88 Replies to “What Would We Do Without Professors?”

  1. Hm. It was a team effort,every nation played their part.The USA played the biggest role due to their incredible manufacturing ability, and Russia donated millions of peasants to fight their former ally.

    We in the Empire played our small parts as well.

    If Germany and Russia hadn’t been run by a psychiatrists’ dream team, they would have done the obvious, united to form an unbeatable alliance and conquered the world.

    I wonder which national anthem we’d have to endure before sports contests now. I prefer the “State Anthem of the Soviet Union” to “Deutschland Uber Alles”. But we have “Oh Canader,our home on Native Land”.

        1. Don, your original assertion was entirely right. LIke Germany, the USSR was starving to death in early 1943. It had to cut back drastically on its military intake because of the enormous losses it suffered in 1941-2 were eliminating its ability to replace them. Because of the food supply issue, the USSR was heavily dependent on food supply from the US and Canada via Lend-Lease. The US also supplied most of the trucks that the USSR needed to supply its armies, along with a lot of special lubricants and petroleum products that Russia could no longer produce after 1942.

          Russia was also wholly dependent on pharmaceuticals via Western aid.

          As for world conquest, for a whole host of logistics reasons, Germany’s crusade was doomed when it started. It was utterly incapable of even crossing the English Channel.

          1. for sure.

            to cross the channel first need to sweep the air of those pesky spitfires.

            herman.
            can l speak with you in confidence its your former WW I wing commander we failed. theyre still knocking us out of their air space.
            and please tell the fuhrer dont get miffed about cologne being hit they want us to switch targets from the airfields to their useless cities.
            we havent got a single pc of anti-aircraft shrapnel over London.
            tell him that.

            things dont usually happen for a single reason.

            the individual contributions, to go that route, start with Alan Turing cracking enigma.
            first he had to mathematically prove a machine could be constructed that could carry out lists of instructions.
            the guy was like a time traveller or something.

            keys and gears and switches and jumper wires. and more gears aaaaaaand
            they still cracked the codes.
            and the americans did it with the japs’ purple.
            and Lt Rochfort suggested a ruse to pinpoint the japs’ current main target. ah Midway the one having ‘water filtration problems’.

            even Hedy Lamarr did her part google it.

            lots of folks did their part. many of them, had things not played out thus, that a new trajectory = nazi victory.

            it is true the ‘without so-and-so the allies wd have lost’ must always precede ‘but they arent the only one’
            etc.

          2. “It was utterly incapable of even crossing the English Channel.”

            Absolutely, people who believe that Sealion had a chance because British left all their equipment at the Dunkirk beach completely ignore the “getting there” aspect.

            After Norwegian Campaign Krigsmarrine was decimated to the point that they had one combat ready ship larger than a light cruiser (Scheer). They had at max four light cruisers (one museum quality) and eight destroyers (some say only five). A single Royal Navy R class battleship, backed by a pair of Towns or Countys and a flotilla of Tribals would have sent the entire force to the bottom without breaking a sweat.

            Their landing plans were even more pitiful. Majority of landing craft were towed barges that relied on a sea tide to push them to the beaches. Yes literarily that, helpless soldiers bouncing up and down on the waves shredded by defenders. They wanted to deliver those troops at night, against a navy that had since Jutland obsessively trained for night operations and was probably the best night fighting navy in the world. Imagine what a few destroyers plus attack craft would do to that landing force. Turkey shoot until they run out of ammo and then send in the next flotilla.

            The plan to drop Fallschirmjager was equally doomed. RAF did not even need their front line fighters to decimate them. RAF could keep Hurricanes and Spitfires protecting the channel and let trainees flying everything from Fury’s and Gladiators to Defiants, Rocs, Skuas, and heavies like Blenheim and Beaufighters, become fighter aces in one day shredding the Ju-52s loaded with troops.

            And there was no way Germans could supply anyone who landed whether by sea or air.

          3. “The US also supplied most of the trucks that the USSR needed to supply its armies, along with a lot of special lubricants and petroleum products that Russia could no longer produce after 1942.”

            Russia’s air force was also destroyed very early in the war, so the US provided many aircraft along with weaponry and ammunition (and even ships). And yes, when the Russians rolled into Berlin they did so in mostly US designed (or built) trucks.

