Did Russia Really Go It Alone? How Lend-Lease Helped the Soviets Defeat the Germans

[Picaro]

I'm still surprised that so many still buy the old Soviet revisionism re WW II. Even though this article isn't brand new it goes some way toward correcting the view that Lend-Lease had no real effects until later on the war.

Did Russia Really Go It Alone? How Lend-Lease Helped the Soviets Defeat the Germans

After a series of dramatic Nazi successes during the opening stages of Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, foreign observers predicted that Soviet resistance would soon collapse. By October, German troops were poised outside both Leningrad and Moscow. But the Germans were doggedly held off in front of Moscow in late November and early December, and then rolled back by a reinvigorated Red Army in a staggeringly brutal winter counteroffensive.

That the Soviet victories of late 1941 were won with Soviet blood and largely with Soviet weapons is beyond dispute. But for decades the official Soviet line went much further. Soviet authorities recognized that the “Great Patriotic War” gave the Communist Party a claim to legitimacy that went far beyond Marxism-Leninism or the 1917 Revolution, and took pains to portray their nation’s victories in World War II as single-handed. Any mention of the role that Western assistance played in the Soviet war effort was strictly off-limits.

During Nikita Khrushchev’s rule in the late 1950s and early 1960s, there was a window of greater frankness and openness about the extent of aid supplied from the West under the Lend-Lease Act—but it was still clearly forbidden for Soviet authors to suggest that such aid ever made any real difference on the battlefield. Mentions of Lend-Lease in memoirs were always accompanied by disparagement of the quality of the weapons supplied, with American and British tanks and planes invariably portrayed as vastly inferior to comparable Soviet models.

An oft-quoted statement by First Vice-Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars Nikolai Voznesensky summed up the standard line that Allied aid represented “only 4 percent” of Soviet production for the entire war. Lacking any detailed information to the contrary, Western authors generally agreed that even if Lend-Lease was important from 1943 on, as quantities of aid dramatically increased, the aid was far too little and late to make a difference in the decisive battles of 1941–1942.

But since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a trickle of information has emerged from archives in Moscow, shedding new light on the subject. While much of the documentary evidence remains classified “secret” in the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense and the Russian State Archive of the Economy, Western and Russian researchers have been able to gain access to important, previously unavailable firsthand documents. I was recently able to examine Russian-language materials of the State Defense Committee—the Soviet equivalent of the British War Cabinet—held in the former Central Party Archive. Together with other recently published sources, including the wartime diaries of N. I. Biriukov, a Red Army officer responsible from August 1941 on for the distribution of recently acquired tanks to the front lines, this newly available evidence paints a very different picture from the received wisdom. In particular, it shows that British Lend-Lease assistance to the Soviet Union in late 1941 and early 1942 played a far more significant part in the defense of Moscow and the revival of Soviet fortunes in late 1941 than has been acknowledged.

Last I checked, the Russians are still censoring much of the info, at least at their online site, of the lists of Lend-Lease shipments.

 

[IsaacNewton]

I'm still surprised that so many still buy the old Soviet revisionism re WW II. Even though this article isn't brand new it goes some way toward correcting the view that Lend-Lease had no real effects until later on the war.

Did Russia Really Go It Alone? How Lend-Lease Helped the Soviets Defeat the Germans

After a series of dramatic Nazi successes during the opening stages of Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, foreign observers predicted that Soviet resistance would soon collapse. By October, German troops were poised outside both Leningrad and Moscow. But the Germans were doggedly held off in front of Moscow in late November and early December, and then rolled back by a reinvigorated Red Army in a staggeringly brutal winter counteroffensive.

That the Soviet victories of late 1941 were won with Soviet blood and largely with Soviet weapons is beyond dispute. But for decades the official Soviet line went much further. Soviet authorities recognized that the “Great Patriotic War” gave the Communist Party a claim to legitimacy that went far beyond Marxism-Leninism or the 1917 Revolution, and took pains to portray their nation’s victories in World War II as single-handed. Any mention of the role that Western assistance played in the Soviet war effort was strictly off-limits.

During Nikita Khrushchev’s rule in the late 1950s and early 1960s, there was a window of greater frankness and openness about the extent of aid supplied from the West under the Lend-Lease Act—but it was still clearly forbidden for Soviet authors to suggest that such aid ever made any real difference on the battlefield. Mentions of Lend-Lease in memoirs were always accompanied by disparagement of the quality of the weapons supplied, with American and British tanks and planes invariably portrayed as vastly inferior to comparable Soviet models.

An oft-quoted statement by First Vice-Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars Nikolai Voznesensky summed up the standard line that Allied aid represented “only 4 percent” of Soviet production for the entire war. Lacking any detailed information to the contrary, Western authors generally agreed that even if Lend-Lease was important from 1943 on, as quantities of aid dramatically increased, the aid was far too little and late to make a difference in the decisive battles of 1941–1942.

But since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a trickle of information has emerged from archives in Moscow, shedding new light on the subject. While much of the documentary evidence remains classified “secret” in the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense and the Russian State Archive of the Economy, Western and Russian researchers have been able to gain access to important, previously unavailable firsthand documents. I was recently able to examine Russian-language materials of the State Defense Committee—the Soviet equivalent of the British War Cabinet—held in the former Central Party Archive. Together with other recently published sources, including the wartime diaries of N. I. Biriukov, a Red Army officer responsible from August 1941 on for the distribution of recently acquired tanks to the front lines, this newly available evidence paints a very different picture from the received wisdom. In particular, it shows that British Lend-Lease assistance to the Soviet Union in late 1941 and early 1942 played a far more significant part in the defense of Moscow and the revival of Soviet fortunes in late 1941 than has been acknowledged.

Last I checked, the Russians are still censoring much of the info, at least at their online site, of the lists of Lend-Lease shipments.

