Will the World Like the US Better Under Obama?

[jillian]

Zoomie is just dealing with distorted historical claims made by a disgruntled anti-American socialist kiwi from the land of nod.....and quite well i might add...

An interesting effort at mindreading. As difficult as this may be for you to accept, Grump is neither anti-American nor socialist nor disgruntled. So, you're wrong on all three.

I think you need to go ask for a refund from the Amazing Kreskin's School of Mental Telepathy. It's not working for you so well.

 

[editec]

Without US goods Lenningrad and Moscow would have fallen to Hitler in 1941.

Ah...nice try, but no. I'm sorry, you've been misinformed.

Our help was useful, but hardly critical to the Soviet's survival against the NAZIs.

the Soviets did what Russia always does when attacked from Europe -- they got their asses kicked at first, they retreated behind the Urals and they let the invaders wear themselves out and overrun their suppl;y lines, too.

Mostly what impressed the Soviets, and what they truly wanted from the USA was our trucks:

Here's some statistics to help you reducate yourself about this subject:

LEND-LEASE EXPORTS OF MILITARY ITEMS TO U.S.S.R.

................ 1941 1942 1943 Total

Planes ..... 150 2,500 5,150 7,800
Tanks ..... 180 3,000 920 4,100
Vehicles... 8,300 79,000 144,400 231,700

Source: Fourteenth Report to Congress on Lend-Lease Operations (March 11, 1944), 32.



You see...we could not actually get all that much material aid to the Soviets in the early years. Those nasty Germans kept sinking our ships.

My father actually served in the merchant marines during WWII and visited Russia many times during that conflict. (both Mermansk and the Arc-angle runs)

On one "coffin corner" convoy (northern run above the artic circle) in 1941 we lost over half the ships before they got into Russian ports.

My father was on in that convoy, incidently.

By the time it was really safe for our covoys to sail to Russia, the Soviet factory system was cranking out enormous amounts of war materials and didn't much need our help.

There's a fabulous book I'll recommend about the Soviet's war, if you're interested in this sort of nuts and bolts exploration of that war.

Russia at War 1941-1945 by Alexander Werth.

One of the amazing things you'll learn is just how much material the Soviets were able to build during that war even while the NAZIs were at the front door lobbing shells into those factores.

Even while the NAZI's were kicking their asses on their western front, the Soviets (in the far east) were cranking out more tanks, more planes and more artillary than you or I would have imagined possible.

You see, Joe Stalin knew perfectly well that the Germans were going to invade his country, so he'd prepared his nation to accept those early loses by moving a whole lot of his arms factories far to the East.

Hey, don't feel bad.

I had no idea any of this was true, either, until I read this book about this particular subject.

It was BRITIAN which mostly needed our materials aid, not the Soviets.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ah...nice try, but no. I'm sorry, you've been misinformed.

Our help was useful, but hardly critical to the Soviet's survival against the NAZIs.

the Soviets did what Russia always does when attacked from Europe -- they got their asses kicked at first, they retreated behind the Urals and they let the invaders wear themselves out and overrun their suppl;y lines, too.

Mostly what impressed the Soviets, and what they truly wanted from the USA was our trucks:

Here's some statistics to help you reducate yourself about this subject:

LEND-LEASE EXPORTS OF MILITARY ITEMS TO U.S.S.R.

................ 1941 1942 1943 Total

Planes ..... 150 2,500 5,150 7,800
Tanks ..... 180 3,000 920 4,100
Vehicles... 8,300 79,000 144,400 231,700

Source: Fourteenth Report to Congress on Lend-Lease Operations (March 11, 1944), 32.



You see...we could not actually get all that much material aid to the Soviets in the early years. Those nasty Germans kept sinking our ships.

My father actually served in the merchant marines during WWII and visited Russia many times during that conflict. (both Mermansk and the Arc-angle runs)

On one "coffin corner" convoy (northern run above the artic circle) in 1941 we lost over half the ships before they got into Russian ports.

My father was on in that convoy, incidently.

By the time it was really safe for our covoys to sail to Russia, the Soviet factory system was cranking out enormous amounts of war materials and didn't much need our help.

There's a fabulous book I'll recommend about the Soviet's war, if you're interested in this sort of nuts and bolts exploration of that war.

Russia at War 1941-1945 by Alexander Werth.

One of the amazing things you'll learn is just how much material the Soviets were able to build during that war even while the NAZIs were at the front door lobbing shells into those factores.