            Without the US and ‘lend-lease’, Russia would have fallen to the German army.

          4. “Russia’s air force was also destroyed very early in the war, so the US provided many aircraft …”

            Russian domestic production of aircraft greatly outnumbered the lend lease deliveries. But LL was of course significant.

    2. “We in the empire played our small parts as well.”
      Yes, quite an impressive small part. Try the Lancaster Bomber, the Halifax bomber and the Spitfire, among dozens of other planes that laid waste in Germany. Then we turned around and elected Tommy Douglas.

    3. “Russia donated millions of peasants to fight their former ally.”

      Among the donated, ethnic russians were underrepresented, and Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Belarussians, Balts, Asians from Caucasus to Far East were overrepresented, for. russia never changes.

    4. The Americans won the war.

      Joseph Stalin:
      “I want to tell you, from the Russian point of view, what the President and the United States have done to win this war. The most important things in war are machines. The United States has proven that it can turn out from 8000 to 10,000 airplanes per month. Russia can only turn out, at most, 3,000 a month. England turns out 3,000 to 3,500. … The United States, therefore, is the country of machines. Without the use of these machines, through Lend-Lease, we would lose the war.”

      Winston Churchill
      “the moral consequence of the United States joining the Allies was indeed the deciding cause in the conflict.”

      Both Stalin and Churchill said the US won the war. That’s good enough for me.

      1. again, one vital irreplaceable key ingredient.
        *but not the only one*
        see above. Stalin and Winston are spot on the American’s participation won it.
        but not *just* them.

      2. “Both Stalin and Churchill said the US won the war. That’s good enough for me.”

        Well, yes…the presence of the US Army in Europe forced the Germans to commit divisions there that would otherwise have been used to help overrun Russia. Without the Americans, there is no doubt whatsoever that Hitler would have taken Russia.

        1. “there is no doubt whatsoever…”

          Two factors on that:
          1) Germany crushed the Red Army at the start of Barbarossa; and it would’ve been comical if it wasn’t so tragic. Russia’s biggest enemy by far was Stalin; he set-upon his own country and people, murdered millions and deported tens of millions more to the gulag – why? I’m sure he had his reasons… But this nearly handed Hitler the Soviet Union on a gilded platter; in 1937 Stalin turned his murderous attention to the Red Army, took every officer with a brain in his head and had the NKVD shoot it out. Russia had the best tanks – von Kleist described the T-34 as the finest tank in the world – but had nobody left who was competent to operate them, or command formations; they’d had a very swept-up army in 1936. That was Stalin’s doing. But the further in the Germans went, the worst it got; von Kleist also noted that the Russians started-out being very tough, and rapidly gained experience; only superior training gave the Wehrmacht the edge.
          2) Germany itself had a massive disadvantage, in the presence among its higher-ups of a Corporal who’d been awarded the Iron Cross 2nd Class in WW1, a guy named Hitler. Earlier in WW2, he let his Generals run the show; but his fortitude stopped the Wehrmacht from crumbling-away in the face of its most severe opponent in Barbarossa, the Russian winter (which to be fair, had also crushed Napoleon). As the war went on, he became ever more paranoid and untrusting, and as his unhinged xenophobia destroyed the economy at home, his hysterical deciding-everything-by-himself ordering his army about doomed it abroad. A prime example – the allies were ashore in Normandie, and the Wehrmacht was getting severely battered by allied air superiority and heavy artillery; they were pleading for permission to fall back and regroup, the better to use their scattered units. Hitler drew his pen across a map of Normandie and ordered “You will defend THAT line – and NO RETREAT behind it!” Pinning your troops in one spot where the enemy’s artillery and fighter-bombers know where they are, is a fool’s game; and the allies took full advantage of it. Normandie was a huge gamble, but thanks to Hitler’s meddling, it paid-off big.

          So, my take is that Hitler could not have taken Russia; the Russians got steadily better, and the Germans got steadily worse. And two of Hitler’s all-time greatest mistakes took place in Russia – attacking them in the first place, and turning his army south that summer to grab the Caucasus oilfields instead of continuing his drive on Moscow. My 2c’ worth…

    5. It is quite well know, historically, as “The Phoney War.”

      War was declared… and almost nothing happened.

      The West let Russia and Germany duke it out until it was the “proper time” for the West to invade. Russia pleaded with the West to start a second front… they were promised one in 1943, but didn’t get it until 1944.

