonny Boy (2 Mar 2005)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> Could we have won without them?  Doesn't really matter now, as we did win with them.
> 
> T




i missed this quote and i really like it. it is soooooooo true

oh and just cause i promised and if anyone is still interested the book i was talking about is called " Master of the Battlefield"  Monty's war years 1942- 1944.

it was written by Nigel Hamilton.

i haven't read it my self but one of the reviews on it says "many good writers have had a shot at explaining Monty. No one has come as close to the man as Mr Hamilton.

sounds like a good book though, if i ever have the time to sit and read it i would love to. * looks at book and realizes that there are over 800 pages  .


----------



## Danjanou (3 Mar 2005)

-Hutch- said:
			
		

> i missed this quote and i really like it. it is soooooooo true
> 
> oh and just cause i promised and if anyone is still interested the book i was talking about is called " Master of the Battlefield"   Monty's war years 1942- 1944.
> 
> ...



So let me get this straight here Cadet Master Warrant Officer. First you come on stating all your theories are from this "Great Book" and now you say you haven't even read it!

Why did I bother to go to University and get a degree in Military History. I could have just come on the Net and pulled stuff out of whatever ororificeas convenient and declared myself an expert on the subject.

BTW is "the spell checker was acting up" the modern eqequivalentf the "dog ate my homework."

800 pages of Military history is light fun reading to the guys you're arguing against here young troop. I seriously suggest you take the generous advice offered and go and do some real research. You're a bit out of your league here.


----------



## Jonny Boy (3 Mar 2005)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> First you come on stating all your theories are from this "Great Book" and now you say you haven't even read it!



i already told everyone that the person that is reading the book told me about it way before that post. i think you should read it a bit better. 



			
				Danjanou said:
			
		

> So let me get this straight here Cadet Master Warrant Officer.



i would like it you did not pull me being a cadet into any of this. it does not mean a thing when it comes too military history thank you





			
				Danjanou said:
			
		

> Why did I bother to go to University and get a degree in Military History.



i don't know, why did you?



			
				Danjanou said:
			
		

> BTW is "the spell checker was acting up" the modern eqequivalentf the "dog ate my homework."



OK so what is your excuse for the horrible spelling?   i mean what is eqequivalentf and ororificeas?




			
				Danjanou said:
			
		

> 800 pages of Military history is light fun reading to the guys you're arguing against here young troop.



ok i know that. i admittedto being mistaken. i was going from what i believedto be a reliable source had told me.   i really do believet is light fun reading for the people here. for me on the other hand am not the best reader. i would really enjoy reading it but i don'think i would be able to read it and my other books in school. so when i am done with school i will attempt to tackle it. is that ok with you?





			
				Danjanou said:
			
		

> I seriously suggest you take the generous advice offered and go and do some real research. You're a bit out of your league here.



oh i have taken the advice that is why i did not make any more posts saying i am right and i know these facts. i can admit to being wrong and being out of my leagueere. the question is can you admit to being slightly immaturend continuing the argument?   

just stop it and carry on with an intellagent conversation. forget what i previously posted.

thank you


----------



## big bad john (3 Mar 2005)

Hutch;
we all make mistakes, we all must learn from them.  So the thing to do is not to get defensive, but to take the advice of those that are trying to help you.  By being defensive you are not improving your profile on the site.  just a friendly word to the wise.


----------



## Jonny Boy (3 Mar 2005)

ya i know i admitted to mine and i am learning from them.   i didn't mean the post in a defencive way but more of a way to clarify that it is all over.

bye


----------



## T.I.M. (3 Mar 2005)

One cannot understate the contribution of lend/lease to the success of the Red Army, nor can one seriously claim that Soviet success was "inevitable" with or without this contribution.

After the colossal losses of 1941 the Red Army was short on everything, from rifles to tanks to planes - even to rank insignia for generals! (Gen. Katukov recounts having to draw the new rank of Major General on his lapels with marker)   It was the infusion of western equipment from the US, Britain, and Canada that allowed the Red Army to conduct its counter-offensives in '42 and '43, and which carried it back West in the campaigns of '44 and 45.

For example, the Soviet Union recieved over 10,000 tanks from lend/lease.   A significant number when one considers that total T-34 production to 1945 numbered about 35,000 tanks.   From a Canadian perspective, the _entire_ Canadian production run (1,388) of Valentine tanks was sent to the Soviet Union, and overall nearly 15% of total British armour production ended up in Russia (this despite critical shortages of tanks in Britain's own forces).

