War Invasion of Ukraine News Megathread - Thread is only for articles and discussion of articles, general discussion thread is still in Happenings.

Status
Not open for further replies.
President Joe Biden on Tuesday said that the United States will impose sanctions “far beyond” the ones that the United States imposed in 2014 following the annexation of the Crimean peninsula.

“This is the beginning of a Russian invasion of Ukraine,” Biden said in a White House speech, signaling a shift in his administration’s position. “We will continue to escalate sanctions if Russia escalates,” he added.

Russian elites and their family members will also soon face sanctions, Biden said, adding that “Russia will pay an even steeper price” if Moscow decides to push forward into Ukraine. Two Russian banks and Russian sovereign debt will also be sanctioned, he said.

Also in his speech, Biden said he would send more U.S. troops to the Baltic states as a defensive measure to strengthen NATO’s position in the area.

Russia shares a border with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

A day earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered troops to go into the separatist Donetsk and Lugansk regions in eastern Ukraine after a lengthy speech in which he recognized the two regions’ independence.

Western powers decried the move and began to slap sanctions on certain Russian individuals, while Germany announced it would halt plans to go ahead with the Russia-to-Germany Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

At home, Biden is facing bipartisan pressure to take more extensive actions against Russia following Putin’s decision. However, a recent poll showed that a majority of Americans believe that sending troops to Ukraine is a “bad idea,” and a slim minority believes it’s a good one.

All 27 European Union countries unanimously agreed on an initial list of sanctions targeting Russian authorities, said French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, and EU foreign affairs head Josep Borell claimed the package “will hurt Russia … a lot.”

Earlier Tuesday, Borell asserted that Russian troops have already entered the Donbas region, which comprises Donetsk and Lugansk, which are under the control of pro-Russia groups since 2014.

And on Tuesday, the Russian Parliament approved a Putin-back plan to use military force outside of Russia’s borders as Putin further said that Russia confirmed it would recognize the expanded borders of Lugansk and Donetsk.

“We recognized the states,” the Russian president said. “That means we recognized all of their fundamental documents, including the constitution, where it is written that their [borders] are the territories at the time the two regions were part of Ukraine.”

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Putin said that Ukraine is “not interested in peaceful solutions” and that “every day, they are amassing troops in the Donbas.”

Meanwhile, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky on Tuesday morning again downplayed the prospect of a Russian invasion and proclaimed: “There will be no war.”

“There will not be an all-out war against Ukraine, and there will not be a broad escalation from Russia. If there is, then we will put Ukraine on a war footing,” he said in a televised address.

The White House began to signal that they would shift their own position on whether it’s the start of an invasion.

“We think this is, yes, the beginning of an invasion, Russia’s latest invasion into Ukraine,” said Jon Finer, the White House deputy national security adviser in public remarks. “An invasion is an invasion and that is what is underway.”

For weeks, Western governments have been claiming Moscow would invade its neighbor after Russia gathered some 150,000 troops along the countries’ borders. They alleged that the Kremlin would attempt to come up with a pretext to attack, while some officials on Monday said Putin’s speech recognizing the two regions was just that.

But Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told reporters Tuesday that Russia’s “latest invasion” of Ukraine is threatening stability in the region, but he asserted that Putin can “still avoid a full blown, tragic war of choice.”

Article
 
NATO isn't losing Military weapons. They aren't even really spending. All of those weapons are being used for precisely thee task they were manufactured and paid for. Destroying the Soviet/Russian Military. And NATO can replenish those assets far cheaper and far faster than Putin can replenish tanks.

And speaking of which, everyone does realize how bad the Tank and vehicle situation has become for Russia, right? Reasonable third party estimates put the number of Russian operational front line tanks at around 3000 just before the start of the war. That's the T-72's and better. Putin has now had almost half of those wiped out. That's why we are suddenly seeing ancient T-62's showing up. And I don't think anybody is ruling out T-55's mixed in. If Putin comits any more modern stuff he can no longer protect his 10000's of miles of border. He can't prop up Kadryov or Lukashenko. Georgia and Chechnya won't stay subservient. And heaven forbid Khazahkstan might start getting ideas about thinking for themselves. And that's not factoring in the more openly hostile neighbors like Kim or Xi. The Kung Flu may be helping Puttie out there as they're too busy internally. But once they need an external conflict to drum up nationalism, he's now the soft target.
US and UK estimates put tank losses at around 1000 units. Oryx has us closing in on 750.
 
NATO isn't losing Military weapons. They aren't even really spending. All of those weapons are being used for precisely thee task they were manufactured and paid for. Destroying the Soviet/Russian Military. And NATO can replenish those assets far cheaper and far faster than Putin can replenish tanks.

And speaking of which, everyone does realize how bad the Tank and vehicle situation has become for Russia, right? Reasonable third party estimates put the number of Russian operational front line tanks at around 3000 just before the start of the war. That's the T-72's and better. Putin has now had almost half of those wiped out. That's why we are suddenly seeing ancient T-62's showing up. And I don't think anybody is ruling out T-55's mixed in. If Putin comits any more modern stuff he can no longer protect his 10000's of miles of border. He can't prop up Kadryov or Lukashenko. Georgia and Chechnya won't stay subservient. And heaven forbid Khazahkstan might start getting ideas about thinking for themselves. And that's not factoring in the more openly hostile neighbors like Kim or Xi. The Kung Flu may be helping Puttie out there as they're too busy internally. But once they need an external conflict to drum up nationalism, he's now the soft target.
f796a0e5577a69a27ec5946be2e03cf6.jpg


This'll probably be the next Russian tank, one of the British Mark Vs left behind by the British intervention in the Civil War and later used in such actions as the Red Army taking Tblisi.
 
LOL are you for real? What about the two NATO mercenaries from the UK that just today were set to be executed in the DNR, for example?
View attachment 3327052

Hundreds of foreign NATO mercs were blown up by Russian cruise missiles, the w*stoids are tired of their citizens coming home in bags and boxes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yavoriv_military_base_attack


First of all, if they are Mercenaries they would not be in NATO. The forces in NATO are standing military units from individual nations earmarked for NATO operations, and therefore mercenaries would not be part of that in any way. Now mercenaries in Ukraine are paid for by Ukraine and are there for part of Ukrainian efforts, now volunteers and random people can be part of this, but it is not NATO.

At the end of the day, Russians die and the sanctions will never go away. My life literally has not changed and every day more Russians die...life is good. I do wish my fuel prices were lower, but as i tank my car i can be happy knowing that right now some poor stupid Russian kid is bleeding out screaming for his mother, and slowly dying.
 
War materiel. 200k Studebaker trucks. Start there. Where is the industrial capacity to manufacture that many more trucks? After you figure that out find the capacity for the other 200k+ wheeled vehicles. Then find it for the 2000 locomotives and 11000 rail cars. Double the amount of the rails produced. Double the aviation fuel, explosives, aluminum, and rubber. Increase copper production by 500%. And, oh yeah, food. Double that output and make sure to include 780000 tons of canned meat. Find the capacity to build 35000 more radio stations, 380000 field telephones, and a million miles of cable. 15 million more boots. 14000 aircraft. 13000 tanks. 32000 motorcycles. 1.5 million blankets.

This is just some of the Lend-Lease. A portion of that 17.5 million tons of aid. Find the capacity to replace even a fraction of that. Do it without importing western Lend-Lease machine tools and factory equipment including 38000 lathes and other metal-working tools. Do it without the imported raw materials like the 100k tons of cotton and the 500k tons of rolled steel. Do it in addition to everything they did before. You can't convert that tank plant back into a locomotive one. It's gotta be new. All new. From scratch. Created from nothing.

 
Is amazing how one cant believe anyone on this war, everyone has their side and is entrenched on it, even here you cant believe anyone is telling the truth or giving a good faith argument, so I have resigned myself to wait to see what will actually happen.
But I can say that if this is a glow in the dark operation I applaud, actually impressed because if you don't care about the Ukrainians at all this war is pretty much perfect for USA's geopolitical interests (all the third world people that will die due to lack of food don't count anyway and even better they can be blamed on Russia)
If Russia had conquered Ukraine with the American speed in Iraq there would be a measure of the actual Russian power, as they didn't: there is another measure of actual Russian power.
Furthermore in this battle of attrition the American's shave away at Russia in every aspect without spending American lives and with the plus of putting even more money in their military complex(which they love) without the need of them starting one again. So Russia ends a pariah from Europe, their economy in severe decline and their ageing military equipment further reduced. Everything they won since the fall of the URSS is slowly being lost because they are absolute morons for falling for it. I cant believe Putin was in the KBG, didn't they teach how to do this kind of thing without trowing rockets around like complete retards?.
I would like to give the overworked CIA glowie assigned to us my congratulations, this has been really well done you even got new people in Nato, strengthened your hold on Europe and made an example to threaten China with, now neck yourself

Is it possible to support both? There are hot Nazi chicks on both sides.

w720-p16x9-vita nazi_0_0.jpg
bccIu.jpg

You know what they say, crazy in the head....
 
Last edited:
Again, you're still ignoring the fact that Lend-Lease was necessary for Russia to defeat Nazi Germany. They were losing badly before the effects of Lend-Lease began to take effect. Even with all his industrializing of the Soviet Union, Stalin's Russia suffered from the lack of experienced commanders, and their logistics were as crappy as it always was. Both Stalin and Khrushchev noted it themselves:

"I want to tell you what, from the Russian point of view, the president and the United States have done for victory in this war," Stalin said. "The most important things in this war are the machines.... The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war."

Nikita Khrushchev offered the same opinion.

"If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war," he wrote in his memoirs. "One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me."
So, two Soviet leaders who lived through the horrors of WW2, one of whom was the man in charge during WW2, said the same exact thing about American aid being crucial in defeating the Nazis. Again, that sinks any point you make about how American aid for the Soviets wasn't necessary or crucial in defeating the Nazis on the Eastern Front.

At the end of the day, Russians die and the sanctions will never go away. My life literally has not changed and every day more Russians die...life is good. I do wish my fuel prices were lower, but as i tank my car i can be happy knowing that right now some poor stupid Russian kid is bleeding out screaming for his mother, and slowly dying.
Same here. Life really hasn't changed for me, either. Food prices remain stable, stores are still stocked with food and other things, and I'm more concerned with what I'm going to be doing this weekend rather than watching live Kiev feeds like a hawk, (like I did when the war started) because even though this war hasn't yet ended, we all know the projected winner at this point. The fact that people speak of potential coup attempts against Putin while more news of the Russians bungling this invasion keeps coming out goes to show which side has the upper hand.
 
Last edited:
there are tens of thousands of american troops in poland, wiping out a chunk of them would 100% draw america into the war directly
whether they'd pursue retaliatory nuclear strikes against russia or go for a conventional invasion towards moscow i don't know, but at least one of those options would be guaranteed to happen
We'd probably demand Russia's immediate unconditional surrender before launching nukes. Once nukes fly that's it, game over man, game over. Can't escalate from there.
 
Again, you're still ignoring the fact that Lend-Lease was necessary for Russia to defeat Nazi Germany. They were losing badly before the effects of Lend-Lease began to take effect. Even with all his industrializing of the Soviet Union, Stalin's Russia suffered from the lack of experienced commanders, and their logistics were as crappy as it always was. Both Stalin and Khrushchev noted it themselves:



So, two Soviet leaders who lived through the horrors of WW2, one of whom was the man in charge during WW2, said the same exact thing about American aid being crucial in defeating the Nazis. Again, that sinks any point you make about how American aid for the Soviets wasn't necessary or crucial in defeating the Nazis on the Eastern Front.

Lend-lease aid started to arrive in full much later, around 1943, after the Soviets had already started to defeat the Germans, after the Battle of Stalingrad, the Battle of Moscow, and other decisive engagements.

Very damning statements from these two leaders, but I'd rather look at the numbers.

Lend Lease / Russian product (1941–1945)

aircrafts: 14,795/134,100

tanks: 7,056/102,800

artillery cannons: 8,218/825,200

oil: 2,670,000/110,600,000 (tons)

steel: 1,500,000/39,680,000 (tons)

food: 733,000/64,121,000 (tons)

Lend lease sent to the USSR:

Aircraft - 7.411 (CW) + 14.795 (US) = 22.206

Automotive:

--- 1.5 ton trucks 151.053 (US)

--- 2.5 ton trucks 200.662 (US)

--- Willys Jeeps 77.972 (US)

Bren Gun Carriers - 2.560 (CW)

Boots - 15 million pairs (US)

Communications equipment:

--- Field phones - 380.135 (US)

--- Radios - 40.000 (US)

--- Telephone cable - 1.25 million miles (US)

Cotton cloth - 107 million square yards (US)

Foodstuffs - 4.5 million tons (US)

Leather - 49.000 tons (US)

Motorcycles - 35.170 (US)

Locomotives - 1.981 units (US)

Rolling stock - 11.155 units (US)

Tanks - 5.218 (CW) + 7.537 (US) = 12.755

Tractors - 8.701 (US)

Trucks - 4.020 (CW) + 357.883 (US) = 361.903

Excellent aid from the US, but it was still only 10% of Soviet production.