      Remember, the USA joined the fight in 1941… then spent years fooling around in Africa and finally Italy, for God’s sake’s, Africa and Italy?

      Anyone who seriously studies WWII knows that the West screwed the Russians, using them as cannon fodder so as to make their invasion of the European mainland easier, and more politically viable.

      Kinda sounds like Ukraine today…

      Just sayin… we sacrificed the ruskies as our allies, for our own sake. Don’t deny them their due.

      1. Victor Davis Hanson calls WWII a border war… which is all it was until the USA got involved.

        WWI was in a similar vein, had the USA abstained… it would have ended without so much bloodshed.

        So, the lesson is…???

        Let’s fight Russia over Ukraine!!!

        1. Not sure what to make of that comment, Joe.

          Well known the Battle of Britain ended, then Germany turned to fighting Russia… then we let Russia bleed while we built up our industrial might (the USA) and then, on our own terms, decided it was time.

          Sure, Stalin was slime… he was also our ally… and we could not have won without him and the Russian sacrifice.

          What’s your point? There is historical fact, you know. One only needs to like, look it up.

          As far as the Russians go… they have always meatgrindered… they have always played scorched earth and the weather… they have also always won!

          Russia has also never tried to invade Europe… but Europe has several times tried to invade Russia…

          Make your argument.

          1. Perhaps the admirals dressed in skirts will pull on their long johns? Is that the plan? The pregnant ladies in flight suits will be allowed an extra sweater until the third trimester?

            We’ll be kicking ass anytime now!

          3. Also in the first months of WWII, russia invaded six countries. Or only countries west of Oder count in your book?

        2. Jeb

          Stalin was told that Germany was going to attack Russia.
          a) Stalin’s own spies warned him.
          b) the British warned him.
          c) Mao Zedong warned him.

          The Russians had many more tanks, and better ones, than Germany did in June 1941.

          The Russians had more planes.

          The Russians had more men in the army.

      3. “Phoney war ”

        “War was declared… and almost nothing happened.”

        “Phoney war” refers to the first eight months of the war until German invasion of the Western Europe not until Barbarossa. It is a misleading generalization anyway.

        “The West let Russia and Germany duke it out until it was the “proper time” for the West to invade. ”

        Throughout “Phoney War” russia and Germany were allies and aggressors. Russia invaded six countries during that time.

        “Remember, the USA joined the fight in 1941… then spent years fooling around in Africa and finally Italy, for God’s sake’s, Africa and Italy?”

        Utter nonsense. US joined the fight right at the end of 1941 was very heavily engaged in the Pacific and gained the upper hand only after Guadalcanal, but even then resources were very strained for the next year. In the meantime US was arming up and arming up allies. Timing of Overlord wasn’t a question of letting russians bleed enough, it was the first time when landing in France become feasible. In the meantime operations in North Africa and Italy were essential. Afrika Korps, got eliminated and Italy knocked out of war. Both events were absolutely crucial for Overlord and then Dragoon. And that happened while US was at times down to one operational carrier in Pacific and yet devoting significant resources in the Mediterranean and North Atlantic.

        Finally look up what else happened during the days of Battle of Kursk and what prompted Hitler to withhold reserves for that battle. Hint: Husky.

        1. You a bit cray cray, no?

          50% comments in this thread from you alone.

          Look at you go girl! Don’t stop believin’!

          2. And sad to say, Jeb, but I agree with Colonialista on this one.

            “Anyone who seriously studies WWII knows that… – one word contradicts you here – Dieppe. In 1942 Stalin was demanding an immediate second front in Europe to take some of the Wehrmacht’s weight off the Red Army, and threatening to make a separate peace with Germany if he didn’t get it. The U.K. and U.S. knew there was no way they could invade France that summer – Britain had lost all its equipment at Dunkirk, Doenitz was enjoying his second “Happy Time” in the Atlantic, and the U.S. was just entering the war – and the U.S. had lots of higher-ups (including the USN’s head honcho, Admiral Ernest J. King) demanding “To HELL with the Brits, Churchill intends to fight the war to the last American! The Japs attacked us, not the Germans – let’s put our efforts into the Pacific, and deal with Hitler once we’ve dealt with Tojo!”