More significantly perhaps, nearly half a million American trucks and jeeps were sent to Russia.   Virtually the entire Red Army ran on Studebakers.   It was these vehicles that allowed the motorized forces of the Red Army to conduct the sweeping advances that shattered the German Army so completely in 1944 and '45.

In fact American equipment was so ubiquitous in the Russian military that folklore had it that the letters "U.S.A" printed on it stood for _Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa_ or "Kill that Sonofab*tch Adolf".

During the war the Soviet state propaganda downplayed the significance of lend/lease, even while Stalin was privately threatening in frantic messages to Churchill and Roosevelt that he would negotiate peace with Germany unless Britain and America sent him more equipment.   After the war, the Soviets conducted a massive campain of denial to state that it had never been much of a factor.   

However the truth is that a Red Army without western (and in particular, American) lend/lease might well have survived, but it would have lacked many of the crucial components for a modern army and almost certainly would not have _won_.


----------



## patrick666 (8 Mar 2005)

Who cares who drew the maps, made the plans, contocted strategies, or had the most manpower.. the fact is - Fascism was defeated giving rights and freedoms to those in the dire situations forced upon them by the Nazi Party and its allies; by different nations and their people acting as one. I wish it didn't require a war to realize our potential.

Cheers


----------



## Infanteer (9 Mar 2005)

Patrick H. said:
			
		

> Who cares who drew the maps, made the plans, contocted strategies, or had the most manpower..



Military knowledge is gained largely by looking back and reflecting on what worked and what didn't.  If we are going to ignore the conduct of our military in the past, we are bound to repeat the same mistakes when we go into the next war.


----------



## Nielsen_Noetic (9 Mar 2005)

So true; yet people do not seem to learn from the past most of the time, despite those well known and much acclaimed words 'those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it' I guess were all just stuck in a vicious cycle of repetition the only difference's the circumstances. :crybaby:


----------



## vangemeren (10 Mar 2005)

Like someone mentioned earlier. We could think about what ifs until the cows come home. Hundreds (quite possibly thousands) of journal articles and books several inches thick have covered different aspects of war (particularly the world wars). If people with PhDs can spend their whole adult life studying and arguing about a single issue, then to think that we could answer a question effectively in a forum such as this is ludicrous. Each individual choice, no matter how insignificant it may seem at the time, may become a decisive factor later on. (personally the soup or salad question still makes me think what could have been.....) We should all be looking at what we can do as to not make the same mistakes in the future and how to think of ways to avoid them.

Just as an observation, in this forum, most of the threads I have come across,  the people that pose this type of question have an axe to grind and have a particular issue with a particular country/group. I'm not accusing the author of this, but more often than not, it becomes a "well this country wasn't that important/not important." fight with people that have little to no background on the issue making asses of themselves.

(p.s when the cows do come home, I have ribs and a baked potato. I always pick the soup and have a side salad added on)


----------



## Nielsen_Noetic (12 Mar 2005)

I don't have an axe to grind; I posted the question, which I thought was legitimate, and have been studying the answers given. Some of which have been very "interesting" to say the least.


----------



## vangemeren (12 Mar 2005)

vangemeren said:
			
		

> Like someone mentioned earlier. We could think about what ifs until the cows come home. Hundreds (quite possibly thousands) of journal articles and books several inches thick have covered different aspects of war (particularly the world wars). If people with PhDs can spend their whole adult life studying and arguing about a single issue, then to think that we could answer a question effectively in a forum such as this is ludicrous. Each individual choice, no matter how insignificant it may seem at the time, may become a decisive factor later on. (personally the soup or salad question still makes me think what could have been.....) We should all be looking at what we can do as to not make the same mistakes in the future and how to think of ways to avoid them.
> 
> Just as an observation, in this forum, most of the threads I have come across, the people that pose this type of question have an axe to grind and have a particular issue with a particular country/group. I'm not accusing the author of this, but more often than not, it becomes a "well this country wasn't that important/not important." fight with people that have little to no background on the issue making asses of themselves.
> 
> (p.s when the cows do come home, I have ribs and a baked potato. I always pick the soup and have a side salad added on)



Sorry don't take it personal, I didn't mean you., I meant other posters I've seen that have had an alterior motive. I thought I was clear, ah well no problems .


----------



## Nielsen_Noetic (12 Mar 2005)

I took it as an indirect slap in the face, as though you were elluding to the fact that that's what the original post was meant for. It was not, and now that I know you did not mean to (in an evasive way) insult me. No worries.


----------



## Veterans son (12 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Military knowledge is gained largely by looking back and reflecting on what worked and what didn't.   If we are going to ignore the conduct of our military in the past, we are bound to repeat the same mistakes when we go into the next war.



Good post, Infanteer!


----------

