Stalingrad remembered.

[The Vagabond]

Great thread, Serb

You launched Sputnik because of German scientists and expertise.

David, you deny Russia any achievement whatsoever.

[Serb]

What take you so long?

[The Vagabond]

Sorry, Serb, it took me so long to post. But I have been reading the thread for the last few days and appreciating it.

[The Vagabond]

As for the name of the city, the most appropriate one would be Stalingradgrad -- to underscore that it is named after the battle of Stalingrad and not after Stalin. But unfortunately this sounds too redundant.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Serb


I've checked my book and have to say that I was mistaken. It was at the end of 1941 right before the Soviet Moscow's counter-offence, no at the beggining of 1942 as I thought. So, I have no idea about such attemts in 1942 and in 1943, perhaps you could enlighten me about this? Btw, do you know that Brits were doing exactly the same exactly at the same time (trying to sign separate peace with Hitler of course)? Does it mean that Brits "were close to collapse" too?

Where the hell do you get that from. the Uk could have made peace in 1940 when it was in real toruble. It didn't so why would it do it later on

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Serb


I've checked my book and have to say that I was mistaken. It was at the end of 1941 right before the Soviet Moscow's counter-offence, no at the beggining of 1942 as I thought. So, I have no idea about such attemts in 1942 and in 1943, perhaps you could enlighten me about this? Btw, do you know that Brits were doing exactly the same exactly at the same time (trying to sign separate peace with Hitler of course)? Does it mean that Brits "were close to collapse" too?

No. It means you are pulling facts out of your ass. The Brits asked Hitler for peace in 1942...

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by David Floyd
True, and those resources were insufficient to produce complex machine tools, or enough locomotives/rail tracks, or grain, etc.

but could produce such simple machines as tanks and planes

You have a very simplistic view of war. The presence of a credible threat draws troops away from other sectors. In May 1944, there were no battles going on in France, yet Germany still had 46 divisions - including 9 Panzer divisions with 1500 tanks - sitting around in France. This is pretty significant, wouldn't you say? An entire Panzer group and a couple of armies would have made quite a contribution on the Eastern Front, eh?

the first time there was any significant presence of fighting troops on the West was during Ardennes (and they almost drove you to Atlantic)

That's incorrect. Even after Stalingrad, the Wehrmacht had largely recovered throughout the spring of 1943, and launched some pretty good blitzkrieg-style local counterattacks that succeeded in retaking a good bit of territory in the Ukraine.

sporadic counterattacks, but on a strategic defensive. they counterattacked after russian winter/spring 1943 offensive and that is about it, really...

Kept fighting, yes. Kept launching massive attacks, no, at least not once they maxed out their manpower availability and were only going down, and not once their production abilities peaked, and Germany's began to approach their's

you mean after germany developed a clone army of workers and a clone army of soldiers?

LaRusso,



The Abomb was produced because of espionage - you stole it from the US. You launched Sputnik because of German scientists and expertise.

Serbs never captured any German scientists hehe
By the way, as a great haven for Strangelove-like Nazi scientists, US should keep quiet about such stuff...

[David Floyd]

Serb,

Bullsh!t. You have one problem Floyd, you believe that during the war there were only Americans locomotives on Soviet railroads. For you 2000 locomotives it's huge number, but in fact for such huge country as Soviet Union 2000 locomotives it's a drop in the ocean.

Perhaps, but thousands were captured or destroyed by the Germans, and many of the rest were overworked.

The fact that SU lowered production of its locomotives during the war doesn't mean that all Soviet locomotives magicaly dissapiared somewhere.

OK, but what you are forgetting is that if the Russians had to produce locomotives (not to mention railroad track, which you are also ignoring), they would have been producing that many fewer tanks.

WHEN YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THAT LEND- LEASE WAS LESS THAN 5%, FIVE PERCENTS OF TOTAL SOVIET WAR-RELATED PRODUCTION?

I understand the 5% figure. What you aren't understanding is that a)that's a very low end estimate, b)much of that percentage, whatever the true percentage is, could not have been domestically produced, at least not of the same quality, and c)if the SU had been forced to produce that stuff, it's corresponding percentage loss of military production (tanks, artillery, whatever) would have been much greater than 5%. They wouldn't have been able to split production factories in half - ie, part producing tanks, part producing trains. Further, that percentage figure refers to the financial cost of production, not the labor itself, or the amount of raw materials.