            The Allies managed to mollify Stalin with the bombing effort, which even then was causing massive casualties (the USAAF and RAF took the second-highest casualty rate of the war, only the u-boat arm lost a higher percentage), and the sad experience of the Dieppe Raid. It was a slaughter – poorly equipped, poorly planned, and the Wehrmacht had no problem wiping them out. And one of the biggest lessons the Allies learned from Dieppe was that the planning staff desperately needed a trip to the woodshed – instead of working together to the common goal, the staffs fought like cats & dogs. The Allies knew they’d get one chance to land on the European continent – mess it up, they’d’ve lost so many men and so much equipment that they couldn’t try it again. The staff was going to have to learn to get on with it.

            So they put the staff through several other operations – North Africa, Sicily, Italy, Anzio &c, which they had time to do while the u-boat menace was eliminated – in March 1943 the u-boats sank 693,000 tons of shipping, but in May 1943, “Black May”, the Kriegsmarine lost 41 u-boats, and it went steadily downhill for them from there; and meanwhile, the great weight of American wartime shipping was taking to the Atlantic, so the goal of starving the U.K. out of the war receded out of sight – and the numbers of men and VAST amount of materiel that would be needed for a landing on the continent, were finally making-it across the Atlantic. And Eisenhower was appointed el supremo over the upcoming D-Day landing, because he could wave his magic wand over the steadily-improving staff, and make it all work.

            In summary, the U.S. and U.K. landed on the Normandie beaches as soon as they possibly could; landing before then would’ve been an ignominious and tragic failure. And lest it be forgotten in the debate whether Trump was right, the Battle of Kursk was in 1943; and after that the Red Army had the initiative, and the Wehrmacht in the East accomplished little more except retreat, and couldn’t spare many reinforcements to the situation that unfolded on 6 June 1944. So I find your conclusion to be overstated.

          4. “Respectfully but:”

            I watched it:

            (1) He talks broad-brush about a lot of things. I was disconcerted about a number of sloppy-ism’s; for example, I always thought Gustav was 800mm, not the 400mm he states; and while acknowledging WW2 as the bloodiest war ever, he quotes a figure of 27,000 people killed every year of it – a fumble worthy of Joe Biden.

            (2) He says nothing in this talk that supports what you say. The only “the West deliberately $crewed the Russians” in there, comes from a question he answers (the second last) about an author whose book he reviewed, who makes sorta’ that claim. In contrast to your “Anyone who seriously studies WWII knows that…”, he says he found the book “unconvincing”.

      4. Russia and Germany signed the non-aggression Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in 1939 and brutally split up Poland between the two. What would have been the outcome of the war had Hitler not double-crossed Stalin and had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbour? Russia had some atonement to do as the price for dealing with the Devil.

      5. We didn’t sacrifice anybody. The Russians acted for their own sake and in their own interests. They did nothing for our benefit. No doubt we benefitted anyway, but how did we not deserve it? We were keeping them in the war, after all. Shouldn’t we get something out of it?

        You seem to imagine that the US could do anything it wanted anytime it wanted. Control of Africa and Italy was necessary to open up the Mediterranean, and control of the Mediterranean would be needed to attack an apparently impregnable continent. The Americans barely had the forces to clear North Africa. D-Day worked because the Allies took two years to make it work. They couldn’t have attempted anything remotely comparable in 1942. The Russians knew that. They could have sat tight, fought a purely defensive war, kept their losses to a minimum, and prepared to go when the Allies landed. Instead they kept up relentless ruthless war.

  2. The USA belief that the two nuclear bombs that were dropped on Japan was what caused the Japanese to surrender is once again the winner rewriting history. The Russian advance thru Japanese held territory, the Russian total disregard for Russian casualties was a much greater concern than the destruction of 2 cities. The Japanese felt the USA would not invade the homeland because the citizens of the USA would not tolerate the casualties an invasion would cause. The Russians did not worry about casualties and that worried the Japanese. Surrendering to the USA was much better option than being conquered by the Russians.

    1. Precisely. Note the westward flight of the populace (as much as possible) in Germany prior to the Russian advance.

      Everyone knew they didn’t want to be on the wrong side of that demarcation.