For the first two years American armor and aircraft were crappy for sure. The Sherman tank was crappy the entire war, we just produced 50,000 of them. Add to this the 50,000 tanks the Russians produced and you have a number the Germans couldn't begin to compete with. The Tiger was the premier tank of WW2 but they only produced 1800 of them. Even so, the accepted kill ratio for the British when Shermans faced a Tiger was 5 Shermans lost for each Tiger destroyed. On the other hand the Russian T-34 was a good tank. The Germans were stunned at how good and its the reason the Tiger was developed.

The US P39 and F4F were aged and out-classed in both Theatres. The P40 when used as a boom and zoom aircraft could in fact compete with the BF109's and Jap Zero and other Japanese fighters. We sent mostly P39's and P400's (same thing) to the Russians.

I'd say the Russians did in fact use mostly their own better equipment to win all those 1941 and 1942 battles. Stalin had most of the factories moved 1000 miles east early on to be out of reach of German forces and these factories, untouched, produced enormous amounts of armaments and armor.

The place where the US and British help to the Russians WAS a huge factor was in food and other necessities. The US gave the Russians enough food to provide each Russian soldier in all their armed forces one meal a day for a year. No small benefit to be sure.

It took the US, as it takes all modern nations, about two years to get fully on a war footing and in full production. After that neither the Germans or the Japanese had a chance. At peak production of Liberty cargo ships, which were constructed of various pre-fabbed 'parts', it took only 18 hours from laying of the keel to floating the ship. They were made faster than they could be sunk. The B24 factories were producing a new aircraft off the assembly line every 65 minutes.

Really the only reason for the great success for both Japan and Germany in the first 2-3 years of the war is that both those nations had been on a war footing for 2-3 years before WW2 started so they were already up to speed. Once the US behemoth was moving at full speed the end was assured. Add to this the huge production the Russians were also capable of and you have a recipe for no win situations for Japan and Germany.

 

[regent]

The stats I found on Lend Lease was that America spent 50 billion on that endeavor:
31 billion to Britain,
11.3 to the USSR
3.2 to France
1.16 to China
2.6 to other allies

 

[Wyatt earp]

The Russian's never paid us back....

Only Turkey and Great Britain.

 

[konradv]

The most important thing we sent the USSR were trucks. Without them the Soviets wouldn't have been able to move the men and material needed to turn back the Germans.

 

[Camp]

The most important thing we sent the USSR were trucks. Without them the Soviets wouldn't have been able to move the men and material needed to turn back the Germans.

Trucks and raw material. Some of the raw material, such as copper, came in rolls of wire, sheets of aluminum, etc. Food was a big deal also.

 

[whitehall]

The Russian winter defeated the Germans. All the Russians had to do was survive and the Germans would be frozen corpses. You could even say that the might of the German army was derailed by a little former WW1 corporal who may have been insane.

 

[Picaro]

I'm still surprised that so many still buy the old Soviet revisionism re WW II. Even though this article isn't brand new it goes some way toward correcting the view that Lend-Lease had no real effects until later on the war.

Did Russia Really Go It Alone? How Lend-Lease Helped the Soviets Defeat the Germans

After a series of dramatic Nazi successes during the opening stages of Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, foreign observers predicted that Soviet resistance would soon collapse. By October, German troops were poised outside both Leningrad and Moscow. But the Germans were doggedly held off in front of Moscow in late November and early December, and then rolled back by a reinvigorated Red Army in a staggeringly brutal winter counteroffensive.

That the Soviet victories of late 1941 were won with Soviet blood and largely with Soviet weapons is beyond dispute. But for decades the official Soviet line went much further. Soviet authorities recognized that the “Great Patriotic War” gave the Communist Party a claim to legitimacy that went far beyond Marxism-Leninism or the 1917 Revolution, and took pains to portray their nation’s victories in World War II as single-handed. Any mention of the role that Western assistance played in the Soviet war effort was strictly off-limits.

During Nikita Khrushchev’s rule in the late 1950s and early 1960s, there was a window of greater frankness and openness about the extent of aid supplied from the West under the Lend-Lease Act—but it was still clearly forbidden for Soviet authors to suggest that such aid ever made any real difference on the battlefield. Mentions of Lend-Lease in memoirs were always accompanied by disparagement of the quality of the weapons supplied, with American and British tanks and planes invariably portrayed as vastly inferior to comparable Soviet models.

An oft-quoted statement by First Vice-Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars Nikolai Voznesensky summed up the standard line that Allied aid represented “only 4 percent” of Soviet production for the entire war. Lacking any detailed information to the contrary, Western authors generally agreed that even if Lend-Lease was important from 1943 on, as quantities of aid dramatically increased, the aid was far too little and late to make a difference in the decisive battles of 1941–1942.

But since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a trickle of information has emerged from archives in Moscow, shedding new light on the subject. While much of the documentary evidence remains classified “secret” in the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense and the Russian State Archive of the Economy, Western and Russian researchers have been able to gain access to important, previously unavailable firsthand documents. I was recently able to examine Russian-language materials of the State Defense Committee—the Soviet equivalent of the British War Cabinet—held in the former Central Party Archive. Together with other recently published sources, including the wartime diaries of N. I. Biriukov, a Red Army officer responsible from August 1941 on for the distribution of recently acquired tanks to the front lines, this newly available evidence paints a very different picture from the received wisdom. In particular, it shows that British Lend-Lease assistance to the Soviet Union in late 1941 and early 1942 played a far more significant part in the defense of Moscow and the revival of Soviet fortunes in late 1941 than has been acknowledged.

Last I checked, the Russians are still censoring much of the info, at least at their online site, of the lists of Lend-Lease shipments.

For the first two years American armor and aircraft were crappy for sure. The Sherman tank was crappy the entire war, we just produced 50,000 of them.

The Sherman actually performed well in North Africa against German armor, which is why the U.S. didn't think they needed to upgrade and improve on it, while the Germans continued to improve theirs. In any case the Sherman was adequate enough when used in the combined arms mix, with artillery and air superiority and lots of trucks in support. The Sherman also performed well against the T-34 in the Korean conflict and used to good effect in the early Arab-Israeli wars as well; it also proved useful early in the Soviet's defense of the Kursk Pocket. Patton used them effectively in the drive out of Normandy on for the rest of the war, so they weren't total crap. They were good enough. They certainly could have been better, larger gun, etc., but given the short span of time from Normandy to the end of the war they did well enough.