What you're doing is basically lying with statistics. The contribution of Lend Lease was certainly greater than 5% any way you figure it, but in terms of actual military production, such as tanks, aircraft, etc., Lend Lease allowed the production of more than "5%" more than otherwise would have been produced. Also realize, again, that a good portion of Lend Lease was actually military equipment that was utilized up through the end of the war (the entire 1st Guards Mechanized Corps, in 1945, was equipped entirely with Lend Lease tanks for example) that would have had to have been otherwise produced.

I've asked "which battles on West front drew off German troops for example in November/December 1941 and how many troops ?" Once again IN 1941, not in 1944.

Oh, I'm not claiming that the US and Britain had any influence on the Battle for Moscow in 1941. The Germans lost because of the weather, not because of US involvement.

If you do not realize that landing in Normandy in 1944 was nothing more than attempt to grab at least something in Europe, before commies would take everything, BECAUSE it was absolutely clear that Germany is doomed and nothing would stop Soviets, then you are hopeless.

I think you're confusing this with the Soviet attack on Japan in 1945, and in any case, I'll apply the same argument that you use for that one in reverse - the Soviet Union was begging for help of a military nature (to a much greater degree than the US requests that the SU go to war with Japan).

And as to the Soviets driving all the way across Europe and being able to defeat the United States, I think we all know how laughable that is.

You are talking about tactic, I was talking about strategy.

You were talking about blitzkrieg in general, and I answered with specific examples.

And still, you didn't answered how the hell you could be 100% sure that Soviets would have lost if in 1943 Germans still had air-superiority?

First of all, I didn't make that argument, second of all, do you at least admit that the Germans would have done significantly BETTER in 1943 with air superiority? Or, barring that, will you admit that air superiority would have had SOME positive impact for the Germans?

They had it 1941, so what?

If you think the Soviet Union could have survived the losses of June-December 1941 again in 1943, and stayed in the war in any significant capacity, you're dreaming.

And you have to prove first that Soviets would lost air-superiority if Germany had these additional fighters.

As late as 1944, with under 20% of their fighters in the East, the Luftwaffe could grab local air superiority almost anywhere it wanted. The Finns could do the same thing, and both of these in the face of massive theater wide numerical superiority possessed by the Red Air Force. If Germany increased it's fighter strength by 500%, don't you think it would have had a massive impact on the air war?

Btw, do you know that Brits were doing exactly the same exactly at the same time (trying to sign separate peace with Hitler of course)?

Really? The British were trying to make peace in 1942, AFTER the US entered the war and AFTER they won the Battle of Britain when they wouldn't make peace when they stood alone after the fall of France? Hehe, good one.

LaRusso,

but could produce such simple machines as tanks and planes

Well, it's true that because of their focus of very nearly 100% of industrial potential on military production, the SU produced more tanks than the US (and also, of course, lost more to a massively disproportional amount).

But in terms of aircraft, you're totally off base. In 1944, the US was outproducing the SU in aircraft by a ratio of 2:1, and this disparity was trending upwards in 1945, with the US industrial capacity still not at full potential (expanding at about 15% a year), while the SU's had already peaked. Further, thousands of these US aircraft were heavy bombers, which the SU produced almost 0 of, focusing almost entirely on the much easier to produce fighters and tactical aircraft.

the first time there was any significant presence of fighting troops on the West was during Ardennes

No, this was the first time there were significant numbers of troops and tanks FOLLOWING Operation Cobra and the closing of the Falaise Gap and, to a lesser extent, the landing in Southern France, which absolutely decimated Germany's Western armies.

sporadic counterattacks, but on a strategic defensive.

Never claimed otherwise.

you mean after germany developed a clone army of workers and a clone army of soldiers?

No, I mean after the German field commanders were allowed to pursue a flexible defensive strategy that involved strategic withdrawals and corresponding local counterattacks to squeeze off overextended Soviet troops (which virtually always happened when the Germans counterattacked) - a strategy designed to kill Soviet troops much quicker than Germany lost troops.

[Sandman]

I can't believe you're still flogging the dead locomotive horse, Floyd. The numbers are simply against you.

