Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Jean Jacques

Decisive Contribution to Victory in WW2

Recommended Posts

The defeat of fascism was achieved by the teamwork of the states of the anti-Hitler coalition and the resistance forces in the occupied countries, and each of the countries at that time contributed to the victory by playing their roles in this world battle. However, the contribution of the Soviet Union is greatly diminished, despite the fact that their contribution was significant, decisive and crushing (Russia's losses amounted to 27 million people!!).

Indeed, thanks to their army in 1945, our brothers, fathers and grandfathers did not die in a fierce struggle with the Japanese in the Pacific Ocean (Guadalcanal, Peleliu, Okinawa, etc.), 11 European countries were freed from Nazi oppression, and the defeat of the main Nazi bloc forces ensured the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The contributions of the U.S.S.R in WW2 were helpful, but they were also largely responsible because of the germans ridiculously stupid "hunger plan".  If comic book guy were here I'm sure he'd say "worst stradegy ever."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From "The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military".....the Americans gave much to the Soviets:

 

Efforts, 1941-1945" by BORIS V. SOKOLOV, which clearly states that the USSR was all but done for without Lend Lease.

Quoting General Zhukov:

 

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

       Moreover, Zhukov underscored that `we entered war while still continuing to be a backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany. Simonov's     tuthful recounting of these meetings with Zhukov, which took place in 1965 and 1966, are corraborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov, recorded as a result of eavesdropping by security organs in 1963:

 

"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and ***could not have continued the war*** . . . we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance"
 
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13518049408430160
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though diminutive in comparison, Soviet Union supplied the United States with goods that the latter badly needed, including 300,000 tons of chrome ore, 32,000 tons of manganese ore, and large supplies of platinum, gold and wood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cannucklehead said:

The contributions of the U.S.S.R in WW2 were helpful, but they were also largely responsible because of the germans ridiculously stupid "hunger plan".  If comic book guy were here I'm sure he'd say "worst stradegy ever."

And Americans are responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:
From "The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military".....the Americans gave much to the Soviets:

 

Efforts, 1941-1945" by BORIS V. SOKOLOV, which clearly states that the USSR was all but done for without Lend Lease.

Quoting General Zhukov:

 

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

       Moreover, Zhukov underscored that `we entered war while still continuing to be a backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany. Simonov's     tuthful recounting of these meetings with Zhukov, which took place in 1965 and 1966, are corraborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov, recorded as a result of eavesdropping by security organs in 1963:

 

"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and ***could not have continued the war*** . . . we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance"
 
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13518049408430160

Yes, the United States helped the Soviet Union well with some important materials, but no one can not boast about it, because someone just helped someone with weapons, food or medicine, while someone suffered tremendous human sacrifices using these resources to save the world from the Nazis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mazerunner said:

And Americans are responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing 

Well yeah but after Pearl Harbor I can't say they didn't deserve some payback.  Maybe a bit too far, but it did give the world an actual sight of what weapons of mass destruction can do.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mazerunner said:

Yes, the United States helped the Soviet Union well with some important materials, but no one can not boast about it, because someone just helped someone with weapons, food or medicine, while someone suffered tremendous human sacrifices using these resources to save the world from the Nazis.

 

The Soviets suffered more casualties than necessary because of bad decisions early in the war, tactics, and partisan reprisals within the Soviet Union causing internal collapse.   Hell, Stalin's Great Purge before WW2 killed over 1,000,000.

Also, the Soviets were allied with Germany (Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact) until the tables were turned on them in June 1941 .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

Well yeah but after Pearl Harbor I can't say they didn't deserve some payback.  Maybe a bit too far, but it did give the world an actual sight of what weapons of mass destruction can do.  

Of course, I agree with you on this. But if we continue to behave like children, guided by this principle, then it is unlikely that something good will come of it. And actually.. much depends on the leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mazerunner said:

Of course, I agree with you on this. But if we continue to behave like children, guided by this principle, then it is unlikely that something good will come of it. And actually.. much depends on the leadership.

Exactly why the u.s. should not have backed out on the nuclear treaty with russia.  Seems like trump is out to start ww3.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cannucklehead said:

Exactly why the u.s. should not have backed out on the nuclear treaty with russia.  Seems like trump is out to start ww3.  

 

Russia was violating the treaty...which already had provisions for either party to abrogate, like any treaty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Russia was violating the treaty...which already had provisions for either party to abrogate, like any treaty.