*(The war was decided in the winter of 1941, before the first American trade arrived.)

For more precise numbers:

Aircraft Production

Soviet Union:
1942: 18,251 plus 4,042 lend-lease
1943: 34,637 plus 9,206 lend-lease
1943: 33,210 plus 6,459 lend-lease

Germany:
1942: 17,400
1943: 25,200
1944: 34,300

Tank Production

Soviet Union:
1942: 20,727 plus 4,582 lend-lease
1943: 28,608 plus 3,798 lend-lease
1943: 28,963 plus 3,223 lend-lease

Germany:
1942: 4,800
1943: 11,800
1944: 17,800

(Source: M Harrison, Soviet Planning in Peace and War 1938-45, Cambridge 1985)

Here's where I got that from:


Very good reading. Cites sources and everything.
 
Lend-lease aid started to arrive in full much later, around 1943, after the Soviets had already started to defeat the Germans, after the Battle of Stalingrad, the Battle of Moscow, and other decisive engagements.

Very damning statements from these two leaders, but I'd rather look at the numbers.

Lend Lease / Russian product (1941–1945)

aircrafts: 14,795/134,100

tanks: 7,056/102,800

artillery cannons: 8,218/825,200

oil: 2,670,000/110,600,000 (tons)

steel: 1,500,000/39,680,000 (tons)

food: 733,000/64,121,000 (tons)

Lend lease sent to the USSR:

Aircraft - 7.411 (CW) + 14.795 (US) = 22.206

Automotive:

--- 1.5 ton trucks 151.053 (US)

--- 2.5 ton trucks 200.662 (US)

--- Willys Jeeps 77.972 (US)

Bren Gun Carriers - 2.560 (CW)

Boots - 15 million pairs (US)

Communications equipment:

--- Field phones - 380.135 (US)

--- Radios - 40.000 (US)

--- Telephone cable - 1.25 million miles (US)

Cotton cloth - 107 million square yards (US)

Foodstuffs - 4.5 million tons (US)

Leather - 49.000 tons (US)

Motorcycles - 35.170 (US)

Locomotives - 1.981 units (US)

Rolling stock - 11.155 units (US)

Tanks - 5.218 (CW) + 7.537 (US) = 12.755

Tractors - 8.701 (US)

Trucks - 4.020 (CW) + 357.883 (US) = 361.903

Excellent aid from the US, but it was still only 10% of Soviet production.

*(The war was decided in the winter of 1941, before the first American trade arrived.)

For more precise numbers:

Aircraft Production

Soviet Union:
1942: 18,251 plus 4,042 lend-lease
1943: 34,637 plus 9,206 lend-lease
1943: 33,210 plus 6,459 lend-lease

Germany:
1942: 17,400
1943: 25,200
1944: 34,300

Tank Production

Soviet Union:
1942: 20,727 plus 4,582 lend-lease
1943: 28,608 plus 3,798 lend-lease
1943: 28,963 plus 3,223 lend-lease

Germany:
1942: 4,800
1943: 11,800
1944: 17,800

(Source: M Harrison, Soviet Planning in Peace and War 1938-45, Cambridge 1985)

Here's where I got that from:


Very good reading. Cites sources and everything.
Except again, these numbers and sources could be taken out of context. But when two leaders who have every reason to deny the importance of Lend-Lease (LOL they were in a Cold War with the USA) actually has to ADMIT to the fact that Lend-Lease was necessary, again, it sinks all your points. For all I know, this data was either falsified or taken out of context, but Soviet leaders who are forced to admit that America's help was necessary for them to defeat Nazi Germany, despite being in a Cold War against America at the time, is a far stronger argument.

Nikita Khrushchev: "I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin’s views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were “discussing freely” among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany’s pressure, and we would have lost the war.

No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don’t think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so."
 
Except again, these numbers and sources could be taken out of context. But when two leaders who have every reason to deny the importance of Lend-Lease (LOL they were in a Cold War with the USA) actually has to ADMIT to the fact that Lend-Lease was necessary, again, it sinks all your points. For all I know, this data was either falsified or taken out of context, but Soviet leaders who are forced to admit that America's help was necessary for them to defeat Nazi Germany, despite being in a Cold War against America at the time, is a far stronger argument.

Nikita Khrushchev: "I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin’s views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were “discussing freely” among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany’s pressure, and we would have lost the war.

No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don’t think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so."

It is important to point out that Khrushchev was involved in a power struggle after Stalin's death, and he intentionally diminished Stalin's legacy to secure his hold on power. Check out the text for the Secret Speech whenever you get the chance.
 
It is important to point out that Khrushchev was involved in a power struggle after Stalin's death, and he intentionally diminished Stalin's legacy to secure his hold on power. Check out the text for the Secret Speech whenever you get the chance.
Again, BOTH Khrushchev and Stalin had every reason to downplay the Allies' help towards the Soviet war effort against the Nazis, because they were in a Cold War against America at the time. And yet they're still admitting that without America's help, the Nazis would have won the eastern front for WW2.

More news:

More Russian elite troops are lost due to incompetent commanders as Putin loses influence at home:



Russia is pulling old, obsolete tanks out of storage due to tank losses in Ukraine:



Again, this doesn't bode well for the Russians. Or their sycophants in the West.
 
Last edited:
No see. That is what they had. We aren't arguing that. You need to search in the couch cushions and find the absolutely massive logistics capability that was handed over by Lend-Lease. Soviet truck production? Not enough. Locomotive production, not enough. Not enough rail cars or rails. Not enough coal and gasoline to power it all.

It doesn't matter that they won defensive battles near their logistics head. That doesn't mean they can project that power all the way to Berlin. There is no Operation Bagration without the Studebaker US6 trucks to carry Red Army supplies. It grinds to a halt once it gets an hour away from the rail head. Out of gas and bullets and food.

It took until well after the war was over, nearly a decade, for their GDP to reach prewar levels. The idea that they could just pull industrial capacity out of their ass to make up the shortfall is fantasy. You either have a large army with limited reach or a reduced army with long reach. You can't have both. There isn't the manpower and industrial output to do both without Lend-Lease.
 
@Sphere
By your own admission US airplanes made up over a fifth of all Russian airplanes put into service in the very critical year of 1942.
*(The war was decided in the winter of 1941, before the first American trade arrived.)
Ha, ha, no. The final turning point, Kursk, wasn't until 1943. And here's a quote from Georgy Zhukov:
Today [1963] some say the Allies didn't really help us ... But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.
You also left off part of that post... wonder why.

Railroad Rails
Soviet Production 48,990
Allied Deliveries 622,100
Total 671,090
Allied Proportion 92.7%

Locomotives
Russian Production: 442
Allied Deliveries: 1966
Total: 2408
Allied Proportion: 81.6%

Rail cars
Soviet Production: 2635
Allied Deliveries: 11,075
Total: 13,710
Allied Proportion: 80.7%

Explosives (tons)
Soviet Production: 600,000
Allied Deliveries: 295,600
Total: 895,600
Allied Proportion: 33%

Copper Ore (in tons)
Soviet Production: 470,000
Allied Deliveries: 387,600
Total: 857,600
Allied Proportion: 45.2%

Aluminum (thousands of tons)
Soviet: 263
Allied Deliveries 328.1
Total: 591.1
Allied Proportion: 55.5%

Tires
Soviet Production: 8,368,000
Allied Deliveries: 3,606,000
Total: 11,974,000
Allied Proportion: 30.1%

Machine Tools
Soviet Production: 115,400
Allied Deliveries: 44,704
Total: 160,104
Allied Proportion: 27.9%

Its almost like you wouldn't have had any rail transit, copper for wiring or cartridges, aluminum for planes, tires for your trucks, or machine tools for your industry.
 
Again, BOTH Khrushchev and Stalin had every reason to downplay the Allies' help towards the Soviet war effort against the Nazis, because they were in a Cold War against America at the time. And yet they're still admitting that without America's help, the Nazis would have won the eastern front for WW2.

No, these were just Kruschev's words, and he had his own agenda when he said that.

It would've been cool if the Nazis had won, but they never stood a chance. Maybe if they weren't already engaged in the West, but I wouldn't bet on it.


More Western propaganda.


No see. That is what they had. We aren't arguing that. You need to search in the couch cushions and find the absolutely massive logistics capability that was handed over by Lend-Lease. Soviet truck production? Not enough. Locomotive production, not enough. Not enough rail cars or rails. Not enough coal and gasoline to power it all.

It doesn't matter that they won defensive battles near their logistics head. That doesn't mean they can project that power all the way to Berlin. There is no Operation Bagration without the Studebaker US6 trucks to carry Red Army supplies. It grinds to a halt once it gets an hour away from the rail head. Out of gas and bullets and food.

It took until well after the war was over, nearly a decade, for their GDP to reach prewar levels. The idea that they could just pull industrial capacity out of their ass to make up the shortfall is fantasy. You either have a large army with limited reach or a reduced army with long reach. You can't have both. There isn't the manpower and industrial output to do both without Lend-Lease.