[David Floyd]

First of all, locomotives are but one example. Second of all, I haven't seen anyone but me post numbers (Serb got the 2000 figure from me), and thirdly, Lend Lease wasn't the only example of American assistance to the war effort.

[Sandman]

Two of your points are the same point of which I am taking no notice. A Floydian slip?

Where does your estimate of 2000 come from then? I've seen similar unattributed figures of 1000. Does your figure represent locomotives shipped, rather than those arriving safely?

I think that it is reasonable to assume that the lend lease locomotives were ill-equipped for Russian conditions, and presumably required increased effort to adapt them for useful service.

I also suggest that the presence of LL increased the need for rail transport more than the proportion of economic aid gained because the aid was delivered into the Soviet Union at it's extremities, reducing the overall efficiency of the rail network.

I would also be very surprised if the Soviet locomotive losses were as high as you suggest. They were delivering materials to the Germans prior to war, but what percentage of Soviet GDP was spent on that? No more than 5%, surely.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Serb
BeBro,
Yes Ilya (may I use your previous name Eli?) is absolutely correct. Stalingrad’s original name is Tzaricin, but it’s not about Tzar or monarchy. Tzaricin (later Stalingrad, later Volgograd) was founded on river Tzarca (Queen). The name of this river was the origin for name of the city. It was renamed to Stalingard later. I guess because it’s a place where during Russian civil war Red army had devastating victory over White Army. The person who commanded defense of the Tzaricin was Stalin.

Leave the name alone or rename it to Tzaricin. We should never honor Stalin or Hitler. For the solider who fought and died there, honor them.

Serb; Like it or not, Midway was for the US in the Pacific, as was Stalingrad for Russia.

The Japanese had us at a disadvantage. They had one Battleship, 4 Carriers and several Cruisers, Destroyer and Subs, plus an invasion fleet of several thousand troops. The US had 3 carrier, a few Cruiser and Destroyer. Midway itself had only a few planes and a few hundred Marines to defend the Islands.
If we had loss, the war would have been extended maybe 2, 3 or more years.

The US was building it first Carrier and Battleship after the war started for us, and they were not ready to sail until Feb and March of 43. Midway was in June of 42, and if the Japanese won at Midway, they would have a base to attack Hawaii anytime they wanted. Plus the US had no means to supply Hawaii other than with ships, and the Japanese Subs could have operated off of our coast. There are only 8 ports on the West coast that shipping could have sailed from to Hawaii.
Seattle, Portland, Eureka, Ca., San Francisco, Monterey, Ca., Los Angeles, and San Diego. The only planes that could fly to Hawaii is the B-17 and 24s, no fighter had the range.

We the US would not have been able to attack Africa in 42. Germany could have sent more troops to Russia.

I know that you love Russia, but from time to time sit back and look at the big picture. If I do this, what will he do. And if he does that, what can I do to stop or slow it down.

[David Floyd]

Joseph:

Actually, the Japanese had 2 BBs with the First Carrier Striking Force - 2nd Section, BatDiv 3, which was the Haruna and Kirishima.

The rest of their BBs were with their other forces.

So it's an even bigger victory for the USN

[Joseph]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Joseph:

Actually, the Japanese had 2 BBs with the First Carrier Striking Force - 2nd Section, BatDiv 3, which was the Haruna and Kirishima.

The rest of their BBs were with their other forces.

So it's an even bigger victory for the USN

Thank you. I did not get one my books to look it up, but I knew that they had at lease one.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Serb

Do you have any link that says that 16 year olds were drafted on regular basis in Red army in 1944? I never heard about this. Sure some young volunteers lied to draftmans about their true age, but draft of 16 olds on regular basis it's absolutely different thing.

I've seen alot of pictures of soviet troops around 44/45 with teenage soldiers. Not in the same ratio as the Germans at berlin but still quite a few. Of course, I wouldn't know if they were drafted or not.

[Serb]

The conscription age in SU/Russian Federation was/is 18. I doubt you could determinate exact age of soldiers only looking on pictures.

