Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Communist Ideology in America's Security Agencies

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    I think you have that a bit historically backwards. It was when China reformed to a more diversified economy in the 70s that they began to prosper. Same is true for Russia at the turn of the millennia. Socialism devastated Russia prior to that time.
    The Soviets went toe to toe with the Germans, then beat the United states into space, a technological achievement demonstrating significant economic investment. The Soviet military achieved a parity with US and Nato forces such that there was a split over military strategy and doctrine within NATO, the US plan was to retreat back to the Atlantic, and then men, material and A bombs could be brought to bear (Bonn had other ideas).

    The Soviets economy was mismanaged, but still was particularly successful in industrializing.

    The Chinese story is different, Mao never tried to industrialize on a western scale or scope, preferring to emphasize the transforming society and people. The horrors of the sixties prompted the post-Mao leaders to liberalized while avoiding the Soviet concessions of Kruschev, who could never regain the same level of control that Stalin had.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by simplicio View Post
      The Soviets economy was mismanaged, but still was particularly successful in industrializing.
      Successful is pretty relative. Given we theoretically agree with what constitutes "success," for how long? A decade? Two decades? Then what were the consequences when its short lived "success" eventually failed?

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by simplicio View Post
        The Soviets went toe to toe with the Germans, then beat the United states into space, a technological achievement demonstrating significant economic investment. The Soviet military achieved a parity with US and Nato forces such that there was a split over military strategy and doctrine within NATO, the US plan was to retreat back to the Atlantic, and then men, material and A bombs could be brought to bear (Bonn had other ideas).

        The Soviets economy was mismanaged, but still was particularly successful in industrializing.

        The Chinese story is different, Mao never tried to industrialize on a western scale or scope, preferring to emphasize the transforming society and people. The horrors of the sixties prompted the post-Mao leaders to liberalized while avoiding the Soviet concessions of Kruschev, who could never regain the same level of control that Stalin had.
        The soviets won by turning the eastern front, into a meat grinder, until it finally clogged up because Germany could no longer field replacements at the rates the soviets could. They also used German technology and captured scientist to beat the US into space (although we did the same thing to jump start ours). Likewise, the fall of the Iron curtain revealed much of the Soviet military and its proxy’s were poorly equipped and not nearly as formidable as the west thought.
        Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 01-23-2020, 06:53 AM.
        "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
        GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
          The soviets won by sending millions of men into the meat grinder, of the eastern front, until the grinder clogged up. They also used German technology and captured scientist to beat the US into space (although we did the same thing to jump start ours). Likewise, the fall of the Iron curtain revealed much of the Soviet military and its proxyÂ’s were poorly equipped and not nearly as formidable as the west thought.
          Yes some of their military tactics were barbaric. But they did have a technological parity with the Germans on tanks, a parity which was later forced the US to upgrade to m48, m60, then the m1 abrams tanks to stay ahead. (the German panzers were technological marvels, but were too complex for the practical use of warfare.) Their planes were never far behind the NATO counterparts.

          The meatgrinder, while partly true, ignores the capable leadership which just happened to stop and defeat the Germans. The Soviets always had a two or three tier military, modern and well trained lead divisions, a large mass army force, and reserve troops which kept every piece of equipment mothballed.

          The US also used captured German scientists to kickstart the rocketry program, as you noted. But the technological achievements were only possible with a strong industrial base. The Apollo program is a monument to industrial capacity, and for years there were basically two nations who could repeatedly and reliably reach space.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by simplicio View Post
            Yes some of their military tactics were barbaric. But they did have a technological parity with the Germans on tanks, a parity which was later forced the US to upgrade to m48, m60, then the m1 abrams tanks to stay ahead. (the German panzers were technological marvels, but were too complex for the practical use of warfare.) Their planes were never far behind the NATO counterparts.
            True, but what NATO discovered after the fall of the iron curtain is that much of the Soviet equipment was in disrepair and, in many cases, didn’t work. Sure, Soviet aircraft technology, Submarine, and radar tech was roughly on par with the US, but much of it was in disrepair.

            The meatgrinder, while partly true, ignores the capable leadership which just happened to stop and defeat the Germans. The Soviets always had a two or three tier military, modern and well trained lead divisions, a large mass army force, and reserve troops which kept every piece of equipment mothballed.
            Which still cost the lives of over 20 million soviets. A greater loss of life than the US, UK, Germany, Japan, and France combined.

