The Santa Claus Machine -robot taxation -money growing on trees -freeriders

paranormalized wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Sean O'Hara wrote
Dimensional Traveler wrote
Walter Bushell wrote:

For a good part of the war they did. OK, Britain absorbed some
resources in the form of bombs and aircraft, but for aggressive
action raids. Stalin was complaining about the lack of support on
the Western front.

While the Lend-Lease he was receiving was keeping his economy
running so he could keep fighting.

Lend-lease had a minimal effect, nowhere near decisive.

That is very arguable. It was such a close thing in the east
that its quite possible that lend lease was in fact crucial and
that without it hitler may well have managed to end up with
the oil fields in the balkans etc and that alone may have
allowed him to **** over the russians.

??Balkans?? Don't you mean the Caucuses??

Nope, thats no better a description of where the oil was.
Neither are that great, but you know what I meant.

Hitler already *had* the Balkans, think Yugoslavia.

**** all oil there.

Anyways, ignoring the bad geography, I suggest you either read
more about WW2 or hang out on some grand-strategy game forums.

No thanks, already did that, likely before you were even born thanks.

Lend lease to the Soviets only really had an impact *post-Stalingrad*.

That is just plain wrong.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...age&q=&f=false
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Le...veries_to_USSR

The truck fleets to move supplies and infantry were American made,

And that made a considerable difference the russians being able to survive hitler.

the Soviets made their own tanks and planes.

Pity about
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...age&q=&f=false
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Le...man_tanks#USSR
http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&gl=au

And they only needed the trucks once they moved outside of
Soviet-controlled territory, back into the areas the Germans took.

Wrong. And Lend Lease to russia wasnt just trucks anyway.

Until then, they had interior lines of supply with trains and such.
The trucks were offensive, IOW.

Utterly mangled.

Yes, lend lease helped them *win* WW2, but they had already avoided defeat.

Wrong.

The Caucuses were defended successfully before we gave them the tools for offense.

Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Le...veries_to_USSR

I suggest you pick up No Simple Victory by Norman Davis, which lays
out in great detail the argument that the Western Front was a sideshow.

Yes, but that came later, after the russians had managed
to survive the initial attack by hitler. If they had not done
that, the outcome would have been completely different.

Again, lend lease only made an impact *after* the initial attack, and the soviet survival.

Wrong.

Absent American trucks, what would have happened? Hmmm,
I'd be surprised if Operation Bagration(1944) could be pulled off,
and some other Soviet offensives before then would stall out
earlier, but that mostly adds years to the war, and leaves the
Germans with possibly enough reserves to throw back Normandy.

My guess? Nukes fall on Berlin. If the Allies are still in it, absent
that, I dunno. How many years of production did we give the Soviets
in terms of trucks and such? How much more extermination in
Eastern Europe could Hitler pull off, denying the Soviets the regional
manpower they drafted after each successful offensive? Ugh, this
topic is utterly morbid...

Davis isn't an apologist for Stalin -- he quotes Robert Conquest
repeatedly and argues that Stalin and Hitler were equally evil.

Sure, but thats a separate matter to whether lend lease was crucial to
the russian survival. Without that, there would have been no stalingrad etc.

The stuff for the victory at Stalingrad(Nov 1942-Jan 1943) was mostly soviet-made.

The point is that stalingrad may well not have happened without Lend-Lease and what preceeded it.

Tanks were rolling off the factory lines and straight into battle.

There was a reason the Germans feared the T-34 and made jokes about the Sherman.

Sure, but that all came after what I was talking about, Lend-Lease arguably
allowing russia to survive the initial attack and do that sort of thing later.

In fact if hitler had seized the oil fields first instead of bothering about moscow,
its quite possible that russia would have had no choice but to at least surrender
european russia and would never have been in any position to attack germany again.

Pat Flannery wrote
Walter Bushell wrote

It would have been a very different Europe. And a different England.
You doubt that Stalin would have pushed to the ocean, if given the chance?

He might not have. That would have smacked of Trotskyite Internationalism, and that was a no-no under his "Socialism
in one country" credo.