Add to this the 50,000 tanks the Russians produced and you have a number the Germans couldn't begin to compete with. The Tiger was the premier tank of WW2 but they only produced 1800 of them. Even so, the accepted kill ratio for the British when Shermans faced a Tiger was 5 Shermans lost for each Tiger destroyed. On the other hand the Russian T-34 was a good tank. The Germans were stunned at how good and its the reason the Tiger was developed.

The Russians could produce so many tanks because they had lots of modern machine tools and high grade steel shipments coming in from Britain early on along with technical assistance in upgrading and augmenting their obsolete and outdated factory tooling; they didn't have to produce most of their trucks, halftracks, locomotives, rail cars, radios, octane boosters for their aircraft fuel, which wouldn't have been able to get of the ground without the boosters, and all kinds of other odds and ends. Early on it was the Brits doing most of this, essentially transferring some of the U.S. Shipments through from their own supplies until the Lend-Lease Act passed.

The T-34 had little effect in the early war; they made up less than 1,200 of the Soviet armor units, some 72% of which was destroyed in Barbarossa, along with over 50% of their anti-tank guns, etc. The T-34 didn't become a good tank until both the upgraded factories and steel came into play after early 1943, and by Spring 1944 it was a 'great' tank after implementing the design changes recommended by American engineers, combined with Lend-Lease radios. Of course it would have been less effective if the Soviets hadn't of had almost total air superiority as a result of the U.S. and British bombing campaigns forcing Hitler to strip the eastern front of AA and aircraft, a huge advantage that is left out of most analysises for some reason.

The US P39 and F4F were aged and out-classed in both Theatres. The P40 when used as a boom and zoom aircraft could in fact compete with the BF109's and Jap Zero and other Japanese fighters. We sent mostly P39's and P400's (same thing) to the Russians.

Didn't matter hardly at all. As already said, the Soviets had almost total air superiority; they were also using old biplanes on night bombing runs, such was the lack of interdiction and AA guns on the eastern front.

I'd say the Russians did in fact use mostly their own better equipment to win all those 1941 and 1942 battles. Stalin had most of the factories moved 1000 miles east early on to be out of reach of German forces and these factories, untouched, produced enormous amounts of armaments and armor.

Actually they were only as far away as sites like Stalingrad and Gorky, and they lost a lot of it when they were busy running away from the Germans for 1,000 miles or so, before the winter stopped in the north and the massive mine fields stopped them in the center.

The place where the US and British help to the Russians WAS a huge factor was in food and other necessities. The US gave the Russians enough food to provide each Russian soldier in all their armed forces one meal a day for a year. No small benefit to be sure.

It was far more than just food.

“Quoting no less a military genius than Marshall Zhukov: "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 our front transport. The output of special steel, necessary for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of American deliveries." Moreover, Zhukov underscored that "we entered war while still continuing to be a backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany."

Konstantin Simonov's (Soviet journalist/poet/novelist) truthful recounting of these meetings with Georgi Zhukov for his book of interviews with Marshall Zhukov (which took place in 1965 and 1966), are corroborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov hiself, which were recorded as a result of eavesdropping by security organs from 1963 until the Marshall’s demise: "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." Interestingly this secretly recorded conversation of Marshall Zhukov is in contradiction with Zkukov’s own book where he "toes the party line" and denigrates the Lend-Lease aid. In view of the Soviet control of publishing, I wonder which I would put most faith in?

….While Zhukov down-played the contributions of Great Britain and Canada, together they dispatched about a million and a half tons of war supplies and food to the USSR between 1941 and 1945 and among the equipment shipped were thousands of aircraft and tanks and well over 200,000 tons of wheat and flour. The United States provided by far the greater share of the aid and sent about sixteen million tons of stores under the Lend-Lease and earlier agreements. Of the total 17,500,000 tons of material aid dispatched to the USSR, it arrived by the North Atlantic sea route to Murmansk and Archangel and also through Persia (Iran/Iraq). The Pacific route, in spite of the fact that it included a long rail haul across the breadth of Siberia, eventually proved capable of importing as much as the North Atlantic and Persian routes combined. Even the entry of Japan into the war against the United States did not seriously check the flow into Vladivostok since all available Soviet freighters were moved over to the Pacific and a large number of United States vessels were transferred to the Soviet flag. The tonnage dispatches of Western material aid to the USSR from the period from 22 June 1941 to 20 September 1945 were as follows (hope this transfers in a readable form; the Arctic list is mostly aircraft by weight).

Year Totals: Persian Gulf Pacific Atlantic Black Sea Arctic

1941-- 360,778 13,502 193,299 153,977

1942-- 2,453,097 705,259 734,020 949,711 64,107

1943-- 4,794,545 1,606,979 2,388,577 681,043 117,946

1944-- 6,217,622 1,788,864 2,848,181 1,452,775 127,802

1945-- 3,673,819 44,513 2,079,320 726,725 680,723

Among the goods delivered were 427,000 motor vehicles (all types), 13,000 armored fighting vehicles (including 10,000 tanks), 35,000 motorcycles, nearly 19,000 aircraft, 1,900 railway locomotives, 11,000 railway cars (flats and box), ninety freight ships, 105 submarine-chasers and 197 torpedo-boats, and we surely can't forget/ignore the four and a half million tons of foodstuffs sent by the UK.”

[Condensed from Albert Seaton's Russo-German War 1941-1945, Appendix A, pages 588-590; "Western Aid for the Soviet Union"]

And corroborated in the book; The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military Efforts, 1941-1945 by Boris V. Sokolov.

I looked at the "chart" transfer, and it didn't do well. The numbers are collapsed and the ports are as well.

Ah well, I did try.