            The US also used captured German scientists to kickstart the rocketry program, as you noted. But the technological achievements were only possible with a strong industrial base. The Apollo program is a monument to industrial capacity, and for years there were basically two nations who could repeatedly and reliably reach space.
            Which the Soviets achieved by sacrificing living standards for their people. Just one example:

            https://www.nhregister.com/neighborh...m-85307-tbla-5
            "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
            GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              With regard to economic outcomes, socialism has historically done very well. It's the authoritarianism associated with one-party-state-communism implementations of non-democratic versions of socialism that have been historically problematic.

              Russia and China were among the poorest countries in the world when they became socialist, the USSR quickly grew economically to be powerful enough to challenge the US for global dominance, and today China does the same. In recent decades the country with the fastest rate of economic growth in the world was democratic socialist Bolivia.

              The historical downsides of socialist regimes have come if they abolished democracy and moved to a dictatorship. In those instances they've typically suffered the same sorts of problems common to dictatorships throughout history. In cases where they've kept to democratic socialism, it's been fine. The cartoon seems pretty ignorant of all the times it's worked fine.
              China became economically powerful by adopting capitalistic ideas. And the USSR collapsed under communism and is only now becoming economically powerful, again, thanks to capitalism.

              So if socialism is so great, Star, why don't you defect to one of their countries. Move to Venezuela.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                With regard to economic outcomes, socialism has historically done very well. It's the authoritarianism associated with one-party-state-communism implementations of non-democratic versions of socialism that have been historically problematic.

                Russia and China were among the poorest countries in the world when they became socialist, the USSR quickly grew economically to be powerful enough to challenge the US for global dominance, and today China does the same. In recent decades the country with the fastest rate of economic growth in the world was democratic socialist Bolivia.

                The historical downsides of socialist regimes have come if they abolished democracy and moved to a dictatorship. In those instances they've typically suffered the same sorts of problems common to dictatorships throughout history. In cases where they've kept to democratic socialism, it's been fine. The cartoon seems pretty ignorant of all the times it's worked fine.
                You should laud Nazism with Russia's and China's socialism -- and the millions upon millions of people who died for this goal.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by simplicio View Post
                  So, no, nothing from Chambers himself. And I think it pertinent that you see Wm F Bickley as a hapless tool of the Trotskyites! I would ask if you've ever read anything by Buckley,
                  This is how someone as naive, simple and dumb as you faceplants. 'Read their stuff!!!!!! tells you who they really are!!!!!!!!!!'
                  Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by seanD View Post
                    It was when China reformed to a more diversified economy in the 70s that they began to prosper.
                    I state regularly on this site that in my view the data suggests that about half way between communism and libertarianism is optimal. Countries appear to function best if about half the economy is privately run and half is state run. The countries that do best today in the world are closest to that 50/50 balance. So it in no way surprises me that when communist China moved toward easing up their extreme levels of 100% communism, and making compromises to allow a more diversified economy, that they did better than they had previously.

                    That said, they were still nominally communist, and it was under the communist party's leadership that they had incredible economic growth, and to this day under their communist party's leadership they have become one of the greatest economic powers in the world. That's quite an impressive feat given that China was one of the poorest countries in the world when the communists first came to power there.

                    Same is true for Russia at the turn of the millennia. Socialism devastated Russia prior to that time.
                    I think you're confused. For pretty much the entire timespan of the USSR, its economy grew. GDP per capita steadily increased from 1920 right through to 1990. Socialism didn't 'devastate' the economy at all.

                    After the USSR fell in ~1990 and socialism ended and the abrupt transition to capitalism was poorly managed to say the least, the economy collapsed rapidly as capitalist oligarchs stole the nation's wealth. It took about 15 years for its economy to recover from that transition.

                    Originally posted by seanD View Post
                    Given we theoretically agree with what constitutes "success," for how long? A decade? Two decades? Then what were the consequences when its short lived "success" eventually failed?
                    If you're prepared to allow a large enough timespan, then you can point to things going wrong or right in any nation. Does, for example, the Great Recession, prove that Capitalism and America, has Failed? Did the Great Depression prove that? If a communist country has a similar recession (e.g. Venezuela currently), does that prove Communism a failure? Certain members on this site seem to use a double standard, where America's allowed to have giant recessions, and that doesn't to them say anything bad about capitalism, but if any communist country ever has a similar recession it's Proof That Communism Is A Failed Economic System.