Even while the NAZI's were kicking their asses on their western front, the Soviets (in the far east) were cranking out more tanks, more planes and more artillary than you or I would have imagined possible.

You see, Joe Stalin knew perfectly well that the Germans were going to invade his country, so he'd prepared his nation to accept those early loses by moving a whole lot of his arms factories far to the East.

Hey, don't feel bad.

I had no idea any of this was true, either, until I read this book about this particular subject.

It was BRITIAN which mostly needed our materials aid, not the Soviets.

I suggest YOU read some History. The Soviets were almost totally dependent on us for the first 2 years on trucks and vehicles. And through the entire war they relied on us for every inch of wire they used for comm equipment. Those artillery Divisions would have been worthless without the comm wire for communications and the radios we provided. Aircraft were ferried across the straights from Alaska and not touched by U-boat or naval air of Germany. along with tons of supplies.

 

[Dr Grump]

God, you are no historian. We had been supplying Britain over 50% of her war material since early 1939. Same for Stalin. Only US food and clothing supplies as well over 7500 tanks, armored personnel carriers in 1940 alone, kept the Soviets from caving in Lenningrad and provided the narrow margin in Nov of 1941 to keep Hilter out of Moscow. By 1942 Soviet production in the Urals finally caught up with it's war needs. Britain never did produce more the about 50% of what it needed. The balance came from the US. It took until mid 1943 that the Soviets finally were producing more tanks and armor than what the US was shipping it in 1941.

Same for Australia. Oz had no chance against the Japanese without massive US supplies that ramped up by the end of 1942.

If I'm no historian, then you must still be in kindergarten. The US contributed massively, of that there is no doubt, but to make out you made THE difference is undermining others' efforts. I don't believe the Euros could have done it without the Yanks, ditto the Yanks without the Euros..

Agreed re the Japs, but who did they attack first? Why was Australia even at war with the Japs in the first place? I can tell you this - it wasn't because of anything the Aussies had done to the Japs or vice versa.

 

[Dr Grump]

So if US had stayed out of European theater, Europe would have defeated the Axis? How about Japan? Next you'll be saying USSR could have dealt with that, of course without the bomb, making nice all around?

From memory I think the USSR declared war on Japan a few days before the armistace. Johnny-Come-Latelies. I am saying everyone contributed, but it seems to be only right-wing Yanks who want to do the "without us you were fucked" scenario. Most normal people know that everybody contributed, and that without each other nobody would have won against them.

 

[Dr Grump]

Zoomie is just dealing with distorted historical claims made by a disgruntled anti-American socialist kiwi from the land of nod.....and quite well i might add...

What sort of nuts do you like, cashew or peanuts?

 

[dilloduck]

If I'm no historian, then you must still be in kindergarten. The US contributed massively, of that there is no doubt, but to make out you made THE difference is undermining others' efforts. I don't believe the Euros could have done it without the Yanks, ditto the Yanks without the Euros..

Agreed re the Japs, but who did they attack first? Why was Australia even at war with the Japs in the first place? I can tell you this - it wasn't because of anything the Aussies had done to the Japs or vice versa.

Get over it--The yanks played the biggest part.

 

[Dr Grump]

No, it's not their business. Any time people are being victimized by ruthless dictators like Ho Chi Mihn, Ortega, Noriega, Castro, Hussein, Chavez, Iranian Mullahs, Talliban, Burmese junta....we are morally and ethically justified in removing them. The UN is simply too cowardly to do so, because most of its members are ruled by tyrants..

Dunno why you put Chavez in there. He doesn't belong in that company yet. Was Ho Chi Mihn ruthless? Really? Know a lot about him do you? Any more ruthless than his South Vietnamese counterpart? Ditto Ortega. Noriega was your boy as was Hussein at one stage.

Please do take out the Burmese Junta. North Korea while you're at it.

 

[Dr Grump]

Get over it--The yanks played the biggest part.

Actually, I think the Soviets did....

 

[dilloduck]

Actually, I think the Soviets did....

Oh ya--they kicked some ass in the pacific !!!! Cmon Grump

 

[Dr Grump]

Oh ya--they kicked some ass in the pacific !!!! Cmon Grump

Oh, ok, just to make yourself feel better and so you can go "nah, nah, nah, nah"to the rest of the world: The US did most of the work. Happy?