      1. Right. My German grandparents fled the advancing Soviet troops in a horse & wagon and got behind the British lines.

    2. That’s not rewriting history, that’s history as we’ve known it since 1945. The question of the Soviets invading Japan is another weight on that pile, but as the Soviets were making no serious moves in that direction until after the bombs fell, it’s a moot point.

      1. Now there was a fellow a few years who went through a painstaking reconstruction and analysis of all the discussions and decisions made by the Japanese government in the last days of the war, and he showed with some persuasiveness that the Japanese had recognised that the Americans had destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs. They had concluded that the Americans must be just about out of bombs, and that in any event Japan had way more cities that the US had nukes, so the overall situation had not changed and war with the US should go on. However, having made that decision, they received the news that Stalin had declared war on them. At that point their strategic position collapsed. They had depended on security in mainland Asia and Stalin had pulled the rug out from under them. So they had to make peace at once.

        That seems to be the current view, and it does make sense. But of course I’m in no position to verify it.

    3. Many russophiles have been peddling this nonsense theory for decades. By the time the bombs fell, Kwantung army was scavenged from all valuable equipment for the defense of the islands. Japanese knew they would not hold continental Asia and left what practically amounted to a skeleton occupation force. Yes, it had some numbers but it had minimal equipment. For example, the grand total of all Japanese armor in continental Asia was two light tank battalions, that’s it. So no, russian advance on the Japanese wasn’t even a factor in their decision to surrender. Bombs were the only deciding factor. And it wasn’t about two cities wiped out, it was the belief that Americans can keep on wiping a city after city until complete antihalation that broke their spirit. Recall that a day after the second bomb Japanese diplomats in Switzerland, for the first time ever, protested inhumanity of the war, contacted red cross, etc

      1. correctamundo.
        had the bombs not fallen the invasion by sea dwarfing normandy would have happened. and for fear of missing out the russian would have proceeded to put their alternate scenario in action.
        and find out what happens when one is in occupied *hostile* territory.
        an entire population brainwashed into dreadful things.
        but, communism its true, not noted for concern over the casualties just results.

        many iterations regarding The Bombs use and effect.
        there is one that proves their utility, namely the one that happened, the one in which they are dropped and surrender can be counted in days if not hours, ending the Pacific war that started 1933 invasion of Mongolia.
        all
        else
        speculation.

    4. The fact that Japan announced its surrender a week after the dropping of the second atomic bomb, and that the official surrender occurred TO THE AMERICANS, suggests that the bombs did indeed lead to the surrender.

    5. Yeah, I guess the actual Emperor of Japan specifically naming “a new weapon” that would spell the end of the Japanese people and (therefore) civilization in his adress to Japanese people informing them of Japan’s surrender is rewriting history.

      1. Oh, there’s no question that the Emperor took the bomb seriously. He didn’t make the decision to end the war. Had it been up to him, they wouldn’t have gone to war in the first place. He saw himself, correctly enough, as a constitutional monarch and bound by his government. It was them, not him, that cared about what Russia did.

      1. Nuclear reactors use fission, the bombs were nuclear fission bombs.
        H-bombs are thermo-nuclear bombs, in that they need a very high temperature and pressure to set off.
        Both types are nuclear bombs.

  3. Now I get it! No wonder economic professors insist on following the same old FAILED Socialist policies … they know NOTHING of history.

    Or

    Like all Leftists … they pretend not to know stuff. Stuff that would render their beliefs or policies nonsensical.

  4. If anything, the Russians starved them to death, and froze the one’s that weren’t starving. Many Nazis were found dead from freezing, and had no winter parkas, underwear or insulated boots. The Russians has cut off their supply lines. Germans trucks and tanks were found with 30w oil in the crankcase. Interesting to note that the Russians had multi-grade winter oil by then. And of course, woolen socks and long johns.

    1. Not to mention splashing around millions of Canadian taxpayer dollars to make himself look like a real player. When the entire world knows what a needy little weasel he is. It is to laugh.

      1. Those aren’t Canadian taxpayers’ dollars he is splashing around, those are borrowed dollars. Canadian taxpayers haven’t even begun to earn the dollars with which they will.be paying the taxes to repay the borrowing. (In some cases because they haven’t been born yet.)

    2. Well Vancouver got up to $2 billion for housing; and Ukraine got $3 billion today, can we get the Russians to invade Vancouver, so they too can get more funding?