US isolationists had prevented lend/lease and there was no Pearl Harbour - What If - Other

See also this essay, on some unknown Eastern Front battles:

Document Details | The Soviet-German War 1941-1945: Myths and Realities: A Survey Essay

The stats show the U.S. From Normandy onward inflicting almost 40% of German losses as well a millions of prisoners taken. Considering the Russians didn't launch a real offensive until summer of '43, I think it should be obvious to most they didn't win '90% of the war' as most have been claiming for decades, for lack of any serious examination; they wouldn't have been in the war at all other than in a defensive stance without the West's aid.

 

[IsaacNewton]

I'm still surprised that so many still buy the old Soviet revisionism re WW II. Even though this article isn't brand new it goes some way toward correcting the view that Lend-Lease had no real effects until later on the war.

Did Russia Really Go It Alone? How Lend-Lease Helped the Soviets Defeat the Germans

After a series of dramatic Nazi successes during the opening stages of Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, foreign observers predicted that Soviet resistance would soon collapse. By October, German troops were poised outside both Leningrad and Moscow. But the Germans were doggedly held off in front of Moscow in late November and early December, and then rolled back by a reinvigorated Red Army in a staggeringly brutal winter counteroffensive.

That the Soviet victories of late 1941 were won with Soviet blood and largely with Soviet weapons is beyond dispute. But for decades the official Soviet line went much further. Soviet authorities recognized that the “Great Patriotic War” gave the Communist Party a claim to legitimacy that went far beyond Marxism-Leninism or the 1917 Revolution, and took pains to portray their nation’s victories in World War II as single-handed. Any mention of the role that Western assistance played in the Soviet war effort was strictly off-limits.

During Nikita Khrushchev’s rule in the late 1950s and early 1960s, there was a window of greater frankness and openness about the extent of aid supplied from the West under the Lend-Lease Act—but it was still clearly forbidden for Soviet authors to suggest that such aid ever made any real difference on the battlefield. Mentions of Lend-Lease in memoirs were always accompanied by disparagement of the quality of the weapons supplied, with American and British tanks and planes invariably portrayed as vastly inferior to comparable Soviet models.

An oft-quoted statement by First Vice-Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars Nikolai Voznesensky summed up the standard line that Allied aid represented “only 4 percent” of Soviet production for the entire war. Lacking any detailed information to the contrary, Western authors generally agreed that even if Lend-Lease was important from 1943 on, as quantities of aid dramatically increased, the aid was far too little and late to make a difference in the decisive battles of 1941–1942.

But since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a trickle of information has emerged from archives in Moscow, shedding new light on the subject. While much of the documentary evidence remains classified “secret” in the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense and the Russian State Archive of the Economy, Western and Russian researchers have been able to gain access to important, previously unavailable firsthand documents. I was recently able to examine Russian-language materials of the State Defense Committee—the Soviet equivalent of the British War Cabinet—held in the former Central Party Archive. Together with other recently published sources, including the wartime diaries of N. I. Biriukov, a Red Army officer responsible from August 1941 on for the distribution of recently acquired tanks to the front lines, this newly available evidence paints a very different picture from the received wisdom. In particular, it shows that British Lend-Lease assistance to the Soviet Union in late 1941 and early 1942 played a far more significant part in the defense of Moscow and the revival of Soviet fortunes in late 1941 than has been acknowledged.

Last I checked, the Russians are still censoring much of the info, at least at their online site, of the lists of Lend-Lease shipments.

For the first two years American armor and aircraft were crappy for sure. The Sherman tank was crappy the entire war, we just produced 50,000 of them.

The Sherman actually performed well in North Africa against German armor, which is why the U.S. didn't think they needed to upgrade and improve on it, while the Germans continued to improve theirs. In any case the Sherman was adequate enough when used in the combined arms mix, with artillery and air superiority and lots of trucks in support. The Sherman also performed well against the T-34 in the Korean conflict and used to good effect in the early Arab-Israeli wars as well; it also proved useful early in the Soviet's defense of the Kursk Pocket. Patton used them effectively in the drive out of Normandy on for the rest of the war, so they weren't total crap. They were good enough. They certainly could have been better, larger gun, etc., but given the short span of time from Normandy to the end of the war they did well enough.

Add to this the 50,000 tanks the Russians produced and you have a number the Germans couldn't begin to compete with. The Tiger was the premier tank of WW2 but they only produced 1800 of them. Even so, the accepted kill ratio for the British when Shermans faced a Tiger was 5 Shermans lost for each Tiger destroyed. On the other hand the Russian T-34 was a good tank. The Germans were stunned at how good and its the reason the Tiger was developed.

The Russians could produce so many tanks because they had lots of modern machine tools and high grade steel shipments coming in from Britain early on along with technical assistance in upgrading and augmenting their obsolete and outdated factory tooling; they didn't have to produce most of their trucks, halftracks, locomotives, rail cars, radios, octane boosters for their aircraft fuel, which wouldn't have been able to get of the ground without the boosters, and all kinds of other odds and ends. Early on it was the Brits doing most of this, essentially transferring some of the U.S. Shipments through from their own supplies until the Lend-Lease Act passed.

The T-34 had little effect in the early war; they made up less than 1,200 of the Soviet armor units, some 72% of which was destroyed in Barbarossa, along with over 50% of their anti-tank guns, etc. The T-34 didn't become a good tank until both the upgraded factories and steel came into play after early 1943, and by Spring 1944 it was a 'great' tank after implementing the design changes recommended by American engineers, combined with Lend-Lease radios. Of course it would have been less effective if the Soviets hadn't of had almost total air superiority as a result of the U.S. and British bombing campaigns forcing Hitler to strip the eastern front of AA and aircraft, a huge advantage that is left out of most analysises for some reason.

The US P39 and F4F were aged and out-classed in both Theatres. The P40 when used as a boom and zoom aircraft could in fact compete with the BF109's and Jap Zero and other Japanese fighters. We sent mostly P39's and P400's (same thing) to the Russians.

Didn't matter hardly at all. As already said, the Soviets had almost total air superiority; they were also using old biplanes on night bombing runs, such was the lack of interdiction and AA guns on the eastern front.