[Serb]

Originally posted by TheStinger


Where the hell do you get that from. the Uk could have made peace in 1940 when it was in real toruble. It didn't so why would it do it later on

Ok, ok...my screw-up. I admit. I should have said 'aproximately at he same time' instead of 'exactly'. Germans and Brits made attempts to sign separate peace treaty since 1944, but Stalin made an ultimatum to Churchill. I pulled it out of Vladimir Karpov's book "Generalissimus' and he pulled it out of Stali-Churchill personal mail.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Serb
Germans and Brits made attempts to sign separate peace treaty since 1944, but Stalin made an ultimatum to Churchill. I pulled it out of Vladimir Karpov's book "Generalissimus' and he pulled it out of Stali-Churchill personal mail.

The Brits suing for peace in 1944 ?
I've never heard that one before...
Is that an actual fact or just something Stalin was overly concerned over?

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Serb,
Perhaps, but thousands were captured or destroyed by the Germans, and many of the rest were overworked.

Really? And surely you can prove this?
Do you know how many factories were evacuated from Ukraine to Ural in 1941? Tens of thousands. I'll give you exact figure if you wish later. So you think Soviets evacuated their industry on magic carpet or something?

OK, but what you are forgetting is that if the Russians had to produce locomotives (not to mention railroad track, which you are also ignoring), they would have been producing that many fewer tanks.

No it is you who do not understand that tanks were priority, because tanks losses/ need for tanks were MUCH, incomparable much greater than losses of locomotives/need for locomotives. To be able to transport something via trains, first you need tanks to protect railroad station were these trains are heading. What's the meaning in logistic if you don't have army to supply?

I understand the 5% figure. What you aren't understanding is that a)that's a very low end estimate, b)much of that percentage, whatever the true percentage is, could not have been domestically produced, at least not of the same quality, and c)if the SU had been forced to produce that stuff, it's corresponding percentage loss of military production (tanks, artillery, whatever) would have been much greater than 5%.

a) It's generous, not low.
b) Such as?
c) Partitialy agreed. The key word here is "corresponding percentage". Are you seriously believe that if Soviets were forced to produce LL stuff by themselves, they would have significient loss in tank production? These 5% would transformed to 7,5% losses or in the most worse case into 10%.

They wouldn't have been able to split production factories in half - ie, part producing tanks, part producing trains.

This claim is funny David, because this is EXACTLY how Soviet industry worked right untill collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Half of the same factory produced tanks, while another half produced bikes, trains, whatever. And in fact the largest factory where Soviet tanks were produced during the WW2 (and the largest manufacturer of Russian tanks today) was the "Uralvagonzavod"- Ural's train plant.

Further, that percentage figure refers to the financial cost of production, not the labor itself, or the amount of raw materials.

I thought this figure refers to the total cost of delivered goods, which include labor and raw material. Are you trying to say that Americans were bad traders?

What you're doing is basically lying with statistics. The contribution of Lend Lease was certainly greater than 5% any way you figure it, but in terms of actual military production, such as tanks, aircraft, etc., Lend Lease allowed the production of more than "5%" more than otherwise would have been produced. Also realize, again, that a good portion of Lend Lease was actually military equipment that was utilized up through the end of the war (the entire 1st Guards Mechanized Corps, in 1945, was equipped entirely with Lend Lease tanks for example) that would have had to have been
otherwise produced.

And? The single Mechanized Corps out of entire Soviet tanks forces (still wounder where you get this, but...) So what, it means that without this single corps Soviets would lost the war?

Oh, I'm not claiming that the US and Britain had any influence on the Battle for Moscow in 1941. The Germans lost because of the weather, not because of US involvement.

Well, well, well David Floyd changed his views. Cool. At least I didn't spend all those hours for nothing. What about this? Remember?
"Lend-Lease war material was insignificant (although at the time of Typhoon the Russians had more US/Brit tanks than Russian ones)."
http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showt...0&pagenumber=6

I think you're confusing this with the Soviet attack on Japan in 1945, and in any case, I'll apply the same argument that you use for that one in reverse - the Soviet Union was begging for help of a military nature (to a much greater degree than the US requests that the SU go to war with Japan).

I was waiting for this. And I admit this. Stalin motives for jumping in war vs. Japan were the same as Allies motives for openning second front in Europe. When the hell you will admit this?

And as to the Soviets driving all the way across Europe and being able to defeat the United States, I think we all know how laughable that is.