He was pretty flexibly about ignoring stuff like that when it
suited him tho, most obviously with the division of Poland.

I think what he wanted was a one-country deep buffer zone around the entire Soviet Union where the countries were
either under direct Soviet control, or at least in the Soviet sphere of influence and unaligned with the west.

This would mean anyone trying to invade the Soviet Union proper would
have to pass through another country to get there, and that would give
the Soviets time to mobilize their military before the enemy arrived.

Yeah, I dont believe he had the capacity to apply the jackboot to the whole
of europe, even if he didnt bother with britain, let alone the desire to do that,
as you said, it was about ensuring that they could never be attacked again
which is hardly surprising given the immense cost that WW2 involved the USSR.

On Aug 2, 11:22*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
paranormalized wrote



Rod Speed wrote
Sean O'Hara wrote
Dimensional Traveler wrote
Walter Bushell wrote:
For a good part of the war they did. OK, Britain absorbed some
resources in the form of bombs and aircraft, but for aggressive
action raids. Stalin was complaining about the lack of support on
the Western front.
While the Lend-Lease he was receiving was keeping his economy
running so he could keep fighting.
Lend-lease had a minimal effect, nowhere near decisive.
That is very arguable. It was such a close thing in the east
that its quite possible that lend lease was in fact crucial and
that without it hitler may well have managed to end up with
the oil fields in the balkans etc and that alone may have
allowed him to **** over the russians.
??Balkans?? *Don't you mean the Caucuses??

Nope, thats no better a description of where the oil was.
Neither are that great, but you know what I meant.

Baku is pretty close to the Caucuses. Good enough for me.

Hitler already *had* the Balkans, think Yugoslavia.

**** all oil there.

Exactly.

Anyways, ignoring the bad geography, I suggest you either read
more about WW2 or hang out on some grand-strategy game forums.

No thanks, already did that, likely before you were even born thanks.

Lend lease to the Soviets only really had an impact *post-Stalingrad*.

That is just plain wrong.http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...ec=frontcover&...

And I can google and link to historians myself.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1385548/posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Le...veries_to_USSR

Content-free link, apparently.

The truck fleets to move supplies and infantry were American made,

And that made a considerable difference the russians being able to survive hitler.

Eventually. But Stalingrad was Winter 42-43, lend lease only got
started.

the Soviets made their own tanks and planes.

Pity about http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...ec=frontcover&...

So one book has a provocative title. Doesn't make the title
absolutely correct, nor does it mean linking twice is decisive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Le...man_tanks#USSR
vs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#Production_figures

So, 4k shermans vs 57k T-34's?

I'll take the Soviet contribution, thanks.

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache...lease.airforce...

And this link says 18% of the airforce. Even at that rate, the Allied
Bombing Campaign ties down more of the Luftwaffe.

Again, the *big* number, even in your link, is the trucks.

And they only needed the trucks once they moved outside of
Soviet-controlled territory, back into the areas the Germans took.

Wrong. And Lend Lease to russia wasnt just trucks anyway.

Canned food, machine tools, locomotives, raw materials, gunpowder,
yes, yes. But the stuff takes a while to percolate through the
system. To defend the oil-producing areas means combat-ready stuff
*now*.

Without the Western Front, maybe Hitler had a chance. But if you only
take away *Soviet* Lend Lease, he's still fighting crippled.

Until then, they had interior lines of supply with trains and such.
The trucks were offensive, IOW.

Utterly mangled.

Yes, lend lease helped them *win* WW2, but they had already avoided defeat.

Wrong.

The Caucuses were defended successfully before we gave them the tools for offense.

Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Le...veries_to_USSR

You realize that link was utterly devoid of real content, right?
Relevant links and well-formed arguments, please.

*SNIP SNIP*
Davis isn't an apologist for Stalin -- he quotes Robert Conquest
repeatedly and argues that Stalin and Hitler were equally evil.
Sure, but thats a separate matter to whether lend lease was crucial to
the russian survival. Without that, there would have been no stalingrad etc.
The stuff for the victory at Stalingrad(Nov 1942-Jan 1943) was mostly soviet-made.