                    Originally posted by simplicio View Post
                    The Soviets went toe to toe with the Germans, then beat the United states into space, a technological achievement demonstrating significant economic investment
                    Indeed. The USSR was the world leader in many scientific fields including nuclear reactors and space flight. They sent up the first satellite, and sent the first dog into space, and I was actually surprised to learn recently that the USSR was the first to the moon... they landed an unmanned probe on it long before the US's much more famous manned landing... I'm surprised that's not something more widely known. Cuba, likewise, has been similarly impressive in science, with its world-leading medical research.


                    Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                    You should laud Nazism with Russia's and China's socialism -- and the millions upon millions of people who died for this goal.
                    Nazism is a good example from that time of how it was the dictatorial leadership that was the cause of the horrors, not the capitalistic economic system of Germany of the time. In the same way, during a similar time period, it was the dictatorial leadership of Stalin in the USSR that was the cause of the horrors there, not the communist economic system of the USSR of that time.

                    But instead of acknowledging that the economic systems of neither country had much to do with any of the negative effects experienced by citizens, and instead placing the blame for the mass deaths in those countries firmly on the non-democratic authoritarian nature of their governments where it belongs, people have been propagandized to not associate Germany's evils with their capitalist economic system and wrongly to associate the USSR's evils with their communist economic system.
                    Last edited by Starlight; 01-24-2020, 04:34 AM.
                    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                      True, but what NATO discovered after the fall of the iron curtain is that much of the Soviet equipment was in disrepair and, in many cases, didnÂ’t work. Sure, Soviet aircraft technology, Submarine, and radar tech was roughly on par with the US, but much of it was in disrepair.



                      Which still cost the lives of over 20 million soviets. A greater loss of life than the US, UK, Germany, Japan, and France combined.



                      Which the Soviets achieved by sacrificing living standards for their people. Just one example:

                      https://www.nhregister.com/neighborh...m-85307-tbla-5
                      The Potemkin villages were used, even by the military. It still guided American policy and responses. The economic and social collapse of the eighties did leave the military in disrepair, even the supposedly ready units.

                      But American military, roiled by the post Vietnam changes was a paper tiger in the seventies, which necessitiated the buildup and modernization of the eighties. And changes in doctrine were also needed. The reserve forces, which are predominately Army, were never integrated into the Army force until after Gulf I. (Marines always demanded readiness, Marine reserves were mostly ready for their mission, unlike Army reserve units).

                      The Russians bore the brunt of the war in Europe, achieving mobilazation rates far beyond the US or even Britain. How much of the casualties were excessive, or due to their sledgehammer tactics? There is no easy solultion to the question. But the US never faced the full brunt ot either German or Japanese power in the same way. The Navy's successes in Atlantic, Mediterranian, and the Pacific limited Axis use of power. The Russian front was the only major front where Germans maintained line of communication.

                      The Pacific War used tactics comparable to meat grinder tactics, we landed more triggers and trigger pullers, the island battles were discrete meat grinders, which is why casualties were so high. The great doctrines of mobility and economy of force had no room to be used.

                      The psychology of refusing to yield teal estate of one's own motherland cannot be ignored. The American Civil war, the Russian front, and the cold war's quarrels between the West Germans and the US, all had tactical considerations affected by ceding homes to enemy forces.

                      The yielding of living standards to technological and military achievements is the guns or butter argument. The unprecedented guns AND butter policy of the sixties is a monument to the robust and resilient American economy, but a price was paid within the decade, the Economic malaise of the seventies.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by simplicio View Post
                        The Potemkin villages were used, even by the military. It still guided American policy and responses. The economic and social collapse of the eighties did leave the military in disrepair, even the supposedly ready units.

                        But American military, roiled by the post Vietnam changes was a paper tiger in the seventies, which necessitiated the buildup and modernization of the eighties. And changes in doctrine were also needed. The reserve forces, which are predominately Army, were never integrated into the Army force until after Gulf I. (Marines always demanded readiness, Marine reserves were mostly ready for their mission, unlike Army reserve units).

                        The Russians bore the brunt of the war in Europe, achieving mobilazation rates far beyond the US or even Britain. How much of the casualties were excessive, or due to their sledgehammer tactics? There is no easy solultion to the question. But the US never faced the full brunt ot either German or Japanese power in the same way. The Navy's successes in Atlantic, Mediterranian, and the Pacific limited Axis use of power. The Russian front was the only major front where Germans maintained line of communication.

                        The Pacific War used tactics comparable to meat grinder tactics, we landed more triggers and trigger pullers, the island battles were discrete meat grinders, which is why casualties were so high. The great doctrines of mobility and economy of force had no room to be used.

                        The psychology of refusing to yield teal estate of one's own motherland cannot be ignored. The American Civil war, the Russian front, and the cold war's quarrels between the West Germans and the US, all had tactical considerations affected by ceding homes to enemy forces.

                        The yielding of living standards to technological and military achievements is the guns or butter argument. The unprecedented guns AND butter policy of the sixties is a monument to the robust and resilient American economy, but a price was paid within the decade, the Economic malaise of the seventies.
                        There’s a lot here to unpack, so let’s get started:

                        First off, the US military was far from a paper tiger with very active military testing, procurement, and modernization starting in the 1970’s. Just to name a few examples

                        In the aircraft world, the F-14, F-15, F-16, A-10, C-5, and AH-64 were introduced with important development for the B-1, B-2, and F-117 taking place. The Navy introduced the Nimitz class, the Spruance class, the Los Angels Class, the California Class, and Kidd class with the development of the Aegis combat system taking place and being introduced in the 1970’s. The Army tested and started building the M1. The Space Shuttle was introduced (originally boasting its military capabilities with the Air Force playing an important role in its design and usage) and scared the Soviets because they feared its abilities could be used to capture and bring back Soviet satellites to the US for study. Finally, the GPS was first developed and begun placement as well.

                        If anything, the 1980’s military development and procurement was simply an extension of the 1970’s military development and procurement and was the beginning of the end because the USSR begin falling behind. Regan understood this and kept things humming along in the 1980’s. So if anything, the Gulf War and our total defeat of the Iraqi Military begun its development in the 1970’s and coming all together in the late 80Â’s.

                        Second, the war in the west and pacific was very different than the war in the east. Requiring different tactics and equipment. The pacific war required a powerful navy and amphibious force the Soviet nor the previous Russian empire had or fielded. The Soviets only went to war with Japan when the US and UK had Japan on the ropes and Japan couldn’t do anything about it. If anything, the US is one of the few nations that was capable of fighting wars, on multiple fronts and winning. This isn’t to say that all three, of the major allies, didn’t win it together. There’s a saying that goes something like, “WWII was won by British intelligence, Russian blood, and American money.” You are right that the US did not face the Axis powers quite the same way, but as I pointed out above, Russia was also only truly at war with Germany while the US was at war with all three, at the same time, having to field the largest Navy, Air Force, and Army that the world has ever known, supply besieged allies with war equipment, and having to keep factories and the population humming along at home. Our war was a war of logistics that the UK nor USSR could have ever won.

                        Third, the average American, even in the 70’s, still lived quite a bit better and more comfortable than the average Soviet did.

                        Forth, the war in the Pacific wasn’t so much meat grinder tactics as the Japanese aversion to surrender. The Japanese defenders would often fight impossible battles they could never hope to win because the Japanese military was taught to never surrender. By contrast, western armies were more likely to surrender when faced with overwhelming odds. Now to be fair to the Soviets, the Nazi view towards the Slavic people being, at best, slaves or, at worst, vermin to be exterminated had a lot to do with the blood bath of the East. If the choice was fighting in a bloody war where you might live or being murdered by an invading army, the choice becomes much easier to make.
                        "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                        GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                          ThereÂ’s a lot here to unpack, so letÂ’s get started:

                          First off, the US military was far from a paper tiger with very active military testing, procurement, and modernization starting in the 1970Â’s. Just to name a few examples

                          In the aircraft world, the F-14, F-15, F-16, A-10, C-5, and AH-64 were introduced with important development for the B-1, B-2, and F-117 taking place. The Navy introduced the Nimitz class, the Spruance class, the Los Angels Class, the California Class, and Kidd class with the development of the Aegis combat system taking place and being introduced in the 1970Â’s. The Army tested and started building the M1. The Space Shuttle was introduced (originally boasting its military capabilities with the Air Force playing an important role in its design and usage) and scared the Soviets because they feared its abilities could be used to capture and bring back Soviet satellites to the US for study. Finally, the GPS was first developed and begun placement as well.

                          If anything, the 1980’s military development and procurement was simply an extension of the 1970’s military development and procurement and was the beginning of the end because the USSR begin falling behind. Regan understood this and kept things humming along in the 1980’s. So if anything, the Gulf War and our total defeat of the Iraqi Military begun its development in the 1970’s and coming all together in the late 80’s.

                          Second, the war in the west and pacific was very different than the war in the east. Requiring different tactics and equipment. The pacific war required a powerful navy and amphibious force the Soviet nor the previous Russian empire had or fielded. The Soviets only went to war with Japan when the US and UK had Japan on the ropes and Japan couldn’t do anything about it. If anything, the US is one of the few nations that was capable of fighting wars, on multiple fronts and winning. This isn’t to say that all three, of the major allies, didn’t win it together. There’s a saying that goes something like, “WWII was won by British intelligence, Russian blood, and American money.” You are right that the US did not face the Axis powers quite the same way, but as I pointed out above, Russia was also only truly at war with Germany while the US was at war with all three, at the same time, having to field the largest Navy, Air Force, and Army that the world has ever known, supply besieged allies with war equipment, and having to keep factories and the population humming along at home. Our war was a war of logistics that the UK nor USSR could have ever won.

                          Third, the average American, even in the 70Â’s, still lived quite a bit better and more comfortable than the average Soviet did.

                          Forth, the war in the Pacific wasnÂ’t so much meat grinder tactics as the Japanese aversion to surrender. The Japanese defenders would often fight impossible battles they could never hope to win because the Japanese military was taught to never surrender. By contrast, western armies were more likely to surrender when faced with overwhelming odds. Now to be fair to the Soviets, the Nazi view towards the Slavic people being, at best, slaves or, at worst, vermin to be exterminated had a lot to do with the blood bath of the East. If the choice was fighting in a bloody war where you might live or being murdered by an invading army, the choice becomes much easier to make.
                          Soviet tactics were effective enough to use classic military maneuvers, tactics, and strategy used by Julius Caesar, Napoleon, and Patton, in other words, classic Clausewitz. And studied. Yes, much of the soviet military doctrine did depend on mass attack.

                          America's technological superioirity was always being leapfrogged by Soviet technology. Mig jets, tanks, APC, ships air defense, combat engineering etc. Always kept America scrambling to maintain superiority. In most categories, the soviets had numerical superiority, and parity on current generation weapon systems. Many Dems, Carter supporters, note that the Reagan build up was started in the seventies under Carter! The buildup for the war on terrorism also started under Clinton, the Army noted that the Humvee needed armor, budgets were not opened until after we took casualties after 9-11.

                          The draw down after Vietnam, morale crises in the Navy, problems in Army, came to a head by late seventies. There have been several force restructurings since. It was the recognition that we could not maintain major military operations, only a decade or two since we moved into the Vietnam conflict. (Vietnam was a major engineering feat, creating infrastructure to support a modern military. ) Doctrine in Europe was to fall back to the Atlantic, wait for reinforcement and reserves to cross the ocean, then push the Soviets back to Fulda.

                          The reserve components had deteriorated, Vietnam was fought with (almost) no reservists. Readiness dropped, and was not addressed in the Army until the nineties.

                          Yes the American economy was much stronger. But the fact remains that the soviet economy supported a major military to compete with the US.

                          Pacific battles were set piece battles, we poured men into the meat grinder, each island did not allow maneuver of large units or economy of force. It was massed small units, often in jungles, each battle a war of attrition.

                          Your view underestimates the communists and their economy. And it shows the difficulty in assessing readiness. One example is the question if our military could maintain operations in a conventional war.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by simplicio View Post
                            The Potemkin villages were used, even by the military. It still guided American policy and responses. The economic and social collapse of the eighties did leave the military in disrepair, even the supposedly ready units.

                            But American military, roiled by the post Vietnam changes was a paper tiger in the seventies, which necessitiated the buildup and modernization of the eighties. And changes in doctrine were also needed. The reserve forces, which are predominately Army, were never integrated into the Army force until after Gulf I. (Marines always demanded readiness, Marine reserves were mostly ready for their mission, unlike Army reserve units).

                            The Russians bore the brunt of the war in Europe, achieving mobilazation rates far beyond the US or even Britain. How much of the casualties were excessive, or due to their sledgehammer tactics? There is no easy solultion to the question. But the US never faced the full brunt ot either German or Japanese power in the same way. The Navy's successes in Atlantic, Mediterranian, and the Pacific limited Axis use of power. The Russian front was the only major front where Germans maintained line of communication.

                            The Pacific War used tactics comparable to meat grinder tactics, we landed more triggers and trigger pullers, the island battles were discrete meat grinders, which is why casualties were so high. The great doctrines of mobility and economy of force had no room to be used.

                            The psychology of refusing to yield teal estate of one's own motherland cannot be ignored. The American Civil war, the Russian front, and the cold war's quarrels between the West Germans and the US, all had tactical considerations affected by ceding homes to enemy forces.

                            The yielding of living standards to technological and military achievements is the guns or butter argument. The unprecedented guns AND butter policy of the sixties is a monument to the robust and resilient American economy, but a price was paid within the decade, the Economic malaise of the seventies.
                            We faced the full brunt of the Japanese military primarily because after their earlier victories prior to Pearl Harbor we were effectively the only major opposing force in the theater.

                            True, the eastern front of the war in Europe saw the most action but the Russians were able to win there due in no small measure to the massive amount of aid that we provided them.

                            I mentioned some of this several years ago in another thread
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            You appear to be woefully ignorant of such things as the Lend-Lease Act. According to Section IIIB of the 1946 U.S. War Department (predecessor to the Defense Department) document Lend-Lease Shipments: World War II we sent the Soviets 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7000 tanks). Other documents indicate that we also supplied them with over 400,000 jeeps and trucks and 11,400 aircraft as well as more than 4.47 million tons of food.

                            According to Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II, by the retired professor of international relations at the New York University Albert Loren Weeks (who actually was intimately involved in the Lend-Lease program being in the Soviet Union several times during the war) we provided them with over 13,300 combat vehicles, 427,000 trucks, 35,000 motorcycles along with 2.6 million tons of fuel to keep them going. We also supplied them with nearly 2000 steam locomotives and over 10,000 freight cars of various types (Weeks estimates that was nearly 93% of the Soviet's wartime production of railroad equipment).

                            The historian T. H. Vail Motter, who was chief of the Middle East section of the Army's historical division from 1944 to 1951, calculated that just through the Persian Corridor (one of the five supply routes through which 27% of the material flowed) were enough to equip and maintain 60 combat divisions.

                            In an interview Russian historian Oleg Budnitsky where he notes how important the assistance from the West was to the Soviet war effort

                            Source: Russian historian: Importance of Lend-Lease cannot be overestimated


                            These supplies were critical in some key areas. For example, in the beginning of 1942, Western tanks fully replenished Soviet losses, and exceeded them by three times. About 15 percent of the aircraft used by Soviet air forces were supplied by Allies, including the Airacobra fighter and Boston bomber. The Allies supplied 15,000 state-of-the-art machines at that time; for example, famous Soviet ace Alexander Pokryshkin flew Airacobra, as did the rest of his squadron. He shot down 59 enemy aircraft, and 48 of them were thanks to American military equipment.


                            Source

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            Weeks quotes another noted Russian historian, Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, in his book

                            Source: Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II


                            On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease.

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            Documents available after the fall of the Soviet Union reveal how crucial a role such supplies played in the Battle of Moscow since Russian forces had been severely depleted of supplies and arms at that time.

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              We faced the full brunt of the Japanese military primarily because after their earlier victories prior to Pearl Harbor we were effectively the only major opposing force in the theater.

                              True, the eastern front of the war in Europe saw the most action but the Russians were able to win there due in no small measure to the massive amount of aid that we provided them.

                              I mentioned some of this several years ago in another thread
                              The mobilization rate in the USSR is astounding. They had 150 divisions, we had about 120; after the war, some suggest the the number of Soviet divisions may have been double that.

                              But most telling is the casualty rate, the numbers of military dead. Russians lost 8 to 10 million, US had a half million deaths. Not all the Soviet deaths were due to the meat grinder tactics used.

                              I am familiar with the material aid supplied by this country to our allies. The aid was material aid, we did not supply Men to fight alongside Russians.

                              Much of the Russian industrial capacity was in the east, the war zone. I am not saying their industrial base was well developed, but the material they did produce was a testament to how far the program of industrialization had come.

                              Casualty rates were higher in many units die to the meatgrinder tactics (and the use of political commissars to shoot soldiers), but that narrative ignores some of the tactical prowess they did have.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                                What we see among the Dems is that they accuse Trump of being supported by the "communist" Russia when it is the Dems whom Russia would support due to common socialist/communist policies. (The main difference between socialism and communism was in the supposed differences in the way to achieve socialism.) It is not hard for pro-Communist leaders to denounce Communism, so as to attract support. The leaders can do this while fully supporting Communism idealism.

                                West's discussion indicated the Comey had ambitions to get into government work to influence it with his unconstitutional ambitions. People that seek to influence the government most would be the same ones who seek government work.
                                I hope you have your tin foil hat at the ready, mw?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                113 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                310 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                111 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                357 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X