Yootopia wrote:... that was what Lend-Lease was.
Lend-Lease certainly wasn't OMG FREE STUFFZ, but it was better then the Cash and Carry that was enforced by the Neutrality Acts during WWI.
Advertisement
by The South Islands » Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:31 pm
Yootopia wrote:... that was what Lend-Lease was.
by Exilia and Colonies » Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:32 pm
by Sdaeriji » Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:34 pm
The South Islands wrote:Someone read the lend lease wikipedia article.
Anyway, the reason they took American aid was simple economics. They were getting free* shit from America. Why bother retooling factories and retraining the work force to produce goods that were only supporting the war effort (ie, no glory) when it was much simpler to continue using developed heavy industry to produce military material?
The production figures show that the Soviet Union vastly outproduced the UK and US in tanks, small arms, artillery, and other direct war material (absolute contraband, in the words of the 1909 London Declaration). They, in their communist wisdom, simply considered that continuing to produce war material would be a better use of resources then rejecting American aid and retooling factories to produce trucks, locomotives, and other vital (yet supporting) goods.
Essentially, they let the Americans do the dirty work.
by Robustian » Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:39 pm
Comaack wrote:If America was not involved in Europe or the Pacific, would Britain and France be speaking German, or a Communist Europe arise.
In my opinion, the war would have been extended probably until 1946 which by that point the British would have been out and the Soviets pushed into Berlin and into France.
by The South Islands » Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:41 pm
Sdaeriji wrote:Let me see if I can explain this:
If the goods provided by the US were "insignificant" and Soviet industry could have retooled to produce the goods the Americans provided, that implies that Soviet industry was overproducing these other war materials, such that such a retooling would not have resulted in a deficiency in those goods previously produced.
I strongly reject the notion that the USSR had industry to spare, and still could have defeated Germany "on about the same timetable" without American contributions. Without Lend-Lease, all the goods provided by the Americans would have had to been manufactured by Soviet industry that was 100% occupied in producing enough war materials to defeat the German invasion. Without American goods, Soviet industry would have had to reduce the number of tanks, guns, equipment, etc. they produced in order to produce the trains, trucks, fighters, bombers, and other equipment that they needed. Given that, even with American goods, it took three years to push the Germans out of Russia, I have significant difficulty believing that these goods were "insignificant" or that Soviet industry could have made up these deficiencies on their own without creating shortfalls elsewhere. I'm sorry, but it's an argument devoid of logic, unless we believe that Soviet industry was not 100% committed to the war effort.
by Andorias » Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:43 pm
by Ralkovia » Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:44 pm
Kirav wrote:This is NationStates. Our Jews live in Ralkovia.
Maudlnya wrote:You guys talking about Ralkovia?
*mutters something about scariness up to 11*
Releign wrote:Leningrad Union: Help me against Ralkovia
That's a Jew octopus with a machine gun.
I think I will pass.
by Taeshan » Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:46 pm
by Sdaeriji » Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:46 pm
The South Islands wrote:Sdaeriji wrote:Let me see if I can explain this:
If the goods provided by the US were "insignificant" and Soviet industry could have retooled to produce the goods the Americans provided, that implies that Soviet industry was overproducing these other war materials, such that such a retooling would not have resulted in a deficiency in those goods previously produced.
I strongly reject the notion that the USSR had industry to spare, and still could have defeated Germany "on about the same timetable" without American contributions. Without Lend-Lease, all the goods provided by the Americans would have had to been manufactured by Soviet industry that was 100% occupied in producing enough war materials to defeat the German invasion. Without American goods, Soviet industry would have had to reduce the number of tanks, guns, equipment, etc. they produced in order to produce the trains, trucks, fighters, bombers, and other equipment that they needed. Given that, even with American goods, it took three years to push the Germans out of Russia, I have significant difficulty believing that these goods were "insignificant" or that Soviet industry could have made up these deficiencies on their own without creating shortfalls elsewhere. I'm sorry, but it's an argument devoid of logic, unless we believe that Soviet industry was not 100% committed to the war effort.
The Soviet Union vastly outnumbered the German Army in terms of (domestically produced) aircraft, tanks, artillery, and infantry (equipped with soviet manufactured small arms). I contend that this vast overproduction in relation to Germany was not necessary to produce the same result in the war. I see it as a case of diminishing returns as it pertains to this equipment. I'm convinced that all the equipment produced by the Soviet Union during the war was not necessary to defeat Nazi Germany. Similar to naval production in the United States. Were 20 fleet carriers necessary to defeat Japan? I'd guess not.
by Psychotic Mongooses » Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:49 pm
Andorias wrote:I don't understand your answers: did Japan count shit?
How many soviet armies were supposed to contain a japanese attack in Siberia?
by United human countries » Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:50 pm
by Imperialist Reich » Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:53 pm
by Andorias » Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:58 pm
Psychotic Mongooses wrote:Andorias wrote:I don't understand your answers: did Japan count shit?
Simply put, yes.How many soviet armies were supposed to contain a japanese attack in Siberia?
Japanese didn't care to venture back into the Soviet Union after Zhukov knocked lumps out of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-Jap ... order_Wars
by Rolling squid » Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:01 pm
Imperialist Reich wrote:Maybe the allies would still have won.....