I'd say the Russians did in fact use mostly their own better equipment to win all those 1941 and 1942 battles. Stalin had most of the factories moved 1000 miles east early on to be out of reach of German forces and these factories, untouched, produced enormous amounts of armaments and armor.

Actually they were only as far away as sites like Stalingrad and Gorky, and they lost a lot of it when they were busy running away from the Germans for 1,000 miles or so, before the winter stopped in the north and the massive mine fields stopped them in the center.

The place where the US and British help to the Russians WAS a huge factor was in food and other necessities. The US gave the Russians enough food to provide each Russian soldier in all their armed forces one meal a day for a year. No small benefit to be sure.

It was far more than just food.

“Quoting no less a military genius than Marshall Zhukov: "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 our front transport. The output of special steel, necessary for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of American deliveries." Moreover, Zhukov underscored that "we entered war while still continuing to be a backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany."

Konstantin Simonov's (Soviet journalist/poet/novelist) truthful recounting of these meetings with Georgi Zhukov for his book of interviews with Marshall Zhukov (which took place in 1965 and 1966), are corroborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov hiself, which were recorded as a result of eavesdropping by security organs from 1963 until the Marshall’s demise: "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." Interestingly this secretly recorded conversation of Marshall Zhukov is in contradiction with Zkukov’s own book where he "toes the party line" and denigrates the Lend-Lease aid. In view of the Soviet control of publishing, I wonder which I would put most faith in?

….While Zhukov down-played the contributions of Great Britain and Canada, together they dispatched about a million and a half tons of war supplies and food to the USSR between 1941 and 1945 and among the equipment shipped were thousands of aircraft and tanks and well over 200,000 tons of wheat and flour. The United States provided by far the greater share of the aid and sent about sixteen million tons of stores under the Lend-Lease and earlier agreements. Of the total 17,500,000 tons of material aid dispatched to the USSR, it arrived by the North Atlantic sea route to Murmansk and Archangel and also through Persia (Iran/Iraq). The Pacific route, in spite of the fact that it included a long rail haul across the breadth of Siberia, eventually proved capable of importing as much as the North Atlantic and Persian routes combined. Even the entry of Japan into the war against the United States did not seriously check the flow into Vladivostok since all available Soviet freighters were moved over to the Pacific and a large number of United States vessels were transferred to the Soviet flag. The tonnage dispatches of Western material aid to the USSR from the period from 22 June 1941 to 20 September 1945 were as follows (hope this transfers in a readable form; the Arctic list is mostly aircraft by weight).

Year Totals: Persian Gulf Pacific Atlantic Black Sea Arctic

1941-- 360,778 13,502 193,299 153,977

1942-- 2,453,097 705,259 734,020 949,711 64,107

1943-- 4,794,545 1,606,979 2,388,577 681,043 117,946

1944-- 6,217,622 1,788,864 2,848,181 1,452,775 127,802

1945-- 3,673,819 44,513 2,079,320 726,725 680,723

Among the goods delivered were 427,000 motor vehicles (all types), 13,000 armored fighting vehicles (including 10,000 tanks), 35,000 motorcycles, nearly 19,000 aircraft, 1,900 railway locomotives, 11,000 railway cars (flats and box), ninety freight ships, 105 submarine-chasers and 197 torpedo-boats, and we surely can't forget/ignore the four and a half million tons of foodstuffs sent by the UK.”

[Condensed from Albert Seaton's Russo-German War 1941-1945, Appendix A, pages 588-590; "Western Aid for the Soviet Union"]

And corroborated in the book; The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military Efforts, 1941-1945 by Boris V. Sokolov.

I looked at the "chart" transfer, and it didn't do well. The numbers are collapsed and the ports are as well.

Ah well, I did try.

US isolationists had prevented lend/lease and there was no Pearl Harbour - What If - Other

See also this essay, on some unknown Eastern Front battles:

Document Details | The Soviet-German War 1941-1945: Myths and Realities: A Survey Essay

The stats show the U.S. From Normandy onward inflicting almost 40% of German losses as well a millions of prisoners taken. Considering the Russians didn't launch a real offensive until summer of '43, I think it should be obvious to most they didn't win '90% of the war' as most have been claiming for decades, for lack of any serious examination; they wouldn't have been in the war at all other than in a defensive stance without the West's aid.

You didn't note how many nuts and bolts the allies provided to Russia or the number of Hershey bars.

This is a malady of message boards, we are speaking in generalities. The Sherman was always and still is a piece of crap. Its 'successes' were only because so many were expendable and were lost, not because it had any particular value.

Actually, no point, your worldview is to defend everything the US did or does and facts are not particularly pertinent.

The US had all the best stuff and won the entire war on its own and Russia had all the worst stuff and couldn't have beaten Haiti.

Feel better? Good, move on.

 

[Picaro]

lollerz another butt hurt 'America Sucks!' diaper baby.

Actually it's the British contribution that counted for more than it gets due credit for. They were the most critical ally to the war effort early on; while the U.S. could have won on it's own, it would have suffered both a years longer war and with it more casualties of course. As more research and numbers comes out it becomes obvious the Soviet claims are inflated hubris.

 

[Camp]

I'm still surprised that so many still buy the old Soviet revisionism re WW II. Even though this article isn't brand new it goes some way toward correcting the view that Lend-Lease had no real effects until later on the war.

Did Russia Really Go It Alone? How Lend-Lease Helped the Soviets Defeat the Germans

After a series of dramatic Nazi successes during the opening stages of Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, foreign observers predicted that Soviet resistance would soon collapse. By October, German troops were poised outside both Leningrad and Moscow. But the Germans were doggedly held off in front of Moscow in late November and early December, and then rolled back by a reinvigorated Red Army in a staggeringly brutal winter counteroffensive.

That the Soviet victories of late 1941 were won with Soviet blood and largely with Soviet weapons is beyond dispute. But for decades the official Soviet line went much further. Soviet authorities recognized that the “Great Patriotic War” gave the Communist Party a claim to legitimacy that went far beyond Marxism-Leninism or the 1917 Revolution, and took pains to portray their nation’s victories in World War II as single-handed. Any mention of the role that Western assistance played in the Soviet war effort was strictly off-limits.

