Author Topic: Why British, Soviet and Japanese aircraft are better than U.S. and German in AH.  (Read 2224 times)

Offline Buzzbait

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1141
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Good one Regurge.  

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Buzz,

That is not my summation. That's the summation on that web page. Did it get you stoked up enough to read the web page? I hope so.  

The web page is probably the most complete list of items the USA sent to the USSR that I have ever seen.

I did do a search on Major Jordan's Diaries. Those are pretty interesting all by themselves and led me to the book he wrote. I want to find that and read it.

That led to some interesting info on Hopkins and other aspects of our atomic program. That led to a search on "Harry Hopkins KGB" on Google. More interesting info.

Here's a taste to whet your appetite for controversy.  

"There is one more book based on VENONA due out in 2000, the late Eric Breindel and Herbert Romerstein’s The Venona Secrets: The Soviet Union’s World War II Espionage Campaign against the United States and How America Fought Back: A Story of Espionage, Counterespionage, and Betrayal. It has distinction beyond its long title. It will add corroboration to the work of Haynes and Klehr with new documentation and analysis, putting particular emphasis on the role of the Communist Party in Soviet espionage in America. Undoubtedly, the most controversial facet of this book will be the portion arguing that Harry Hopkins was VENONA Agent 19. This will surely not be a popular thesis."

I can't vouch for any of it, however. The Venona documents are available on the NSA website: http://www.nsa.gov/docs/venona/  

I haven't had time to look at those yet. It does look like an area where I would like to do more research and it does provide a starting point for the discussion.

If you want to dismiss it because you've already made up your mind, fine. I enjoy researching stuff like this.  

Now, to some of your points.

I think calling Russia an "ally" of Japan is too strong. But then, I didn't write that summation.

However, it is undeniable that they both signed a "PACT OF NEUTRALITY BETWEEN UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS AND JAPAN" on April 13, 1941. Here's the entire text:
 http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1941/410413a.html

A good page. Has the later (1945) Soviet denunciation and rejection of the neutrality treaty (one year before the pact expired  ) and declaration of war against Japan as well.

Now you figure this out, Buzz old chum:

Where on this BBS have I ever said anything against the Russians in their fight against Germany? About all I have ever addressed with regards to that topic, in various threads, is the Lend-Lease aspect. Nor have I ever suggested it wasn't worth it, for either side.

For the most part I have merely pointed folks to threads that show the terms of the agreement, how much aid and what type aid was given, the cost and the eventual unlimited term, interest-free repayment of, write-off of and deferred payment of some of the debt.

So, before you go tooting through your own rectal orifice, why don't you take a bit of time to read what I have actually said instead of jumping to conclusions?  
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Buzzbait

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1141
A pact of neutrality is a long way from an Alliance.  They signed the agreement because they didn't want anymore "undeclared wars" erupting on their borders, not because they were bosom buddies.  And either side would have broken the treaty had they felt they had the opportunity.  The Soviets got the first chance.  The Japanese didn't because the Soviets kept a large force of men in the Vladivostok, Manchuria area during '41-'44 to discourage them.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
What? No apology about accusing me of taking illicit drugs? No remorse about the accusation of a "lack of historical research?" No thought of the pain that being called "intoxicated" brings?

No comment on the Venona information about Hopkins? The possibility that there may be something there?

I'm saddened.  

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Buzzbait

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1141
Yeah, and FDR was a Commie too.

StormFB

  • Guest
 
Quote
Originally posted by Toad:
What? No apology about accusing me of taking illicit drugs? No remorse about the accusation of a "lack of historical research?" No thought of the pain that being called "intoxicated" brings?

No comment on the Venona information about Hopkins? The possibility that there may be something there?

I'm saddened.    


You really want it? You get it:  you're  taking illicit drugs that intoxicate you and thus you lack of historical research  

Just 2 questions to you:
1. American and Britain troops had already tried to invade Russia. Maybe you know when and why?
2. Can you plz tell me the name of that "herb" ?  