Bah...Who was talking about defeat of USA? I said G e r m a n y (not USA) was doomed in 1944. And nothing could stop Soviets on their way to Berlin in 1944.

First of all, I didn't make that argument, second of all, do you at least admit that the Germans would have done significantly BETTER in 1943 with air superiority? Or, barring that, will you admit that air superiority would have had SOME positive impact for the Germans?

I admit. What now?

If you think the Soviet Union could have survived the losses of June-December 1941 again in 1943, and stayed in the war in any significant capacity, you're dreaming.

It is you who dreaming if you think that Wehrmacht could inflict to Red army the damage of June-December 1941 in 1943.

As late as 1944, with under 20% of their fighters in the East, the Luftwaffe could grab local air superiority almost anywhere it wanted.

Bullsh!t. Do you have something to prove it?

The Finns could do the same thing, and both of these in the face of massive theater wide numerical superiority possessed by the Red Air Force. If Germany increased it's fighter strength by 500%, don't you think it would have had a massive impact on the air war?

First you have to prove that 4/5 of Luftwaffe fighter's strenght were on West front.

Really? The British were trying to make peace in 1942, AFTER the US entered the war and AFTER they won the Battle of Britain when they wouldn't make peace when they stood alone after the fall of France? Hehe, good one.

I hope you liked it.

[Serb]

Originally posted by ravagon


The Brits suing for peace in 1944 ?
I've never heard that one before...
Is that an actual fact or just something Stalin was overly concerned over?

Why the hell "The Brits suing for peace "? It was German idea. And Stalin was pretty much concerned about this.

[Serb]

Joseph,
I must apologise. Me and Floyd fight about this topic since very long time and sometimes (quite often, to be honest) we drops to pretty low level.
I have good amount of respect to American soldiers who fought vs. nazism, as well as good amount of gratitude to American help to SU during the war. Lend Lease certanly saved a lot of, perhaps millions of Soviet lives.
However, I will never accept Floyd's "we saved your pity Russian as$es, we won this war" attitude. It's simply beyond me. I am myself being Russian unable to fully imagine a scale of effort a Soviet people, our older generation did to defeat invaders, a scale of horrors they faced during this war. It's simply impossible to expect it from young American generation. We see this war from different angles and we will never agree with each other.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Joseph
We the US would not have been able to attack Africa in 42. Germany could have sent more troops to Russia.

British fought well but the numbers involved in that operation are just miniscule in comparison with the Eastern Front. After all, it was called Africa Corpse and if you count Vichy French as a formidable fighting force, well then....hehe
This said, nobody is trying to diminish anyone's role in the WW2. The triumph of humanity was a combined effort of all powers and all countless partisans, spies, etc. HOwever, the only argument I do not buy in this whole exchange of views is David's story about Russians on the verge of collapse...

Btw, now that you left 1944 out of your nick, you can add Dzugashvili to it

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by LaRusso


Hey Vetlegion! Hope you are doing fine

As already posted, that scene from the movie is utter crap (even disregarding the fact that the 'ni sagu nazad' order was implemented mostly during the horrible summer of 1942 and that, once in the city, it was not necessary to issue that order anymore). the sillyness of it all reflects in the scene where the soldiers are being slaughtered not for retreating but for having their charge repulsed. nothing like that happened, not even a complete lunatic would expect a 100% success in an infantry charge. that is definitely the stupidest point of the movie (there are some other stupid points too, the whole burlesque with khruschev and stalin's portrait, they were taking a piss out of the movie...)

Yes it did happen, and Hitler was just as crazy as Stalin. During the first few years of the war Stalin even ordered the imprisonment and execution of soldiers who tried to escape back to Soviet lines when their units were overrun and bypassed by the German blitzkrieg. By his command it was automatically assumed that such soldiers were traitors.
Didn't the Soviet Union continue to field "security divisions" right up until its bitter end? The official TO&E of the Soviet Army clearly includes such units. If WWIII had ever broken out in Europe KGB troops would have been behind the lines making certain that the troops of the Red army and its allies continued pressing forward no matter what.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Serb
Joseph,
I must apologise. Me and Floyd fight about this topic since very long time and sometimes (quite often, to be honest) we drops to pretty low level.
I have good amount of respect to American soldiers who fought vs. nazism, as well as good amount of gratitude to American help to SU during the war. Lend Lease certanly saved a lot of, perhaps millions of Soviet lives.
However, I will never accept Floyd's "we saved your pity Russian as$es, we won this war" attitude. It's simply beyond me. I am myself being Russian unable to fully imagine a scale of effort a Soviet people, our older generation did to defeat invaders, a scale of horrors they faced during this war. It's simply impossible to expect it from young American generation. We see this war from different angles and we will never agree with each other.

Hey, what about me! Don't generalize so!
Let's say this: Without the continuing resistance from the Soviet Union the defeat of Nazi Germany would have been nigh unto impossible....without the use of atomic weapons that is. Without American entry into the war it is anyone's guess as to whether or not the Soviet Union would have prevailed over Nazi Germ,any.

[David Floyd]

Really? And surely you can prove this?
Do you know how many factories were evacuated from Ukraine to Ural in 1941? Tens of thousands. I'll give you exact figure if you wish later. So you think Soviets evacuated their industry on magic carpet or something?

No, I think they used trains. What's your point? I've never denied that the Soviets had their own trains, just that they lost thousands of locomotives in Western Russia, as well as thousands of miles of track captures or torn up to prevent capture. They needed Lend Lease to repair this damage so that they could continue to crank out tanks.

No it is you who do not understand that tanks were priority, because tanks losses/ need for tanks were MUCH, incomparable much greater than losses of locomotives/need for locomotives. To be able to transport something via trains, first you need tanks to protect railroad station were these trains are heading. What's the meaning in logistic if you don't have army to supply?

Yes, but obviously without Lend Lease locomotives and track, the SU would have had to produce roughly equivalent amounts on their own. What's the point of having tanks if they have to drive on their own treads from the Urals to the Ukraine?

a) It's generous, not low.

It's the lowest figure I've ever seen reasonably advanced.

b) Such as?

Complex machine tools, to start with.

c) Partitialy agreed. The key word here is "corresponding percentage". Are you seriously believe that if Soviets were forced to produce LL stuff by themselves, they would have significient loss in tank production? These 5% would transformed to 7,5% losses or in the most worse case into 10%.

Where did you get that 10% number from? And even if that number is accurate - and you have no reason to claim that it is - that is still a huge number of tanks.

And that still doesn't take into account the thousands of Lend Lease tanks used by the Russians as light tanks - the Red Army needed light tanks, and if Lend Lease didn't provide them, they would have had to produce their own. Of course, the light tanks sent by Lend Lease were actually superior to the light tanks the Soviets had, and that's why they were used up to the end of the war.

This claim is funny David, because this is EXACTLY how Soviet industry worked right untill collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Interesting. Seems pretty inefficient, though.

Are you trying to say that Americans were bad traders?

I would consider trading billions of dollars of Lend Lease and hundreds of thousands of lives to fight a war that shouldn't have mattered to the US a bad trade.

And? The single Mechanized Corps out of entire Soviet tanks forces (still wounder where you get this, but...) So what, it means that without this single corps Soviets would lost the war?

Certainly not. It means that even at the end of the war, when Soviet tank production was at its height, Lend Lease armored vehicles were still equipping large Soviet formations.

Well, well, well David Floyd changed his views. Cool. At least I didn't spend all those hours for nothing. What about this? Remember?
"Lend-Lease war material was insignificant (although at the time of Typhoon the Russians had more US/Brit tanks than Russian ones)."

I don't recall EVER claiming that US military action or presence in 1941 saved Moscow. I do remember saying that the primary thing that saved Moscow was the weather, and I stand by that.

I was waiting for this. And I admit this. Stalin motives for jumping in war vs. Japan were the same as Allies motives for openning second front in Europe. When the hell you will admit this?

I won't admit this, because it isn't true. The US didn't have the capability to land in Europe until 1944, and especially not if they were fighting in the Pacific and Mediterranean and Atlantic, in Africa and Italy.

I don't understand what you are saying - are you saying that if the SU never attacked Japan, the outcome of the war would have been unchanged, even in terms of timeline (margin of error of maybe a few days)? If that's your claim, I agree - it's obvious.

If you are claiming that the US not entering the war against Germany would have had the same effect as the Soviet Union not entering the war against Japan, that's a ridiculous claim, and I think that should be obvious.

I said G e r m a n y (not USA) was doomed in 1944. And nothing could stop Soviets on their way to Berlin in 1944.

Germany was doomed because of US entry into the war, and landings in Italy, Sicily, and France made possible by the US, as well as massive strategic bombing campaigns made possible by,you guessed it, the US.

I admit. What now?

So you agree that air superiority would have helped the German military on the Eastern Front? Good, we're getting somewhere.

Now, will you admit that if the 80% of the Luftwaffe's fighters in the West could have joined the other 20% in the East, Germany could probably have gained a measure of air superiority?

It is you who dreaming if you think that Wehrmacht could inflict to Red army the damage of June-December 1941 in 1943.

You're the one who brought it up, not me.

Bullsh!t. Do you have something to prove it?

I'm gonna claim common knowledge on that one.

First you have to prove that 4/5 of Luftwaffe fighter's strenght were on West front.

Again, common knowledge.

We see this war from different angles and we will never agree with each other.

That's the problem - you have to separate emotional attachment/nationalism from objective fact.

[Darsnan]

As far as the original question was concerned, why I think the city should remain named "Stalingrad", as it will draw more tourists, thus bringing more cash into the cities coffers - very capitalistic!
Since then, very interesting debate, indeed! Several things I haven't seen discussed here is the significance of the Blechely decrypts which provided the Soviets with vital information about German, and German satelite division strengths. This was very key to the Stalingrad Encirclement (and maintaining that encirclement against Manstein's relief column) IMO, as well as providing the Soviets with key German intentions in '43. Also, Richard Sorge's vital information turned the Battle of Moscow from a defensive struggle for the SU into a full blown offensive, as Sorge's information allowed the transfer of several divisions of trained troops from the Siberian Front to Moscow to launch the counteroffensive.
Regardless, having read Keagan's "The Second World War", as well as having the ten hour Russian WWII video-documentary "Russia's War: Blood upon the Snow", why I cannot help but think that a western democracy would not have survived the onslaught that the SU faced in WWII. For them to have overcome the German war machine, whilst the mauled British and green Americans built up forces on their front (and launched periphery campaigns against Fortress Europe), is truly one of the greatest accomplishments of the 20th Century, IMO. Although all of the Allied Powers should be recognized for their share of standing up to and defeating the Axis, the SU alone can claim that they brought about the downfall of the Axis with their own blood. Indeed, from Stalingrad on, it seemed that the whole Russian attitude was the eschew of tactics in favor of bludgeoning defensive/ counteroffensive engagements (such as Kursk), or simply relying on Enigma decrypts to exploit German weaknesses, as was the case at the crossing of the Dneiper (where over 80% of the SU Award "Hero of the Soviet Union" were won during WWII , so ferocious was this battle!), and the liberation of Kiev! Goebel's himself lamented that "we are bleeding to death in the east!", so successful was this SU doctrine!
Perhaps instead of asking whether the SU won their war against Nazism with (or without) western assistance, a better tact would be to ask if the western allies, put in the same shoes the SU was forced to wear, could have walked those same miles that the SU did in '41, '42, and '43.....

[David Floyd]

Well, I can tell you that without the Soviet Union, the Allies (US+Britain+minor allies) still would have defeated Germany, without a great deal of extra fighting.

[Ned]

Darsnan, well put and true. The Soviet Union cannot be praised enough for its efforts against Hitler. If they had collapsed or made a separate peace, we (the US and the UK) would have had to face Nazi Germany alone. The thought of that is simply apalling.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, I can tell you that without the Soviet Union, the Allies (US+Britain+minor allies) still would have defeated Germany, without a great deal of extra fighting.

Ok, now that is one of the most patently rediculous statements I've ever read. I'll concede that the the allies sans the SU would probably eventually prevail over Germany due to sheer capacity of production (depending on what level you exclude SU - never in the war, fully defeated, etc), but it would have entailled WAY, WAY more fighting.

[Viking Berserk]

[img]What am I saying? I forgot...El Alemein was the turning point in your little corner of the world. Stalingrad...wasn't that a sleepy town in the Ukrain? No no, I recall now...it's in Bosnia!
[/img]

typical american comment? definately!