The point is that stalingrad may well not have happened without Lend-Lease and what preceeded it.

How? Yes, without the Western Front, we have a substantial Airforce
and freed up 88's, but how much was *Lend Lease* necessary?

Tanks were rolling off the factory lines and straight into battle.
There was a reason the Germans feared the T-34 and made jokes about the Sherman.

Sure, but that all came after what I was talking about, Lend-Lease arguably
allowing russia to survive the initial attack and do that sort of thing later.

T-34 is prototyped by January 1940, running off the production lines
in Stalingrad in '41 and '42.
Check the rest of my T-34 link.

In fact if hitler had seized the oil fields first instead of bothering about moscow,
its quite possible that russia would have had no choice but to at least surrender
european russia and would never have been in any position to attack germany again.

He needed to take Stalingrad to defend his attempt to grab Russian
oil, he failed miserably. And talking about the loss of Lend-Lease
while changing other variables is bad for isolating its effects,
anyways.

Some question whether Moscow was a better objective than mentioned
anyways, all train lines run through it, after all. ^_^ *shrug*

WW2 without the West sounds like a plausible Hitler victory, but WW2
without *Soviet* Lend Lease... sounds like a bad, bloody idea, but not
necessarily a War-loser. Just a reason to nuke Berlin, lose the stuff
to drop on Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and have a bloody invasion of Japan.

Lend Lease saved American and Eastern European lives, by shortening
the Nazi occupation there and shortening the overall war in time to
let us use our precious nukes on Japan. But it didn't win the war by
itself. Anything more smacks of American cheerleading and jingoism.

Jonathan Fisher

paranormalized wrote
Rod Speed wrote
paranormalized wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Sean O'Hara wrote
Dimensional Traveler wrote
Walter Bushell wrote:

For a good part of the war they did. OK, Britain absorbed some
resources in the form of bombs and aircraft, but for aggressive
action raids. Stalin was complaining about the lack of support
on the Western front.

While the Lend-Lease he was receiving was keeping his economy
running so he could keep fighting.

Lend-lease had a minimal effect, nowhere near decisive.

That is very arguable. It was such a close thing in the east
that its quite possible that lend lease was in fact crucial and
that without it hitler may well have managed to end up with
the oil fields in the balkans etc and that alone may have
allowed him to **** over the russians.

??Balkans?? Don't you mean the Caucuses??

Nope, thats no better a description of where the oil was.
Neither are that great, but you know what I meant.

Baku is pretty close to the Caucuses. Good enough for me.

It isnt in fact what is usually used to locate the oil fields in question.

Hitler already *had* the Balkans, think Yugoslavia.

**** all oil there.

Exactly.

Anyways, ignoring the bad geography, I suggest you either read
more about WW2 or hang out on some grand-strategy game forums.

No thanks, already did that, likely before you were even born thanks.

Lend lease to the Soviets only really had an impact *post-Stalingrad*.

That is just plain wrong.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...ec=frontcover&...

And in fact Table 1 in the preview completely blows your claim right out of the water.

And I can google and link to historians myself.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1385548/posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Le...veries_to_USSR

Content-free link, apparently.

You're lying now. Its one list of what happened before stalingrad.

The truck fleets to move supplies and infantry were American made,

And that made a considerable difference the russians being able to survive hitler.

Eventually. But Stalingrad was Winter 42-43, lend lease only got started.

You're lying, again. See Table 1 above.

the Soviets made their own tanks and planes.

Pity about
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...ec=frontcover&...

So one book has a provocative title. Doesn't make the title
absolutely correct, nor does it mean linking twice is decisive.

It wasnt the title that is relevant, fool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Le...man_tanks#USSR
vs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#Production_figures

So, 4k shermans vs 57k T-34's?

Still exposes your lie for the lie it always was.

I'll take the Soviet contribution, thanks.

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache...lease.airforce...

And this link says 18% of the airforce. Even at that rate,
the Allied Bombing Campaign ties down more of the Luftwaffe.

Irrelevant to your lie.

