|
During the Khrushchev era, there were some relaxing of talk regarding Stalin and the Great Patriotic War and it came to light that Stalin once said (paraphrasing here), "If it wasn't for the British aid early in the war, the Germans could have taken Moscow" (he never outright said they would have lost the war, but the general mood was it was likely). Apparently the aid that Britain sent from 41 onwards was instrumental in allowing the Soviet Union to catch its breath and get it's industry up and running. A lot of people cite that about 1/2 the medium->heavy tanks involved in defending the outskirts of Moscow were British made, as were a lot of the aircraft, but even more important were things like nickel, iron, grain, raw high-explosive, machine tooling, and most importantly trucks. At this point the Russians were having trouble finding enough factory space and manpower to produce all the things they needed. An example (pulling out of my rear end) could be that for every T-34 tank you wanted to field, you needed one rail car, and 4 trucks to keep it operational and fighting. Also it should be noted, at this time a lot of Stalin's industrial capacity was either in German hands, destroyed, cut off, or in the process of being dismantled and moved further back into safer Soviet territory. So let's say you need 100 factories, to produce the required amount of tanks, trucks, trains locomotives, artillery guns, small arms, uniforms, canned food, ammunition, fuel, etc.... Since the soviets were down to (let's say) 50% industrial capacity, they would have to let some of these things slide. So instead of producing 300 T-34's this month, you might have to only produce 150 because you have to produce these things to have an effective army. The British aid allowed the soviets to retool factories and up production of things they really needed. Also, a lot of people point to Stalingrad as the first sign that Hitler had lost the war, I'd actually point to North Africa, as they had lost even more men there than in trying to take the city. Long story short, it was a no-win scenario for Hitler as he could never knock out Britain, and he was fighting an enemy that could not be invaded (America) who's industrial production was the same as the rest of the world's combined. 
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:is this for real because even just a quick look at wikipedia will tell you this isn't true. even if you figure wikipedia cannot be trusted to be 100% accurate the numbers aren't even in the same ballpark manpower-wise, and you probably have to figure vehicle losses for the axis in north africa are inflated because of the italians being lovely and also major combatants (for a period THE major axis combatant) and the back and forth nature of the fighting leading to some vehicles being destroyed, repaired after the battlefield was secured, and destroyed again later, or captured from the enemy and destroyed, etc My brain switched those stats, and for some reason ran with it. You're absolutely right about Stalingrad vs. N. Africa casualties/prisoners. XMNN posted:nazi germany makes a lot more sense when you think of it as a decade long paranoid meth binge Or possibly untreated Syphilis taking its toll on ole Adolf.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
If anyone is interested in Eastern Front horrors, you should read "The Forgotten Soldier" by Guy Sajer.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2015 04:03
|
|