Britain's completely underrated role in WWII

Do you remember,

There's a hold-up in the Bronx.
Brooklyn's broken out in fights.
There's a traffic jam in Harlem
That's backed up to Jackson Heights.
There's a scout troop lost a child.
Khrushchev's due in Idlewild.
Car 54 where are you?
never had TV then. Remember watching the cuban missile reporting at Boarding school though.
 
I've said this before. About 45 years ago I read an item that posited that German mechanisation peaked in 1943 around 50%.
As I mentioned earlier, I've been going through some ULTRA decrypts, and found a signal from OKW in early 1945 describing that X number of tanks, Y number of trucks and 4500 horses brought back across the Rhine.

The Luftwaffe also used a lot of horses - even to tow the Me 262 jets out to the end of the runways and to/from dispersals - because of the chronic fuel shortage.

I think it was not so much a matter that the Nazi forces weren't inclined to mechanise - but by 1943/44, fuel shortages were grievous and by early 1945, terminal.
 
Zhukov’s quote I used is from an interviewer and the ‘4%’ I believe has been debunked. 30% of aircraft, 8% of tanks, nearly 50% of aviation fuel etc.

If you think it was negligible, that’s up to you.
Btw, what is exact source of your quote?
When, where Zhukov gave the inteview.
As for 4% then Zhukov wrote only about weapons including also guns, small arms, bombs, shells, grenades, mines.
Probably Zhokov was told about this number (4%) by Mikoyan.
Personally I suppose that share of weapons recieved through lend-lease was higher, much higher than 4%.
I'm unaware about serious estimatimates in this respect.
 
Can somebody please tell me how this thread about Britain's role in WW2 got turned into a tedious debate about Russia?

Start a new thread to argue over it, please.
 
I see you are doing your normal trick of dumping lots of info in the hope that you will overwhelm the point, which was you said Soviet Russia could have beaten the Nazies on their own.
No. I wrote that probably the Soviet union was able to defeat Germany alone - without lend-lease supplies and with the eastern front as the only front where Hitler had to fight. I'm not absolutely sure but probabilty of the victory would be high.
But your own posts point out that they could not have as the technology and infrastructure was not advanced enough yet and Stalin's habit of killing the brains behind any needed advance in tech.
Technologies and infrastructure were sufficient to produce tens thousands of T-34 and other types of tanks - not bad at all. There were other innovative weapons system. This one was used for the first time in 1941.
1553266676182.png

What happened to all those engineers who were working with the German tank school in Russia?
Frankly speaking I don't know.
 
Personally, I always thought Rokossovsky was the better general, than Zhukov. But anything written in the soviet era, will be subject to political considerations and as such can't be relied upon.

Your enemy constantly highlighed the massively improved mobility of the Soviet soldier by 1943 and whatever the good and bad qualities of the kit sent over i.e. matilda, valentines, airacobras. They freed up your own manufactured kit to equip your elite guards and armoured units.

The supplies, jeeps and trucks as you say fed the people and the tinned stuff would have ended up with your mobile troops. The crucial point I think you miss, is without that logistics your offensives would not have been able to go so deep, so quickly and in such large numbers and sustain that attack over a period of weeks and even months..

In a sense the german army lost mechanisation for most of its forces by 1942-1943.
The Soviet Army gained massively mechanised and became a copy of the German army with the added doctrine of deep battle, now actually possible.
There were many talented generals in the Soviet union. Yes, in my opinion Rokossowski is on the same level as Zhukov and maybe was even more skilled and talented. Also Malinovsky was very talented.
 
Btw, what is exact source of your quote?
When, where Zhukov gave the inteview.
As for 4% then Zhukov wrote only about weapons including also guns, small arms, bombs, shells, grenades, mines.
Probably Zhokov was told about this number (4%) by Mikoyan.
Personally I suppose that share of weapons recieved through lend-lease was higher, much higher than 4%.
I'm unaware about serious estimatimates in this respect.
https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/t...ssia-or-elsewhere.287606/page-31#post-9168715
 
Can somebody please tell me how this thread about Britain's role in WW2 got turned into a tedious debate about Russia?

Start a new thread to argue over it, please.
It is a fair remark. Let's return to the theme.
In my opinion, the UK had the longest war among its allies and it should be taken into account.
Great Britain used all available resources at its disposal to reach the victory. Everything possible had been done.
At the same time contributions of the USA and the Soviet union to the victory were indeed very big and even huge.
So on this background...
... tall 6 feet man on the background of basketball players would look as a dwarf while not being a dwarf at all.
 
Okay, that's a stretch. I'm sure your latest version of history books will have something to say about that.