 

[dilloduck]

Oh, ok, just to make yourself feel better and so you can go "nah, nah, nah, nah"to the rest of the world: The US did most of the work. Happy?

speaking the truth often gets misinterpreted as gloating----I can understand how other countries are pissed off at the powerful one. It's human nature. I often cheer against the favorite myself.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Soviets solved a manpower problem. The US could have fielded 200 or more divisions but chose to stay at 97. Why? Because the Soviets WERE doing the lions share of fighting on the ground. But their manpower was not enough to keep them from being driven so far back and at such a cost they would have been out of the war.

Dr Grump has it right, no one country won the War. It took all the contributors. I though am past tired of being told by Europeans that some how Britain would have magically found the means to defeat Germany and Italy without us. Or the best one, that the Soviets did not need our aid at all. Their mobility and the communications and a large part of their early air force and tank force were US Equipment. No US and no second front. No credible threat along the Atlantic and the Germans would have been free to put even more effort into the Soviet Union. There would have been no credible bombing campaign and the slow start by the Germans to ramp up for total war would have not been a big blunder.

Before the US was ever in the war we had given Britain 50 older Destroyers they desperately needed for the war in the Atlantic AND we agreed to protect the convoys half way across the Atlantic to boot. We were in reality at war on the high Seas LONG before Germany declared war on us.

 

[editec]

I suggest YOU read some History. The Soviets were almost totally dependent on us for the first 2 years on trucks and vehicles

I was responding to the canard that the Soviets were dependent on us for war materials in 1941.

I've posted the statistics to show that that statement was incorrect, lad.

You unpleasant tone of pen directed at me makes you look like an complete ass.

 

[BrianH]

Oh, ok, just to make yourself feel better and so you can go "nah, nah, nah, nah"to the rest of the world: The US did most of the work. Happy?

Oh come on Gump, you know the U.S. did most of the work. A war on two fronts, the amount of money and munitions sent to the allies before the U.S. even militarily entered the war...

It was a collective effort, and I won't sit here and say the the U.S. won it by themselves, but you can't deny facts. Without U.S. Air Superiority in Europe, it would have turned the tide of the war. Also, the U.S. (on the Western Front) played the "manpower" role of the allies. It's not just because the Americans are the best, but their particular position during the war allowed for it. They were not fighting on their homeland thus making it more possible to crank out munitions and war materials. The Russians played a big part also... it makes one wonder where we'd have been without millions of Russians tying up millions of Germans on the other front.

 

[editec]

you know the U.S. did most of the work.

I think it unquestionable that the USA fought hard won battles in both the Atlantic and Pacific theater

Likewise, the Soviet's contribution in the Pacific theater was zilch.shit. Someone already pointed out that the Soviets didn't even declare war on japan until after we'd defeated them, and that is spot on accurate.

But to suggest that America won the war single handed, or that it saved civilization from Axis powers without the aid of the allied forces of the commonwealth nations the Soviets, the Free French forces and so on, is simply so much jingoistic, breast-beating, American braggadaccio.

Take a look at the casualty numbers for that World War

That pretty much ecapsulates the story.

That's not taking anything away from the US contribution to defeating the Hun, but it's not discounting the fact that the effort was massive and took the combined efforts of all the allies, either.

Here's a link to the numbers for those of you interested in the facts.

Would Europe have fallen to the NAZIs without American help?

Damned right they would have. England was on the ropes, and if Hitler hasn't invaded the Soviets, thus bringing them into the fray, the Soviets would have happily waited for England to fall to NAZI Germany before Uncle Joe of and Adolph fought their inevitable war.

 

[nomdeplume]

Hmm? The US is not liked for two main reasons:

We are the most powerful country on the planet.
We have a leftist, america-hating media.


Obama will make us more liked, no doubt, because he will make us a much weaker country, and, of course, the media will never criticize anything even tangently related to someone black, man or woman, president or thug. However poorly Obama will be steering the ship, the NYT will ensure us daily that it is raining manna.

 

[manifold]

Puppet accounts suck.

 

[nomdeplume]

Puppet accounts suck.

Is that your version of "waaaaah!"?

No crying emoticon, for shame.

 

[jillian]

Hmm? The US is not liked for two main reasons:

We are the most powerful country on the planet.
We have a leftist, america-hating media.


Obama will make us more liked, no doubt, because he will make us a much weaker country, and, of course, the media will never criticize anything even tangently related to someone black, man or woman, president or thug. However poorly Obama will be steering the ship, the NYT will ensure us daily that it is raining manna.

monsieur nom de plume locked in fantasy land....