Again, the *big* number, even in your link, is the trucks.

Pity you lied about being JUST trucks. In fact a hell of a lot
more METAL and food was moved than trucks ever were
and that made a considerable difference pre stalingrad too.

And they only needed the trucks once they moved outside of
Soviet-controlled territory, back into the areas the Germans took.

Wrong. And Lend Lease to russia wasnt just trucks anyway.

Canned food, machine tools, locomotives, raw materials, gunpowder, yes, yes.

So you pig ignorantly lied.

But the stuff takes a while to percolate through the system.

Like hell the food does.

To defend the oil-producing areas means combat-ready stuff *now*.

They dont have to be used to defend the oil producing
areas when hitler is concentrating in moscow etc.

Without the Western Front, maybe Hitler had a chance.

Separate matter entirely to what was being discussed,
whether Lend-Lease made a considerable difference.

But if you only take away *Soviet* Lend Lease, he's still fighting crippled.

But without it, he may have managed to occupy western russia and the oil fields too.

Until then, they had interior lines of supply with trains and such.
The trucks were offensive, IOW.

Utterly mangled.

Yes, lend lease helped them *win* WW2, but they had already avoided defeat.

Wrong.

The Caucuses were defended successfully before we gave them the tools for offense.

Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Le...veries_to_USSR

You realize that link was utterly devoid of real content, right?

You're lying, again.

Relevant links and well-formed arguments, please.

Never ever could bull**** and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.

*SNIP SNIP*

Reversed.

I suggest you pick up No Simple Victory by Norman Davis, which lays
out in great detail the argument that the Western Front was a sideshow.

Yes, but that came later, after the russians had managed
to survive the initial attack by hitler. If they had not done
that, the outcome would have been completely different.

Again, lend lease only made an impact after the initial attack, and the soviet survival.

Wrong.

Absent American trucks, what would have happened? Hmmm,
I'd be surprised if Operation Bagration(1944) could be pulled off,
and some other Soviet offensives before then would stall out
earlier, but that mostly adds years to the war, and leaves the
Germans with possibly enough reserves to throw back Normandy.

My guess? Nukes fall on Berlin. If the Allies are still in it, absent
that, I dunno. How many years of production did we give the Soviets
in terms of trucks and such? How much more extermination in
Eastern Europe could Hitler pull off, denying the Soviets the regional
manpower they drafted after each successful offensive? Ugh, this
topic is utterly morbid...

Davis isn't an apologist for Stalin -- he quotes Robert Conquest
repeatedly and argues that Stalin and Hitler were equally evil.

Sure, but thats a separate matter to whether lend lease was crucial to
the russian survival. Without that, there would have been no stalingrad etc.

The stuff for the victory at Stalingrad(Nov 1942-Jan 1943) was mostly soviet-made.

The point is that stalingrad may well not have happened
without Lend-Lease and what preceeded it.

How?

Basically without Lend-Lease and what preceeded it, Hitler may well have
taken moscow and moved on to take the oil fields in the south and that
may well have ensured that russia was out of the war forever.

Yes, without the Western Front, we have a substantial Airforce
and freed up 88's, but how much was *Lend Lease* necessary?

What is being discussed isnt whether its necessary, its the
original stupid pig ignorant claim that it had a minimal effect.

Tanks were rolling off the factory lines and straight into battle.
There was a reason the Germans feared the T-34 and made jokes about the Sherman.

Sure, but that all came after what I was talking about, Lend-Lease arguably
allowing russia to survive the initial attack and do that sort of thing later.

T-34 is prototyped by January 1940, running off the production lines
in Stalingrad in '41 and '42.
Check the rest of my T-34 link.

Irrelevant to the rest of what was provided as part of Lend-Lease.

In fact if hitler had seized the oil fields first instead of bothering about moscow,
its quite possible that russia would have had no choice but to at least surrender
european russia and would never have been in any position to attack germany again.

He needed to take Stalingrad to defend his attempt to grab Russian oil,

Wrong. And it isnt just russian oil either.

he failed miserably. And talking about the loss of Lend-Lease while
changing other variables is bad for isolating its effects, anyways.

