[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

Assuming that this site has the correct information, it would seem as if I was wrong about the role allied supplies played. However, note that the Soviets were still capable of mounting huge counter offensives before the majority of this aid arrived. I would say that this aid sealed the deal, and that the Soviet's fight would have been much harder without it, but it is still plausable that they could have won.

http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Production/Russia/Lend-Lease.htm

KC_Hokie

The counter offensive began in winter 1941, at which time only around 600 tanks had been delivered (most of which were light valentines and M3 Stuarts)

EDIT: The offensive to push the germans away from Moscow, started december 5th 1941.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"] Oh, well you haven't responded in a while so I thought the thread was dead. :(sethman410

I did- I believe that I was the last post, actually. That was probably the most fun debate I've had on OT.

Haha, it also was one of mine too. I do know alot about WW2 much more than an average person, but seems like you're the expert. So, I think I agree with you on the other thread. Russia was the best in later years. You win. :P I think we should make another thread on who is better, USA or Russia? It would be a good one because of the Cold war... It would be interesting to see what people say.

It's always good to meet people with interest in this period of history. I tip my hat off to you- good debate :P. Yeah Soviet Union vs. US would be a good topic.

Assuming that this site has the correct information, it would seem as if I was wrong about the role allied supplies played. However, note that the Soviets were still capable of mounting huge counter offensives before the majority of this aid arrived. I would say that this aid sealed the deal, and that the Soviet's fight would have been much harder without it, but it is still plausable that they could have won.

http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Production/Russia/Lend-Lease.htm

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"] Lol, tbh I don't think anyone is right... because no one these days were actually "there" If you know what I mean.. So I guess it's all about opinions if there's no facts on certain things like the ones you guys are debating about..

sethman410

There are facts. it's just that you won't find them on places like wiki, and I nor anyone else is about to waste their evening searching for them. Then there is the issue of interpretation of said facts.

EDIT: hey Sethman, I just remembered you havn't responded to my last post in that thread about the effectiveness of the Red Army :P

I did- I believe that I was the last post, actually. That was probably the most fun debate I've had on OT.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No you are underestimating it....without the initial help the US gave the USSR would not have been capable of defeating Germany. Even when the USSR was stronger the poor decisions by Hitler helped immensely. Had he left the logisitics to his generals the outcome could have been different.

sethman410

There are many reasons that Germany lost in the east. I just don't believe that US supplies were one of them. we will just have to agree to disagree, as actual data is hard to find.

There are facts. it's just that you won't find them on places like wiki, and I nor anyone else is about to waste their evening searching for them. Then there is the issue of interpretation of said facts.

EDIT: hey Sethman, I just remembered you havn't responded to my last post in that thread about the effectiveness of the Red Army :P

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] A starving country without armaments is no threat....LJS9502_basic

You are grossly over exaggerating the state that the Soviet Union was in. It was not completely broken, and was not pulled from the brink solely by US supplies. The winter of 1941 gave them a much needed respite when they could regroup and prepare for a counterattck. In fact, the Soviets retook a lot of land during the winter 1941 offensive, before significant US aid. The area with blue and red stripes is the land retaken by this counter attack (hardly the work of a nation on the brink of collapse)

There are many reasons that Germany lost in the east. I just don't believe that US supplies were one of them. we will just have to agree to disagree, as actual data is hard to find.

EDIT: But you are also avoiding the point that I made- you keep saying "Without US supplies Russia could not have defeated Germany" but you are offering little examples to back it up.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You're missing the point. Without aid the USSR wouldn't have been in a condition to wage war. LJS9502_basic

what point am I missing? you said that without US aid the USSR wouldn't have been able to turn the Germans back. I disagree. It was Russian manpower, indusrty, tactics, and even weather that did so.

You are grossly over exaggerating the state that the Soviet Union was in. It was not completely broken, and was not pulled from the brink solely by US supplies. The winter of 1941 gave them a much needed respite when they could regroup and prepare for a counterattck. In fact, the Soviets retook a lot of land during the winter 1941 offensive, before significant US aid. The area with blue and red stripes is the land retaken by this counter attack (hardly the work of a nation on the brink of collapse)

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]A starving nation cannot fight. The weapons/ammunition were definitely military. The metal was used for military products. The transportation allowed the USSR to supply the army. The USSR was not in a good condition to take Germany without some help. Which the US gave. You want to credit the USSR for their role...fine. But don't negate the importance of the US to the Pacific Theater, the USSR, and Europe. If you think erasing a major player would give the same outcome then you'd be incorrect.LJS9502_basic

I never said that the US didn't significantly help to win the war. However, the victory on teh eastern front was the work of Russia and Russia alone, US aid had little to do with the outcome. I'm not sure what you mean by transportation (transportationvehicles?). Anyway, only around $11 billion dollars worth of supplies were given to the Soviets, hardly enough to turn the tide of war.

what point am I missing? you said that without US aid the USSR wouldn't have been able to turn the Germans back. I disagree. It was Russian manpower, indusrty, tactics, and even weather that did so.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Food, transportation, clothing, metals and weapons. All of which were greatly needed by the USSR were part of lend lease agreement. If you want to take the US out of the equation for WW2 then the USSR would not have been strong enough to stand up to Germany. As it was...much of the reason that the USSR had success was due to HItler's ego. Had the generals run the war it would not have been quite as easy for the USSR even with the help they desperately needed.LJS9502_basic

So mostly for domestic use, in whcih case it didn't contribute as much to the actual military conflict. And I refuse to belive that the Soviet Union was saved primarily by US supply. The most helpful thing that the US did was to open up a second front. And yes, much of the reason that Germany failed was because of Hitler's blunders, but Hitler is still in the equation.

I never said that the US didn't significantly help to win the war. However, the victory on teh eastern front was the work of Russia and Russia alone, US aid had little to do with the outcome. I'm not sure what you mean by transportation (transportationvehicles?). Anyway, only around $11 billion dollars worth of supplies were given to the Soviets, hardly enough to turn the tide of war.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Actually it's accurate that the USSR did not have enough weapons.....that's why they got them from the US.LJS9502_basic

The use of American weapons was about as widespread as the lack of any (that is, it didn't happen often).

So mostly for domestic use, in whcih case it didn't contribute as much to the actual military conflict. And I refuse to belive that the Soviet Union was saved primarily by US supply. The most helpful thing that the US did was to open up a second front. And yes, much of the reason that Germany failed was because of Hitler's blunders, but Hitler is still in the equation.