Íåò íó ÿ çíàë, ÷òî àìû îãðàíè÷åííûå, îçàáî÷åííûå ñîáñòâåííûì ïðåâîñõîäñòâîì äåãåíåðàòû   íî ÷òîá íàñòîëüêî!!!

[This message has been edited by StormFB (edited 03-31-2001).]

Offline leonid

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
 
Quote
Originally posted by Toad:
Equipment Lend-Leased To The USSR

 Here's the summation:

SUMMARY

MUNITIONS $4,651,582,000

NON-MUNITIONS 4,826,084,000

Total 9,477,666,000

An estimated 13,600,000 Soviet sons and daughters in the Red Army died in the war against the Axis.  They died fighting to stop Hitler, his band of genocidal maniacs, and a militaristic country that couldn't see the forest for the trees.  If they hadn't stopped Hitler, then the USA would've had to do so at some later point, and under worse conditions, possibly even, in a worst case scenario, on their own home soil.

So, in a way you could say the USA paid $696.89 for every Soviet soldier that gave their life trying to stop Hitler.  By doing so, the USA insured a number of things:
  • That only 0.4% of the pre-war population would die in war(as opposed to the Soviets' 10.4%).
  • That the chance of Axis invasion would never occur.
  • That the economic structure of the USA would remain untouched and intact, guaranteeing a very profitable future in a war-torn world market.
Now, I call that money well spent, don't you?  What better way to fight a war?  The Byzantines could not have done any better.

Flame on!

------------------
leonid, Kompol
5 GvIAP VVS-KA, Knights

"Our cause is just.  The enemy will be crushed.  Victory will be ours."
ingame: Raz

Offline StSanta

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
This discussion is too cool  

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Who is flaming anyone?

The others here I'd expect, but you usually read for content Leonid.

Look at the above post:

"About all I have ever addressed with regards to that topic, in various threads, is the Lend-Lease aspect. Nor have I ever suggested it wasn't worth it, for either side."

Leonid:  "So, in a way you could say the USA paid $696.89 for every Soviet soldier..."

Yeah, I guess you could say that if you were really trying twist things into unrecognizable shape.

The US wasn't hiring mercenaries and you know it.

Roosevelt stated the policy in his "FOUR FREEDOMS" SPEECH on January 6, 1941, nearly a year before Pearl Harbor.

"Our most useful and immediate role is to act as an arsenal for them as well as for ourselves.  They do not need man power. They
do need billions of dollars worth of the weapons of defense...

Let us say to the democracies: "we Americans are vitally concerned in your defense of freedom.  We are putting forth our energies, our resources and our organizing powers to give you the strength to regain and maintain a free world.  We shall send you, in ever increasing numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns. This is our purpose and our pledge."

Here's the text of the Lend-Lease act with Russia:
 http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/amsov42.htm

Here's the correspondence between Stalin and Roosevelt about Lend-Lease.
 http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/LendL.html

We supported the Soviet effort to a degree second only to that which we supported the British effort.

Storm, I guess you are referring to the US participation in this:

"An Allied force under British command was dispatched by sea and on August 3, 1918, seized the city of Archangel and drove the Bolshevik troops to the south of that place. The first American troops ashore are fifty sailors from the USS Olympia. The British government had previously urged the United States to contribute a contingent and as a result the War Department directed the Commander-in-Chief of the American Expeditionary Forces to send three battalions of infantry and three companies of engineers to join this Allied venture. The 339th Infantry, 1st Battalion of the 310th Engineers, 337th Field Hospital and 337th Ambulance Company, all of the 85th Division, were designated. They sailed from England, and arrived in Northern Russia on September 4...."

...and the British/French/Turkish invasion of Crimea?

Lot of world history to review, given the general nature of the question.  