      1. How many $1.5M homes does $2B buy ?
        Who will live in those homes ?
        Will they have heat exchangers ?
        For whom will they vote ?

  6. Yup, the Russians did their substantial bit to beat Hitler. But at an incredible cost to themselves. Stalin achieved it by attaching the same value to a Russian soldier’s life as he did to a German’s.

  7. Mr. Sheremeta appears to be a Chrystia Freeland Ukrainian. Perhaps also a 3rd generation spawn of a Nazi collaborator like pyrohy thighs herself. Probably has both Soros bookmarked in his rolodex.

  9. Giving Norm MacDonald credit, why did the world allow Germany, after two wars started by them within 30 years that stated their enemy was the rest of the world, to continue to exist?

  10. Without Russia , and alone the US/British/Canadian army could not have defeated the Wehrmacht , without the Russians decimating the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front , and taking huge losses in the process.

    Sheremeta needs to research some WW2 history that predates the Trump Derangement Syndrome era.

    1. Without russia, Germans would not have resources to invade the Western Europe in the first place.

    2. He’ll probably hide behind semantics. It was the USSR that HELPED defeat ze Germans. And the Ukrainian Waffen-SS too, by the way.

      1. Russia signed a nonaggression pact with Germany in 1939, which removed a major impediment to Germany invading Poland.

        Russia invaded Poland shortly after the Germans did.

  11. like religion, there are many variations as to the war and how it played out.No Russia, and no USA and there would have been much different out come. Also if the French rifle thrower had grown a spine earlier on the the conflict, the Nazis could have been stopped, as the french had a much superior army at the early stages. Butt keep spinning the BULLSHIT bin here!

    1. “French rifle thrower…”

      … was a conscript purposefully starved off training, basically taught how to defend his position in a fortress. Army officer core were catholic, conservatives and wanted a professional maneuver army. Government was atheist, socialist and constantly afraid of a military coup and thus gave the officers the exact conscript they did not want. That is basically the number one factor that buried French defense in 1940. The handful of French units that were properly trained fought well.

      1. No, he didn’t. The Slovaks declared independence, and the Czech failed to put together a functioning government in time to stop the Germans from walking in. If Czechoslavakia had held together the Germans wouldn’t have dared attack them; they were too strong. If they’d fallen apart in a more orderly way, they’d have remained more than powerful enough to handle the Germans. Chamberlain didn’t tear them apart. They did that to themselves.

  12. One thing that will never change it that history is written by the victors, thus history will not be kind to Ukraine or the west when this chapter is written.

    1. I always think it best to wait and find out who wins before claiming the victor.

      The Mujahideen didn’t beat Russia militarily, they just resisted well enough to make the situation politically untenable for them. That and the end of the Cold War shows us that the Russians are perfectly capable of a pragmatic defeat.

  13. It was the Russians that marched on Berlin, overran the remainder of the Hun army whom the Germans surrendered too.
    And yes, every allied nation contributed to the defeat. Of course, the Americans joining the war was a turning point, but it took years, obviously, to crush the Germans.
    Arguing about this is ridiculous, particularly from the unhinged Penis Piano player fanboys.

  14. The Soviets might not have defeated Hitler but they ended up winning most of the European Theatre. If Eisenhower allowed Patton to carry out the plan, there would have been no Warsaw Pact. Instead, the Soviets conquered and controlled Eastern Europe until the 1990s. That wasn’t the result Eastern Europeans hoped for.

    1. I never thought the Western Allies could have taken on the Soviets in 1945. The Soviets had vast amount of tanks and troops. Unless they were going to nuke them, the Soviets were there to stay. Ike was not a dammed fool that was going to try to invade Russia.

  16. After the Battle of Britain, 1940, the Empire stood alone against Germany and its allies.

    After Pearl Harbor, Churchill felt confident in victory with US entry into the war but Churchill felt confident in 1940 after the Battle of Britain was won that the Empire would not be defeated. Not losing being different than winning.

    Battle of Stalingrad was turning point in European Theatre (1942-1943). A purely Soviet victory. Soviets did much of the heavy lifting against Germany. That is an obvious fact. More dead at the Battle of Stalingrad alone than the entire Western Front from 1944-45.

    1. “After the Battle of Britain, 1940, the Empire stood alone against Germany and its allies.”

      … among the allies the most prominent was Soviet russia.