How about Zhukov? Or is he not a trusted source?
Today [1963] some say the Allies didn't really help us ... But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war

The Significance of the Allied Lend-Lease Program and Soviet Victory during the Second World War
Also mentioned here, along with a telling snippet, which explains your stubborness:
Marshall Zhukov according to Weeks even goes on further to state that the Soviet government engaged in the calculated use of propaganda to systemically demean the importance of the Allied Lend-Lease Program, believing that it distracted from the heroism and sacrifice of the Soviet soldier and people.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13518046.2014.963410?src=recsys
Of course we can see where your ideas come from. My bold:
It is telling of how Marxist ideology shaped the memory of Lend-Lease that one of the few organizations that still marginalizes or ignores US wartime aid to the Soviet Union is the Communist Party. On 21 July 2004, the communist Web site, In Defence of Marxism, published an article espousing the traditional Soviet ideological view of World War II. ‘In order to belittle the role of the USSR in the war’, the article argued, Western historians ‘exaggerate the importance of things like American Lease-Lend [sic] to the Soviet Union. This falsification is easy to answer’. Ignoring Stalin’s words to the contrary, the article went on to claim that ‘the Red Army had halted the German advance and begun to counterattack by the end of 1941 in the Battle of Moscow—before any supplies had reached the USSR from the USA …’ Thus, Lend-Lease ‘importance was marginal’. The Soviet’s victory was due to ‘the superiority of a nationalised economy and central planning …
Source: D-Day and the truth about the Second World War


I'm sure you'll say otherwise and that Khrushchev, Zhukov et al said no such thing and of course the Communist revision is correct ......
Do you know how good it feels to not be a lone wolf pissing into the wind?
I know quite a bit about the subject of WW2 - certainly; I know more than the average person does. Then along comes a real SME who not only validates your pov but expands upon it as well!
I genuinely didn't know that Zhukov had said that.
The reason that I no longer buy newly published books about WW2, is because they seem to me, to be written by revisionists.
 
As I mentioned earlier, I've been going through some ULTRA decrypts, and found a signal from OKW in early 1945 describing that X number of tanks, Y number of trucks and 4500 horses brought back across the Rhine.

The Luftwaffe also used a lot of horses - even to tow the Me 262 jets out to the end of the runways and to/from dispersals - because of the chronic fuel shortage.

I think it was not so much a matter that the Nazi forces weren't inclined to mechanise - but by 1943/44, fuel shortages were grievous and by early 1945, terminal.
On this or another related thread I referenced a source which quoted Hitler as telling his generals that if they did not capture the oil fields of the North Caucasus, then Germany would lose the war. They captured the oil fields, but the retreating Soviets had blown them up so thoroughly that the Germans got no oil from them before they were eventually recaptured.

This is why I have said that Germany had only two ways of winning the war. They either had to knock the UK out of the war and gain access to world markets so they could conduct a war of attrition against the Soviet Union, or they had to defeat the Soviets quickly before they ran out of resources. Without the UK in the war early and remaining throughout, it would have been a totally different war.
 
Technologies and infrastructure were sufficient to produce tens thousands of T-34 and other types of tanks - not bad at all. There were other innovative weapons system. This one was used for the first time in 1941.
View attachment 383790
Pretty sure the Germans were using Rocket arty before hand. So hardly innovative. Hell at the same time as you and the Germans were lobbing HE at each other we were using rockets for AA work.
 
Pretty sure the Germans were using Rocket arty before hand. So hardly innovative. Hell at the same time as you and the Germans were lobbing HE at each other we were using rockets for AA work.
The Mongols used them at the end of the 12th C. They stole the technology from the Chinese.
 
Telling that 9 out of 10 German casualties of the war occurred on the eastern front
Yes, but the 1.1 million troops, 4000 anti-aircraft batteries including 9000 88's, the hundreds of aircraft and the 700 armoured vehicles used to defend the Reich from allied bombing raids was the second front (that Uncle Joe was always whining about) that helped make a Russian victory possible.
 
Last edited:
On Britain's and the Empire's war, has anybody else ever had to conduct a war on so global a scale before or since? By 1943 it was plain that we couldn't be beaten, but nor could Germany see how it could win.
 
Can somebody please tell me how this thread about Britain's role in WW2 got turned into a tedious debate about Russia?

Start a new thread to argue over it, please.
Arf, because the only people fighting Chermans were the People of the Great Patriotic war, no one else did until the Yanks liberated France and discovered Ultra codes.
 
:rolleyes:
 
Congreves battery for one
3rd Rocket Troop RHA, Battle of Liepzig 1813 - there's a rumour that there were even a few Russkies there...
 
On Britain's and the Empire's war, has anybody else ever had to conduct a war on so global a scale before or since? By 1943 it was plain that we couldn't be beaten, but nor could Germany see how it could win.
For scale no, for scope try the Seven Years War.
 
For scale no, for scope try the Seven Years War.
Or the Napoleonic Wars. Off the top of my head British forces were involved in fighting in Europe, North and South America, the Caribbean, North Africa, the Cape, India, and in the Far East. And the Royal Navy, to probably misquote Napoleon, "Anywhere there was a breath of wind or a teaspoon of water."

Edited to add: If anyone can find the actual quote I'd be most grateful. Because I can't!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top