During Nikita Khrushchev’s rule in the late 1950s and early 1960s, there was a window of greater frankness and openness about the extent of aid supplied from the West under the Lend-Lease Act—but it was still clearly forbidden for Soviet authors to suggest that such aid ever made any real difference on the battlefield. Mentions of Lend-Lease in memoirs were always accompanied by disparagement of the quality of the weapons supplied, with American and British tanks and planes invariably portrayed as vastly inferior to comparable Soviet models.

An oft-quoted statement by First Vice-Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars Nikolai Voznesensky summed up the standard line that Allied aid represented “only 4 percent” of Soviet production for the entire war. Lacking any detailed information to the contrary, Western authors generally agreed that even if Lend-Lease was important from 1943 on, as quantities of aid dramatically increased, the aid was far too little and late to make a difference in the decisive battles of 1941–1942.

But since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a trickle of information has emerged from archives in Moscow, shedding new light on the subject. While much of the documentary evidence remains classified “secret” in the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense and the Russian State Archive of the Economy, Western and Russian researchers have been able to gain access to important, previously unavailable firsthand documents. I was recently able to examine Russian-language materials of the State Defense Committee—the Soviet equivalent of the British War Cabinet—held in the former Central Party Archive. Together with other recently published sources, including the wartime diaries of N. I. Biriukov, a Red Army officer responsible from August 1941 on for the distribution of recently acquired tanks to the front lines, this newly available evidence paints a very different picture from the received wisdom. In particular, it shows that British Lend-Lease assistance to the Soviet Union in late 1941 and early 1942 played a far more significant part in the defense of Moscow and the revival of Soviet fortunes in late 1941 than has been acknowledged.

Last I checked, the Russians are still censoring much of the info, at least at their online site, of the lists of Lend-Lease shipments.

For the first two years American armor and aircraft were crappy for sure. The Sherman tank was crappy the entire war, we just produced 50,000 of them.

The Sherman actually performed well in North Africa against German armor, which is why the U.S. didn't think they needed to upgrade and improve on it, while the Germans continued to improve theirs. In any case the Sherman was adequate enough when used in the combined arms mix, with artillery and air superiority and lots of trucks in support. The Sherman also performed well against the T-34 in the Korean conflict and used to good effect in the early Arab-Israeli wars as well; it also proved useful early in the Soviet's defense of the Kursk Pocket. Patton used them effectively in the drive out of Normandy on for the rest of the war, so they weren't total crap. They were good enough. They certainly could have been better, larger gun, etc., but given the short span of time from Normandy to the end of the war they did well enough.

Add to this the 50,000 tanks the Russians produced and you have a number the Germans couldn't begin to compete with. The Tiger was the premier tank of WW2 but they only produced 1800 of them. Even so, the accepted kill ratio for the British when Shermans faced a Tiger was 5 Shermans lost for each Tiger destroyed. On the other hand the Russian T-34 was a good tank. The Germans were stunned at how good and its the reason the Tiger was developed.

The Russians could produce so many tanks because they had lots of modern machine tools and high grade steel shipments coming in from Britain early on along with technical assistance in upgrading and augmenting their obsolete and outdated factory tooling; they didn't have to produce most of their trucks, halftracks, locomotives, rail cars, radios, octane boosters for their aircraft fuel, which wouldn't have been able to get of the ground without the boosters, and all kinds of other odds and ends. Early on it was the Brits doing most of this, essentially transferring some of the U.S. Shipments through from their own supplies until the Lend-Lease Act passed.

The T-34 had little effect in the early war; they made up less than 1,200 of the Soviet armor units, some 72% of which was destroyed in Barbarossa, along with over 50% of their anti-tank guns, etc. The T-34 didn't become a good tank until both the upgraded factories and steel came into play after early 1943, and by Spring 1944 it was a 'great' tank after implementing the design changes recommended by American engineers, combined with Lend-Lease radios. Of course it would have been less effective if the Soviets hadn't of had almost total air superiority as a result of the U.S. and British bombing campaigns forcing Hitler to strip the eastern front of AA and aircraft, a huge advantage that is left out of most analysises for some reason.

The US P39 and F4F were aged and out-classed in both Theatres. The P40 when used as a boom and zoom aircraft could in fact compete with the BF109's and Jap Zero and other Japanese fighters. We sent mostly P39's and P400's (same thing) to the Russians.

Didn't matter hardly at all. As already said, the Soviets had almost total air superiority; they were also using old biplanes on night bombing runs, such was the lack of interdiction and AA guns on the eastern front.

I'd say the Russians did in fact use mostly their own better equipment to win all those 1941 and 1942 battles. Stalin had most of the factories moved 1000 miles east early on to be out of reach of German forces and these factories, untouched, produced enormous amounts of armaments and armor.

Actually they were only as far away as sites like Stalingrad and Gorky, and they lost a lot of it when they were busy running away from the Germans for 1,000 miles or so, before the winter stopped in the north and the massive mine fields stopped them in the center.

The place where the US and British help to the Russians WAS a huge factor was in food and other necessities. The US gave the Russians enough food to provide each Russian soldier in all their armed forces one meal a day for a year. No small benefit to be sure.

It was far more than just food.

“Quoting no less a military genius than Marshall Zhukov: "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 our front transport. The output of special steel, necessary for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of American deliveries." Moreover, Zhukov underscored that "we entered war while still continuing to be a backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany."

Konstantin Simonov's (Soviet journalist/poet/novelist) truthful recounting of these meetings with Georgi Zhukov for his book of interviews with Marshall Zhukov (which took place in 1965 and 1966), are corroborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov hiself, which were recorded as a result of eavesdropping by security organs from 1963 until the Marshall’s demise: "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." Interestingly this secretly recorded conversation of Marshall Zhukov is in contradiction with Zkukov’s own book where he "toes the party line" and denigrates the Lend-Lease aid. In view of the Soviet control of publishing, I wonder which I would put most faith in?