      “A purely Soviet victory.”

      Ugh, no lend lease equipment at Stalingrad? Are you sure about that?

      1. There was some lend lease in 1942. Maybe a bit of the some ended up about Stalingrad. That victory belonged to the Soviets and not those who sold them some of the material that they fought with.

        1. “Maybe?”

          Yeah ok, so you don’t know how essential was western armor in Stalingrad victory, how starved for armor Soviets were after first months of Barbarossa, and you think that Lend Lease armor was sold? Typical vatnik.

          Anyway, russians prompted Hitler and made his early victory possible, then their ally turned on them. Both sides on Eastern Front were equally monstrous and allies should have never help russians.

          2. Yes, they won the battle of Stalingrad, never disputed that, vatnik.
            It is unlikely they could have done it without help and of they did it would happen at an even greater cost.

            Practically everywhere on Eastern Front non ethnic russians suffered proportionally higher loses than ethnic russians. This was deliberate.

            P.S. Not hating russians is a pathology often caused by orc DNA. Such specimens should not breed.

      2. Churchills words of that time, 1940, were “… we were alone, with victorious Germany and Italy engaged in mortal attack upon us, with Soviet Russia a hostile neutral actively aiding Hitler, and Japan an unknowable menace.”

    1. A good if boring read that accurately accounts for the US assistance the Soviets.
      https://www.amazon.ca/Stalins-War-New-History-World/dp/1541672798/ref=asc_df_1541672798&mcid=fc1911d6a3a93c1ab6c1b0578b341323?tag=bingshopdesk-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=80264440486981&hvnetw=o&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=&hvtargid=pla-4583863994562359&psc=1
      https://www.amazon.ca/Stalins-War-New-History-World/dp/1541672798/ref=asc_df_1541672798&mcid=fc1911d6a3a93c1ab6c1b0578b341323?tag=bingshopdesk-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=80264440486981&hvnetw=o&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=&hvtargid=pla-4583863994562359&psc=1

      1. Since we are trading book recommendations:

        Feeding the German Eagle: Soviet Economic Aid to Nazi Germany, 1933-1941
        https://www.amazon.ca/Feeding-German-Eagle-1933-1941-1999-11-30/dp/B01JO3E1NK/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3IOB3XPFKKFW5&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.WRWfHVS53T3LHJWzwO357w.7W9lhhRS_u3MJbC3YLFh6w3zsirILHVAAvkrXGqOzy4&dib_tag=se&keywords=feeding+the+German+Eagle&qid=1708840785&s=books&sprefix=feeding+the+german+eagle%2Cstripbooks%2C89&sr=1-1

        It is expensive as f*** but a local university library might have it.

  18. The Russians built the most numerous and best tank of the war. 50,000 T34’s were built. They were the best in the world when introduced and upgraded were still top tier at the end of the war. They also built half a million artillery pieces and massive facilities for ammunition and small arms production. The Germans effectively lost the war in 1942, lend lease helped with the final victory but the German cause was lost before the vast majority of it arrived.
    On a slightly different topic, the Soviet ammunition factories still exist. The Americans built 10 or 12 massive ammunition plants in World War 2 but they demolished the vast majority of their capability in the 90’s after “winning” the cold war. The former sites are now enormous (many square miles) brownfields viewable on google earth.

    1. An argument can maybe be made that T-34 was the best tank in 1941. It is debatable as in 1941 it had as many flaws as advantages. It was definitely not a “top tier” by 1943 and since then was merely a stopgap, by 1945 it was barely competent.

      Coincidently I would not be surprised had you been a War Thunder/World of Tanks player.

    3. Here’s a link to WW2 production by country. Scroll down to Production Overview: service, power, and type.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

      Tank production:
      British Empire: 47,862
      USA. 108,410
      Russia 119,769

      Other Vehicles (trucks, jeeps etc)
      British Empire: 1,475,521
      USA. 2,382,311
      Russia 265,000

      Planes:
      British Empire. 177,025
      USA. 295,059
      Russia. 136,223

      Total large ships
      British Empire. 558
      USA 2020
      Russia 63
      Japan 278

      Landing Craft
      British Empire 9,538
      USA 35,000
      Russia 0

  20. “This war is being fought with British brains, American brawn, and Russian blood.”
    Josef Stalin, during Tehran Summit

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation