From: C.C.Jordan@Worldnet.att.net (C.C. Jordan)
Subject: Re: WWII and Aces. (was If Hitler had ..... )
Date: 23 Oct 1998 12:35:25 GMT
On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 00:49:31 -0400, Yevgeniy Chizhikov
>C.C. Jordan wrote:
>> This is a remarkably ignorant statement. I suggest the writer actually
>> study the history of WWI before making such a comment.
>Exactly, do I think you should do it.
As a history major, the study of military history has been a priority of mine
for more than 30 years. This does not include simply browsing through a
book or two, like some of this newsgroup's more active trolls. It requires
a dedication to researching actual facts, accepting data that does not
support pet theory and being honest enough to give credit where it is due.
The study of military history that searches only for supporting data and ignores
anything to the contrary is not study at all. It is patently dishonest and rife
with blind nationalism.
>> Now, if not for American divisions rushed into the line at
>> Chateau-Thierry, the crumbling French position would have failed and
>> the Germans very well may have advanced as far as Paris. Furthermore,
>> it was American manpower that provided the edge that overcame the
>> Germans. I don't consider more than 320,000 killed wounded and missing
>> as "hardly any involvement in WWI". The majority of these casualties
>> occured in just 5 months.
>By all accounts, Germans had lost W.W.I BEFORE Americans had arrived.
>American arrival was the sign for Germans that now it is really over.
Obviously this is not correct. The French and British were as worn out as the
Germans. There exited a general sense of war weariness throughout Europe.
Portions of the French Army were on the verge of open revolt. As late as June
1918, the German Army was launching attacks that seriously undermined the
resolve of the French and English, leaving glaring doubts as to the outcome
of the war. It was the arrival of one million American soldiers and Marines that
tipped the scale in favor of the Allies. Without the Americans, it was very
unlikely that the war would have been resolved prior to 1920.
>> Really!? Listen Nickolay, kindly obtain an education. The USSR was on the
>> verge of defeat when American lend lease provided the means to fight on.
>> That is well documented despite what some pro-Soviet zealots will spout.
>Only in the minds of such people like you, who want to steal piece of
>history and gain more credit that you deserve. Let's go to sources.
>"Hitler's Nemesis" by Walter S. Dunn Jr, only 4 convoys entered Murmansk
>in more in 1942-1943, as this way was effectively blocked by Germans,
>Alaska and Iran, only began to work. OVERWHELMING amount of supply,
>reached Soviets only after battle of Stalingrad. Even WITHOUT ANY LEND
>LEASE Soviet industry out produced Germans by HUGE margin. Book stated
>that Soviets could win the Germans WITHOUT any help from outside, and
"Let's go to sources"??!!
Why do you repeatedly ignore Richard Overy? Why do you repeated ignore
the writings of Zhukov?
Once again Yevgeniy chooses to ignore that it has been established beyond
reasonable doubt that the USSR would have folded in 1943 without Lend Lease.
Marshal Zhukov freely admitted this.
I have previously posted portions of "The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military
Efforts, 1941-1945" by BORIS V. SOKOLOV, which clearly states that the USSR
was all but done for without Lend Lease.
"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 from
the 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 the
war, 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 the
quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic],
we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable
degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary
for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of
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
truthful 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."
>Most contribution US did for USSR is selling Soviets factories in 1930's.
>All large Soviet tank factory were designed and build with American help
>in 1930's. As one can see nothing change sense then. Americans would
>cooperate with any menace that would pay top dollars. However in this
>case, Thanks A Lot!
I can dig out the exact contribution by America, these numbers are from memory,
but are still very close. These are the percentages of the total available to
the Soviet military and industry that were supplied by America:
80% of all canned meat.
92% of all railroad locomotives, rolling stock and rails.
57% of all aviation fuel.
53% of all explosives.
74% of all truck transport.
88% of all radio equipment.
53% of all copper.
56% of all aluminum.
60+% of all automotive fuel.
74% of all vehicle tires.
12% of all armored vehicles.
14% of all combat aircraft.
The list includes a high percentage of the high grade steel, communications
cable, canned foods of all types, medical supplies, and virtually every modern
machine tool used by Soviet industry. Not to mention the "know-how required to
use and maintain this equipment.
>It also challenge the myth about Germans tied up in France waiting for
>invasion. It is not one of this "West kick ass and save the World
>pseudo-historic books" spreading myths about Soviets hordes, book
>actually analyzing Russian Army and points out TRUE reason of Soviet
>It also question all kinds of myths about men shortage in Soviet army,
>and another Western inventions.
I have not read this book. However, I will endeavor to locate a copy.
Nonetheless, it is easy to find a book that supports ones position. What is
hard, is to consider sources that do not support it. That is why you need to
read Overy's books "Why The Allies Won" and "Russia's War". Overy's
credentials are beyond question. Moreover, he is an Englishman and a
Professor of Modern History at King's College. Therefore, you are not going
to get the "American view".
>> Plunder??? Ever hear of the Marshall Plan. Guess who paid to get Europe
>> back on it's feet. It wasn't the USSR.
>The only reason you did is because rapid spread of communism in Eastern
>Europe. Red Menace was too damn real. It took billions of dollars to save
>Greece and Turkey from almost assured collapsed into Communism.
That was part of the reasoning, to be sure. However, the primary intent was to
achieve economic stability. Without which, long term peace was unlikely.
>> That's unfortunate. No one denys that the Russian people suffered extreme
>> hardship. Nonetheless, you had no monopoly on pain and loss, and this in
>> no way gives you the right to make the disrespectful and uninformed comments
>> that you have dumped on us.
>From 1943 Soviets fought the war for political reasons. American and
>British unwillingness to suffer the same combat casualties as Russians,
>cost Jews millions of lifes and sentenced hundreds of millions of people
>for 40 years of Communism. Book very clear that Western Allies could not
>possible defeat Germans, no matter how hard they tried.
Yevgeniy, the Jews don't hold the western Allies responsible for the Nazi
atrocities, so why do you blame them?
There are many other military authorities who would strongly disagree with any
conclusion that the western Allies could not defeat Germany alone. One opinion
does not make it a fact. In this case, this is obvious bilge.
>Even in 1944, after major German forces had perished in Russia, 100
>German divisions give Brits and Americans more than they bargained for.
>At the same time Soviets handle 200 German divisions with easy.
Ease??!! I think not! Moreover, the Soviets never had to fight through the
Bocage country either. You also forget that the Allies were fighting in Italy
and defeating the Japanese Empire at this same time.
>All this talk about power of US and Britain, is nothing more than wishful
>thinking. What US had is industrial base, US did not had Army which was
>capable for prolong continental warfare, US did not had proper doctrine
Utter nonsense. For a 20 year old college kid in Ohio, you certainly make a
point of arguing well over your head. I'll wager that you have no idea about
leadership, not having any experience at it. Moreover, can you define U.S. Army
doctrine? Not without a trip to library.......
>Supposedly better training is one
>of the myths. By 1943 Soviets were on pairs with Germans, and in fact
>even better. Most importantly neither US or Britain had CULTURE that
>would be able to put MILLIONS their sons into the graves. It was the MAIN
>reason why invasion only happened in 1944, and it had NO reason except
>salvage at least some piece of Europe from Red Menace.
The "MAIN reason" had to do with fighting a vast two front war. But, you are
correct in one respect; America was not willing to sacrifice its sons by the
millions for Europe or Russia. And, you know what? We still feel the same way.
Now online - Flying Prototypes by Erik Shilling:
The Curtiss YP-37 and the Bell YFM-1.
The "Planes and Pilots of WWII" website.
An online WWII aviation history magazine.
Where veterans can publish their memories
on their own webpage.Veterans are encouraged
to submit articles, stories and essays by
e-mail. Write me for details, or click on
the "Submission guidelines" link on the index
page of the website. Every Veteran's story is
A member of the WWII Web-ring.
From: Jordan@worldwar2aviation.com (C.C. Jordan)
Subject: Re: LANCASTER BOMBER
Date: 1 Feb 2000 18:04:58 -0500
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 06:22:55 GMT, email@example.com (Tero P.
>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> email@example.com (WalterM140) writes:
>> wanted Germany taken care of, not excues about convoy losses while he was
>> counting his dead by the millions.>>
>> Who put Stalin in charge of the western democracies?
>And in any case, Stalin did not believe that strategic bombing could
>be a real war winning effort.
Perhaps Stalin did not realize that 55,000 anti-aircraft guns, including 75%
of the 88mm guns were dedicated to shooting at bombers instead of
Perhaps he did not understand that nearly 2 million men were involved in the
defense of the Reich against the strategic bomber offensive.
75% of the Luftwaffe fighter arm was tied down defending German industry.
20% of all artillery ammunition was allocated to anti-air defense of Germany.
As a result of bombing, the Germans produced 35% less armor than they
projected. 31% fewer aircraft (82% of that were fighters) and over 40% fewer
Picture a three-fold increase in 88mm guns, and the crews to man them.
Picture 35% more tanks for the Wehrmacht. Picture 40% more trucks
being available. Envision the German fighter strength doubling on the eastern
front. Picture the Soviets being unable to win the big victories of 1944.
Indeed, Churchill was correct; the bomber offensive was a "second front".
We can't exclude the value of Lend Lease either. It may be fair to say that
the Soviet Union survived because the western Allies wanted them to.
>This is more than adequately proven by
>the fact the the Soviets invested almost nothing on strategic
>bombing. It was not a question of technology, because they had been
>experimenting a lot with four engined bombers in the 1930's, and the
>Pe-8 had enough range and an adequate bomb load. If resources had been
>allocated, the design could have been improved further. It was simply
>that investing on strategic bombing would have been waste of resources
>for the Soviets.
I would not go so far as to say that the Pe-8 could ever come close to the
potential of most of the western bombers. It could have been developed
only so far, being a 1934 design. The Soviets needed a new design and
that would take years. The closest they came was with the Tu-4 (metric
B-29) and that was too late as well.
Just recall the unmitigated disaster of the April 1941 Pe-8 raid on Berlin.
>Sure, Stalin liked strategic bombing because it was everything the
>Western Allies seemed to be able to do at the time, but what he REALLY
>wanted was a second front in the old fashioned way, with soldiers,
>tanks and artillery.
See above about the second front.
One must not forget that a significant amount of German resources were
tied up in North Africa, Sicily and Italy. Those divisions and aircraft may have
been the difference at Kursk.
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com - The Planes and Pilots of WWII Internet Magazine
http://www.cradleofaviation.org - Cradle of Aviation Museum