….While Zhukov down-played the contributions of Great Britain and Canada, together they dispatched about a million and a half tons of war supplies and food to the USSR between 1941 and 1945 and among the equipment shipped were thousands of aircraft and tanks and well over 200,000 tons of wheat and flour. The United States provided by far the greater share of the aid and sent about sixteen million tons of stores under the Lend-Lease and earlier agreements. Of the total 17,500,000 tons of material aid dispatched to the USSR, it arrived by the North Atlantic sea route to Murmansk and Archangel and also through Persia (Iran/Iraq). The Pacific route, in spite of the fact that it included a long rail haul across the breadth of Siberia, eventually proved capable of importing as much as the North Atlantic and Persian routes combined. Even the entry of Japan into the war against the United States did not seriously check the flow into Vladivostok since all available Soviet freighters were moved over to the Pacific and a large number of United States vessels were transferred to the Soviet flag. The tonnage dispatches of Western material aid to the USSR from the period from 22 June 1941 to 20 September 1945 were as follows (hope this transfers in a readable form; the Arctic list is mostly aircraft by weight).

Year Totals: Persian Gulf Pacific Atlantic Black Sea Arctic

1941-- 360,778 13,502 193,299 153,977

1942-- 2,453,097 705,259 734,020 949,711 64,107

1943-- 4,794,545 1,606,979 2,388,577 681,043 117,946

1944-- 6,217,622 1,788,864 2,848,181 1,452,775 127,802

1945-- 3,673,819 44,513 2,079,320 726,725 680,723

Among the goods delivered were 427,000 motor vehicles (all types), 13,000 armored fighting vehicles (including 10,000 tanks), 35,000 motorcycles, nearly 19,000 aircraft, 1,900 railway locomotives, 11,000 railway cars (flats and box), ninety freight ships, 105 submarine-chasers and 197 torpedo-boats, and we surely can't forget/ignore the four and a half million tons of foodstuffs sent by the UK.”

[Condensed from Albert Seaton's Russo-German War 1941-1945, Appendix A, pages 588-590; "Western Aid for the Soviet Union"]

And corroborated in the book; The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military Efforts, 1941-1945 by Boris V. Sokolov.

I looked at the "chart" transfer, and it didn't do well. The numbers are collapsed and the ports are as well.

Ah well, I did try.

US isolationists had prevented lend/lease and there was no Pearl Harbour - What If - Other

See also this essay, on some unknown Eastern Front battles:

Document Details | The Soviet-German War 1941-1945: Myths and Realities: A Survey Essay

The stats show the U.S. From Normandy onward inflicting almost 40% of German losses as well a millions of prisoners taken. Considering the Russians didn't launch a real offensive until summer of '43, I think it should be obvious to most they didn't win '90% of the war' as most have been claiming for decades, for lack of any serious examination; they wouldn't have been in the war at all other than in a defensive stance without the West's aid.

You didn't note how many nuts and bolts the allies provided to Russia or the number of Hershey bars.

This is a malady of message boards, we are speaking in generalities. The Sherman was always and still is a piece of crap. Its 'successes' were only because so many were expendable and were lost, not because it had any particular value.

Actually, no point, your worldview is to defend everything the US did or does and facts are not particularly pertinent.

The US had all the best stuff and won the entire war on its own and Russia had all the worst stuff and couldn't have beaten Haiti.

Feel better? Good, move on.

It takes a long time to recover from getting hit on the head by an apple.

 

[IsaacNewton]

lollerz another butt hurt 'America Sucks!' diaper baby.

Actually it's the British contribution that counted for more than it gets due credit for. They were the most critical ally to the war effort early on; while the U.S. could have won on it's own, it would have suffered both a years longer war and with it more casualties of course. As more research and numbers comes out it becomes obvious the Soviet claims are inflated hubris.

You rely on emotion, not reality. This is the domain of the conservative mind. Where in any of my posts did I say 'America sucks'? This is what floats around in YOUR head.

I state facts, your emotions overtake you.

Isn't there a fake Tea Bagger rally you can go to today and complain they are taking away your medicare?

 

[Picaro]

The Russian's never paid us back....

Only Turkey and Great Britain.

I think Finland did as well.

 

[Camp]

lollerz another butt hurt 'America Sucks!' diaper baby.

Actually it's the British contribution that counted for more than it gets due credit for. They were the most critical ally to the war effort early on; while the U.S. could have won on it's own, it would have suffered both a years longer war and with it more casualties of course. As more research and numbers comes out it becomes obvious the Soviet claims are inflated hubris.

You rely on emotion, not reality. This is the domain of the conservative mind. Where in any of my posts did I say 'America sucks'? This is what floats around in YOUR head.

I state facts, your emotions overtake you.

Isn't there a fake Tea Bagger rally you can go to today and complain they are taking away your medicare?

This is in the history forum. It is were history buffs discuss various takes on historical events. Picaro has always had a great interest in WWII and provides interesting outlooks and lots of data that happens to come from well researched academic scholarly sources and reliable and respected historians.
Maybe you should wander over to the political or current events forums if you can not add something about history on the topic being discussed.

 

[Picaro]

lollerz another butt hurt 'America Sucks!' diaper baby.

Actually it's the British contribution that counted for more than it gets due credit for. They were the most critical ally to the war effort early on; while the U.S. could have won on it's own, it would have suffered both a years longer war and with it more casualties of course. As more research and numbers comes out it becomes obvious the Soviet claims are inflated hubris.

You rely on emotion, not reality. This is the domain of the conservative mind. Where in any of my posts did I say 'America sucks'? This is what floats around in YOUR head.

I state facts, your emotions overtake you.

Isn't there a fake Tea Bagger rally you can go to today and complain they are taking away your medicare?

I'm not a conservative, and you've made it plain you're an idiot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, Lend Lease certainly helped the Soviets.

Two, without it, the Soviets still wouldh have defeated the fascists, unless the latter built an A bomb.

 

[IsaacNewton]

lollerz another butt hurt 'America Sucks!' diaper baby.