I've covered this already.

@Sphere
By your own admission US airplanes made up over a fifth of all Russian airplanes put into service in the very critical year of 1942.

Ha, ha, no. The final turning point, Kursk, wasn't until 1943. And here's a quote from Georgy Zhukov:

You also left off part of that post... wonder why.

Railroad Rails
Soviet Production 48,990
Allied Deliveries 622,100
Total 671,090
Allied Proportion 92.7%

Locomotives
Russian Production: 442
Allied Deliveries: 1966
Total: 2408
Allied Proportion: 81.6%

Rail cars
Soviet Production: 2635
Allied Deliveries: 11,075
Total: 13,710
Allied Proportion: 80.7%

Explosives (tons)
Soviet Production: 600,000
Allied Deliveries: 295,600
Total: 895,600
Allied Proportion: 33%

Copper Ore (in tons)
Soviet Production: 470,000
Allied Deliveries: 387,600
Total: 857,600
Allied Proportion: 45.2%

Aluminum (thousands of tons)
Soviet: 263
Allied Deliveries 328.1
Total: 591.1
Allied Proportion: 55.5%

Tires
Soviet Production: 8,368,000
Allied Deliveries: 3,606,000
Total: 11,974,000
Allied Proportion: 30.1%

Machine Tools
Soviet Production: 115,400
Allied Deliveries: 44,704
Total: 160,104
Allied Proportion: 27.9%

Its almost like you wouldn't have had any rail transit, copper for wiring or cartridges, aluminum for planes, tires for your trucks, or machine tools for your industry.

You left out the part that says:

Additionally many of these people ignore the fact that the mathematics of soviet production do not include products from the previous decade of industry, which is why these statistics

Railroad Rails
Soviet Production 48,990
Allied Deliveries 622,100
Total 671,090
Allied Proportion 92.7%

Locomotives
Russian Production: 442
Allied Deliveries: 1966
Total: 2408
Allied Proportion: 81.6%

Rail cars
Soviet Production: 2635
Allied Deliveries: 11,075
Total: 13,710
Allied Proportion: 80.7%

Explosives (tons)
Soviet Production: 600,000
Allied Deliveries: 295,600
Total: 895,600
Allied Proportion: 33%

Copper Ore (in tons)
Soviet Production: 470,000
Allied Deliveries: 387,600
Total: 857,600
Allied Proportion: 45.2%

Aluminum (thousands of tons)
Soviet: 263
Allied Deliveries 328.1
Total: 591.1
Allied Proportion: 55.5%

Tires
Soviet Production: 8,368,000
Allied Deliveries: 3,606,000
Total: 11,974,000
Allied Proportion: 30.1%

Machine Tools
Soviet Production: 115,400
Allied Deliveries: 44,704
Total: 160,104
Allied Proportion: 27.9%

(Beaumont, Joan. Harrison, Mark. Accounting For War: Soviet Production, Employment, and the Defense Burden, 1941-1945)

Are not the same as what amount of domestic production was used in the war. If these railcars and trains were not sent the USSR would probably made do with the 20,000 locomotives and half a million freight cars she already had. This was displayed earlier when I counted the number of tanks the Soviet union had for 1941 including both pre-war stock and production of 1941. It is self-evident, that for tanks the USSR had over 2x more from pre-war production than what they produced in the first year meaning they started off with a significant number, which tips the balance from 20-50% and down into the previous 10%

My point stands. They would've won with or without Allied aid.

BTW, here's the most recent Russian victory in the current war:


You can watch the video if you don't feel like reading the article. They have pretty high production quality.
 
@Sphere Khrushchev had every reason to downplay Allied help, especially due to the Cold War. He still didn't, because he knew it was the truth. "Agenda" my ass.

Also, without the Allies, the Nazis would have more men to send against the Soviets, since they also had plenty of troops fighting against the Western Allies. So Lend-Lease wasn't the only Allied support, it also entailed tying down Nazi troops in North Africa and Western Europe. Take all those men and put them on the Eastern Front instead, and remove half the supplies the Soviets had received from America. It would be a curbstomp for Nazi Germany, with them easily winning the war.

Also, Southfront is hardly a reliable source, when so many sources speak against it. At this point, Southfront is just Russian propaganda, when compared to many news outlets reporting on the open weaknesses of the Russian war effort.

And yes, it is a war, no matter how much the Russians say otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back