You mean just like when they said Iraq had WMD's?  

 

iraq-weapon-of-mass-destruction-toles.gi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The Soviets suffered more casualties than necessary because of bad decisions early in the war, tactics, and partisan reprisals within the Soviet Union causing internal collapse.   Hell, Stalin's Great Purge before WW2 killed over 1,000,000.

Also, the Soviets were allied with Germany (Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact) until the tables were turned on them in June 1941 .

Speaking of Stalin, it is impossible to give a concrete and accurate answer, since it still causes historians to have absolutely polar and ambiguous opinions. We, not seeing this all with our own eyes (and thank God), now we can not give a concrete assessment of someone’s decisions and call them right or wrong.

Nevertheless, the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact significantly delayed the beginning of the war, and the non-aggression pact with Japan significantly reduced the threat of war on two fronts.

Also, the figure of Stalin and his public actions during the war had a huge positive moral impact on the Soviet people, inspiring confidence in the ultimate victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

You mean just like when they said Iraq had WMD's? 

 

Iraq did have WMD's (technically), and Iraq also violated surrender instruments from the Gulf War.

But that is off topic here...Russia developed intermediate range missiles that violated the treaty.

The U.S. / NATO removed Pershing II missiles and ALCMs back in the 80's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mazerunner said:

...Also, the figure of Stalin and his public actions during the war had a huge positive moral impact on the Soviet people, inspiring confidence in the ultimate victory.

 

Not for me to judge...Stalin and Russia are their affair in history.

But they were not so innocent when it came to Poland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Russia was violating the treaty...which already had provisions for either party to abrogate, like any treaty.

Russian military and diplomats have repeatedly denied U.S. accusations of violating by Russia the treaty terms. The 9M729 missile does not violate the terms of the INF Treaty and has never been tested at a forbidden range. On September 18, 2017, at the Kapustin Yar firing field, this missile was launched at its maximum range - it flew less than 298 miles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

Exactly why the u.s. should not have backed out on the nuclear treaty with russia.  Seems like trump is out to start ww3.  

Yeah, maybe everything will be so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Iraq did have WMD's (technically), and Iraq also violated surrender instruments from the Gulf War.

But that is off topic here...Russia developed intermediate range missiles that violated the treaty.

The U.S. / NATO removed Pershing II missiles and ALCMs back in the 80's.

But no one has any evidence about this 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Not for me to judge...Stalin and Russia are their affair in history.

But they were not so innocent when it came to Poland.

We can talk about this for a long time. For example, about the atrocities of the American army in the Korean and Vietnam wars, about today's crimes against the Japanese on Okinawa isl, etc.
Everybody in their own way are guilty of something and yes, it's not for us to judge them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mazerunner said:

We can talk about this for a long time. For example, about the atrocities of the American army in the Korean and Vietnam wars, about today's crimes against the Japanese on Okinawa isl, etc.
Everybody in their own way are guilty of something and yes, it's not for us to judge them

 

History has already judged the Soviet Union...it no longer exists. 

Germany does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mazerunner said:

But no one has any evidence about this 

 

Plenty of evidence...expelled UN inspectors....on and on...but a different topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Quote

 

the Soviet Union...it no longer exists.

 

But Russia do

Nevertheless, it is the Germans who are still ashamed of their fascist past, moreover, it was the Stalin`s USSR that destroyed Nazism.
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Plenty of evidence...expelled UN inspectors....on and on...but a different topic.

Different topic but I surfed the entire Internet, but for some reason I did not find a single proof that Russia violated the treaty terms, but only speculations and countless accusations 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mazerunner said:
Nevertheless, it is the Germans who are still ashamed of their fascist past, moreover, it was the Stalin`s USSR that destroyed Nazism.
 
 

 

If you say so....but the USSR was much more than Russia...Belarus and Ukraine suffered more than Russia as a percentage of population.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:
From "The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military".....the Americans gave much to the Soviets:

 

Efforts, 1941-1945" by BORIS V. SOKOLOV, which clearly states that the USSR was all but done for without Lend Lease.

Quoting General Zhukov:

 

The thing the Soviets couldn't live without (besides US steel & chemicals...that includes gasoline) was the ubiquitous 6x6 truck of various makes and models. That heavy artillery didn't haul itself. They had a few good (smaller) truck models themselves but there were never enough. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Corridor

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...