Actually it's the British contribution that counted for more than it gets due credit for. They were the most critical ally to the war effort early on; while the U.S. could have won on it's own, it would have suffered both a years longer war and with it more casualties of course. As more research and numbers comes out it becomes obvious the Soviet claims are inflated hubris.

You rely on emotion, not reality. This is the domain of the conservative mind. Where in any of my posts did I say 'America sucks'? This is what floats around in YOUR head.

I state facts, your emotions overtake you.

Isn't there a fake Tea Bagger rally you can go to today and complain they are taking away your medicare?

This is in the history forum. It is were history buffs discuss various takes on historical events. Picaro has always had a great interest in WWII and provides interesting outlooks and lots of data that happens to come from well researched academic scholarly sources and reliable and respected historians.
Maybe you should wander over to the political or current events forums if you can not add something about history on the topic being discussed.

LOL

What I added was fact, then 'America needs to be great at all times about everything everywhere butthurt Barney' chimed in with pablum meant to soothe a mind that needs America to be saintly more than it needs to see reality.

And reread my response, I did my best to soothe the butthurt and suggested rather benignly that the poster can move on.

So for the rest who are now also butthurt, move on.

 

[Camp]

lollerz another butt hurt 'America Sucks!' diaper baby.

Actually it's the British contribution that counted for more than it gets due credit for. They were the most critical ally to the war effort early on; while the U.S. could have won on it's own, it would have suffered both a years longer war and with it more casualties of course. As more research and numbers comes out it becomes obvious the Soviet claims are inflated hubris.

You rely on emotion, not reality. This is the domain of the conservative mind. Where in any of my posts did I say 'America sucks'? This is what floats around in YOUR head.

I state facts, your emotions overtake you.

Isn't there a fake Tea Bagger rally you can go to today and complain they are taking away your medicare?

This is in the history forum. It is were history buffs discuss various takes on historical events. Picaro has always had a great interest in WWII and provides interesting outlooks and lots of data that happens to come from well researched academic scholarly sources and reliable and respected historians.
Maybe you should wander over to the political or current events forums if you can not add something about history on the topic being discussed.

LOL

What I added was fact, then 'America needs to be great at all times about everything everywhere butthurt Barney' chimed in with pablum meant to soothe a mind that needs America to be saintly more than it needs to see reality.

And reread my response, I did my best to soothe the butthurt and suggested rather benignly that the poster can move on.

So for the rest who are now also butthurt, move on.

No one is butt hurt from your nonsense. I was just questioning why you felt the need to come into an academic discussion to stroke your ego with political drivel. I missed the post that requested you give us amateur psychological evaluations.

 

[IsaacNewton]

lollerz another butt hurt 'America Sucks!' diaper baby.

Actually it's the British contribution that counted for more than it gets due credit for. They were the most critical ally to the war effort early on; while the U.S. could have won on it's own, it would have suffered both a years longer war and with it more casualties of course. As more research and numbers comes out it becomes obvious the Soviet claims are inflated hubris.

You rely on emotion, not reality. This is the domain of the conservative mind. Where in any of my posts did I say 'America sucks'? This is what floats around in YOUR head.

I state facts, your emotions overtake you.

Isn't there a fake Tea Bagger rally you can go to today and complain they are taking away your medicare?

This is in the history forum. It is were history buffs discuss various takes on historical events. Picaro has always had a great interest in WWII and provides interesting outlooks and lots of data that happens to come from well researched academic scholarly sources and reliable and respected historians.
Maybe you should wander over to the political or current events forums if you can not add something about history on the topic being discussed.

LOL

What I added was fact, then 'America needs to be great at all times about everything everywhere butthurt Barney' chimed in with pablum meant to soothe a mind that needs America to be saintly more than it needs to see reality.

And reread my response, I did my best to soothe the butthurt and suggested rather benignly that the poster can move on.

So for the rest who are now also butthurt, move on.

No one is butt hurt from your nonsense. I was just questioning why you felt the need to come into an academic discussion to stroke your ego with political drivel. I missed the post that requested you give us amateur psychological evaluations.

The opposite was the case, I stated facts, the responder came back with political drivel and immediately cast my remarks as

lollerz another butt hurt 'America Sucks!' diaper baby.

Actually it's the British contribution that counted for more than it gets due credit for. They were the most critical ally to the war effort early on; while the U.S. could have won on it's own, it would have suffered both a years longer war and with it more casualties of course. As more research and numbers comes out it becomes obvious the Soviet claims are inflated hubris.

You rely on emotion, not reality. This is the domain of the conservative mind. Where in any of my posts did I say 'America sucks'? This is what floats around in YOUR head.

I state facts, your emotions overtake you.

Isn't there a fake Tea Bagger rally you can go to today and complain they are taking away your medicare?

This is in the history forum. It is were history buffs discuss various takes on historical events. Picaro has always had a great interest in WWII and provides interesting outlooks and lots of data that happens to come from well researched academic scholarly sources and reliable and respected historians.
Maybe you should wander over to the political or current events forums if you can not add something about history on the topic being discussed.

LOL

What I added was fact, then 'America needs to be great at all times about everything everywhere butthurt Barney' chimed in with pablum meant to soothe a mind that needs America to be saintly more than it needs to see reality.

And reread my response, I did my best to soothe the butthurt and suggested rather benignly that the poster can move on.

So for the rest who are now also butthurt, move on.

No one is butt hurt from your nonsense. I was just questioning why you felt the need to come into an academic discussion to stroke your ego with political drivel. I missed the post that requested you give us amateur psychological evaluations.

The opposite is the truth, I stated fact and the responder came back with emotion and 'lollerz another butt hurt 'America Sucks!' diaper baby'. Funny how you don't characterize this as 'political' tripe, which it is.

There are a number of people here who don't rely on reality and instead rely on emotional response to reality as their compass. Whatever.

MOVE ON.

 

[PK1]

It takes a long time to recover from getting hit on the head by an apple.

---
I could not resist my 2 cents here, since this is the History forum.
The "Newton apple" story may have been embellished; the apple may not have hit him on the head.

CultureLab: Newton's apple: The real story
.