Pity thats what the stupid original claim was about.

Some question whether Moscow was a better objective than mentioned
anyways, all train lines run through it, after all. ^_^ *shrug*

Train lines are irrelevant to taking the oil fields first.

WW2 without the West sounds like a plausible Hitler victory, but WW2
without *Soviet* Lend Lease... sounds like a bad, bloody idea, but not
necessarily a War-loser. Just a reason to nuke Berlin, lose the stuff
to drop on Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and have a bloody invasion of Japan.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed, the original stupid
pig ignorant claim that Lend-Lease had a minimal effect.

Lend Lease saved American and Eastern European lives, by shortening
the Nazi occupation there and shortening the overall war in time to
let us use our precious nukes on Japan. But it didn't win the war by
itself. Anything more smacks of American cheerleading and jingoism.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

paranormalized wrote:
On Aug 2, 11:22 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
paranormalized wrote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Le...veries_to_USSR

You realize that link was utterly devoid of real content, right?
Relevant links and well-formed arguments, please.


http://www.geocities.com/mark_willey/lend.html
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...ents/index.htm

--
Things I learned from MythBusters #57: Never leave a loaded gun in an
exploding room.

What is this, the transhuman version of "Sound of Trumpet"?

Judging by his handle, I would say yes.

"Ilya2" wrote in message
...
What is this, the transhuman version of "Sound of Trumpet"?

Judging by his handle, I would say yes.

Is he sound of mind and body, besides trumpet?

"Walter Bushell" wrote in message
news
In article , "aaron"
wrote:

"Walter Bushell" wrote in message
news
In article ,
Sean O'Hara wrote:

Lend-lease had a minimal effect, nowhere near decisive. I suggest
you pick up No Simple Victory by Norman Davis, which lays out in
great detail the argument that the Western Front was a sideshow.
Davis isn't an apologist for Stalin -- he quotes Robert Conquest
repeatedly and argues that Stalin and Hitler were equally evil.

The African campaign, as I understand was important, however, IIUC.

And the Western front was very much necessary for the future of Europe.

Are you suggesting that absent a western front and assuming a Soviet
occupation all the way to the Atlantic that Europe would cease to exist?

[insert smiley here]

At least that makes the discussion SFnal.

It would have been a very different Europe.

Without a doubt. But the two points at issue were intially [1] whether there
were examples of centrally managed enterprises that 'worked' and then [2]
how much of the effort and credit for winning WW2 the USSR could claim for
itself. Now value judgements on whether the outcome would be 'good' or 'bad'
were put forth. It was proffered as an example, hopefully humourous but
apparently a failure on my part.

And a different England. You
doubt that Stalin would have pushed to the ocean, if given the chance?
To spread glorious revolution? "It's our right because we saved you from
the Nazis."

I don't doubt it would have 'worked' and having succeeded the landmass of
Europe would still exist.

On Aug 3, 3:49*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
*SNIP SNIP*

They dont have to be used to defend the oil producing
areas when hitler is concentrating in moscow etc.

And with that basic mistake, the soviets win anyways, right? So why
all the vitriol and assumption of bad-faith arguments?

Anyways, I have better things to do than argue with a person who
impolitely assumes I'm out to get them, and calls me a malicious liar
at every opportunity. I'll read the book you recommended, since I
just checked it out of the library, but I won't read any of your posts
if I can.

Toodles!
Jonathan Fisher

paranormalized wrote
Rod Speed wrote

They dont have to be used to defend the oil producing
areas when hitler is concentrating in moscow etc.

And with that basic mistake, the soviets win anyways, right?

But they wouldnt necessarily have done so without Lend-Lease,
essentially because the survival of moscow was a VERY narrow
thing and without Lend-Lease it might well not have happened.

If it had not happened, Hitler might well have managed to get the oil fields.

So why all the vitriol and assumption of bad-faith arguments?

Because you were clearly attempting to bull**** your way out
of your predicament with your lies about content free links.

reams of you desperate attempt to bull**** your way out of your
predicament that fools absolutely no one at all, flushed where it belongs