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline mx22

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 34
Lets not forget that "arsenal of freedom" wasn't giving away weapons for free, it was all paid for by countries who recieved it.

mx22

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Yep, that's right. That's why they called it "LEND-Lease".

"In a personal message to Mr. Stalin, President Roosevelt states:

...(5) He proposes, subject to the approval of the Soviet Government, that no interest be charged by the United States on such indebtedness as may be incurred by the Soviet Government arising out of these shipments and that on such indebtedness as the Soviet Government may incur, payments shall begin only five years after the end of the war, and that the payments be made over a period of ten years after the expiration of this five-year period."

Those were the terms for all countries initially, I think. However, the terms were amended and some debt was totally forgiven, some debt was restructured, the length of the loans were significantly extended and some of the debt remains unpaid to this day.

I guess your implication is that there is something wrong with the "Lend" part of lend lease? That we should have just given it away without requiring repayment?

If the Lend-Lease total in 1945 dollars was converted to 2000 dollars the total would be $485,142,857,143. Could we just give that away today?

Beyond that, governmental and business practices were quite a bit different in the 1940's than they are now. The very idea of Lend-Lease was considered pretty radical at the time.

United States Lend-Lease Act
British Empire $31,390,000,000
Soviet Union 11,100,000,000
France 3,230,000,000
China 1,557,399,993
American republics 495,410,240
The Netherlands 230,127,717
Greece 75,475,880
Belgium 148,394,457
Norway 51,524,124
Turkey 26,026,355
Yugoslavia 32,026,355
Other countries 24,787,879
Aid not charged to foreign governments 2,578,827,000

Total $50,940,000,000




[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 03-31-2001).]
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

StormFB

  • Guest
 
Quote
Originally posted by Toad:
Storm, I guess you are referring to the US participation in this:

"An Allied force under British command was dispatched by sea and on August 3, 1918, seized the city of Archangel and drove the Bolshevik troops to the south of that place. The first American troops ashore are fifty sailors from the USS Olympia. The British government had previously urged the United States to contribute a contingent and as a result the War Department directed the Commander-in-Chief of the American Expeditionary Forces to send three battalions of infantry and three companies of engineers to join this Allied venture. The 339th Infantry, 1st Battalion of the 310th Engineers, 337th Field Hospital and 337th Ambulance Company, all of the 85th Division, were designated. They sailed from England, and arrived in Northern Russia on September 4...."

...and the British/French/Turkish invasion of Crimea?

Lot of world history to review, given the general nature of the question.  


Exactly   Now can you please say in brief what happened next and why?
The whole idea of intervention into the USSR in 1945 is even more a bluff the Hitler's BlitzKrieg. I don't need to prove it. Russia has been proving it for hundreds of years.

PS: as for Land-Lease you just need to compare numbers produced by the UUSR and landleased.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
You'll have to be a bit more specific Storm.

What happened in Crimea?

What happened after Archangel in 1918?

Also, I don't know what you are referring to here:

"The whole idea of intervention into the USSR in 1945".

Lastly, I'm glad you folks didn't need the Lend-Lease at all, since you had it all well under control with production.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline mx22

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 34
Toad,

Noone says that Lend Lease wasn't needed, nor that US didn't help other Allied countries. It's just from reading above posts it's easy to get an idea that US did it for absolutely free, which is of course, not true.

mx22

StormFB

  • Guest
 
Quote
Originally posted by Toad:
You'll have to be a bit more specific Storm.

What happened in Crimea?

What happened after Archangel in 1918?

Sorry if my question was unclear. I meant what happend to the troops in general. How succesfull were they?


 
Quote
Originally posted by Toad:
Also, I don't know what you are referring to here:

"The whole idea of intervention into the USSR in 1945".

Lastly, I'm glad you folks didn't need the Lend-Lease at all, since you had it all well under control with production.

This refered to the idea of attacking the USSR right after the war by the allies.

Land lease... hmmm, you probably think it played the key role in the war, don't you?