But would Japan get involved with the European War?
Hammurab wrote:An athiest doesn't attend mass, go to confession, or know a lot about catholicism. So basically, an athiest is the same as a catholic.
Post-Unity Terra wrote:Golly gosh, one group of out-of-touch rich white guys is apparently more in touch with the average man than the other group of out-of-touch rich white guys.
by South Lorenya » Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:04 pm
by Rolling squid » Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:14 pm
South Lorenya wrote:Yes, Germany was hosed form the moment they attacked Russia. It likely would have taken longer with the US not there, but it would fall eventually.
Hammurab wrote:An athiest doesn't attend mass, go to confession, or know a lot about catholicism. So basically, an athiest is the same as a catholic.
Post-Unity Terra wrote:Golly gosh, one group of out-of-touch rich white guys is apparently more in touch with the average man than the other group of out-of-touch rich white guys.
by JonDeJolly » Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:14 pm
by Psychotic Mongooses » Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:31 pm
Andorias wrote:Yes, but they didn't have to engage US this time so the scenario changes.
Besides what's going to happen if the Royal Navy is going to face the Japanese fleet alone?
by Andorias » Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:44 pm
Psychotic Mongooses wrote:Andorias wrote:Yes, but they didn't have to engage US this time so the scenario changes.
Considering the border war happened years before any American action, and the Japanese still lost, the scenario hasn't changed. The Japanese didn't want tangle with the Soviets because of prior experience.
Without US to mess with they could had changed their strategy and attack the Soviets in 1941 or maybe laterBesides what's going to happen if the Royal Navy is going to face the Japanese fleet alone?
.... what? Are the Japanese Navy suddenly going to make an appearance in the Channel or something?
by Amagina » Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:47 pm
by Psychotic Mongooses » Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:51 pm
Andorias wrote:Without US to mess with they could had changed their strategy and attack the Soviets in 1941 or maybe later
Oh come on... Were the British going to let Japan conquer all their colonies/dominions facing the Indian Ocean taking no action whatsoever?
by Ralkovia » Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:55 pm
Amagina wrote:The American contribution to the victory over Germany was close to zero.
It was the USSR that defeated Germany. It was in Russia where most of the fighting took place. Germany had 75% of their armed forces at the Eastern Front. The Western Allies were no match for the German military as the Battle of France had proved. The Western Allies were more or less defeated in 1941. Hitler had wiped out any resistance on the European continent. The Brits were hiding on their island and the only - rather symbolic - fighting that still took place at the Western Front was the war in Africa and the U-boat-war in the Atlantic. WWII would have been over in 1941, if Hitler hadn't decided to turn against his former ally Stalin, who had actually applied to join the axis and attacked Poland along with the German army. It was this stupid decision to start Operation Barbarossa against the advices of his generals that saved the word from being shared among each other by two totalitarian regimes - communism and fascism.
Then everything changed when the Russians turned out to be tougher than Germany had expected. The Germans had to throw all their resources to the Eastern Front where they were consumed by the overwhelming manpower and industrial resources of the USSR. When the German defeat finally became obvious for everybody, it allowed the UK to start an invasion in Italy and the Normandy during the last months of the war and to participate in the Russian victory.
The US joined the war as some British auxiliary force like Canada and others, when the real fighting was already over.
So it was Russia in the first place and the UK in the second place that defeated Germany. All the other participants in the war were insignificant. The US became the leading world power only AFTER the war, because they had not suffered the same losses as the UK, Russia or France, since they stayed neutral during most of the war.
Due to their heavy losses against the already retreating and hopelessly outnumbered German troops (twice as many casualties as in the Pacific theater in just a few months) Americans often tend to overestimate their participation in the war. This is the only reason why somebody can seriously ask the question of this thread. During both world wars America was still playing in the second league. They were none of the big players like Great Britain, France and Russia. Japan was in their league.
Kirav wrote:This is NationStates. Our Jews live in Ralkovia.
Maudlnya wrote:You guys talking about Ralkovia?
*mutters something about scariness up to 11*
Releign wrote:Leningrad Union: Help me against Ralkovia
That's a Jew octopus with a machine gun.
I think I will pass.
by Rikese » Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:57 pm
Andorias wrote:Psychotic Mongooses wrote:Andorias wrote:Yes, but they didn't have to engage US this time so the scenario changes.
Considering the border war happened years before any American action, and the Japanese still lost, the scenario hasn't changed. The Japanese didn't want tangle with the Soviets because of prior experience.
Without US to mess with they could had changed their strategy and attack the Soviets in 1941 or maybe laterBesides what's going to happen if the Royal Navy is going to face the Japanese fleet alone?
.... what? Are the Japanese Navy suddenly going to make an appearance in the Channel or something?
Oh come on... Were the British going to let Japan conquer all their colonies/dominions facing the Indian Ocean taking no action whatsoever?
United Russian States wrote:Thrid Russia is moving towards an much larger force consiting of all volanteer soilders.
Mad hatters in jeans wrote:do you even expect for a minute i'd want to discuss anything further with you if you continue to show no respect to my opinions?
by Dashret » Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:07 pm
by Ravea » Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:49 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Ferelith, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Ifreann, Inferior, Oceasia, Pale Dawn, Philjia, Port Carverton
Advertisement