Stalin 'planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact'

[Piotr]

Oh, everybody agrees that the USSR's artillery and small-arms industry was sufficient. But it took more than cannons and rifles to fight the war.

Consider first the tank situation: huge amounts of war materiel and production plants were lost in the opening weeks of Barbarossa; surviving plants and personnel were out of operation for months while they were relocated west of the Urals. The Brits rushed to supply their own "Churchill" tanks to fill the gap: over thirty percent of Soviet tanks in the critical Battle of Moscow were of British-made.

You missed this part of article that I already posted:

“In addition, the first lend-lease shipments during the winter of 1941-1942 reached the USSR very late, although during those critical months Russia was able to put up an impressive fight against the German aggressors all on her own, without any assistance to speak of from the democracies of the West.”

Churchill writes that at first the Russians wouldn't tell the Brits what supplies were a priority: the Brits had to guess! But eventually Stalin stepped in and the concentration was on aircraft, aluminum, rubber, and (especially once American supplies began) motorized transport. (...)

Churchill writes ... don’t expect Churchill to admit that England was in bed with Hitler and founded him. Also don’t forget that Churchill murdered millions of people in Bengal in 1944.

Photo above - Prime Minister of England Chamberlain together with Hitler and Ribbentrop.

Without these last the U.S.S.R. could well have defended itself but it would not have been able to engage in large and fast offensive operations; indeed, I think the Red Army likely would not have been able to carry the war into Germany at all.

According to historian Geoffrey Roberts Soviet Union could have won against Nazi Germany alone:

Imo, the Nazis were just as evil as the allies.

They were both racist, genocidal hacks. But at least the Nazis didn't lie about it and were honest.

Only major difference between the English and Nazis was that the English were focused mostly on killing people in Africa and Asia, and Nazis were focused on killing Slavs and Jews in Europe. The English in 1950s even created English death camps in Kenya to kill Kenyans (mostly Mau Mau people).

 

[Piotr]

Right, no disagreement there. But my point was that American industrialists and Jewish finance played a massive role in the industrialization of the Soviet Union.

There were forces in the USA that supported USSR and there were forces that supported Hitler. In my opinion Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a good guy, but there were many bad guys in the USA also:

The Ku Klux Klan parade in Washington in 1926:

Without them there would be no Soviet war machine.

There was some US help but IMO it should not be overestimated.

I would disagree. England was more concerned with the rise of France as the sole continental power after the defeat and dismemberment of Germany at the end of WW1.

Keep in mind that England's foreign policy was shaped by the Balance of Power on continental Europe. England did not want either Germany or France to overtake the other.

As far as the Soviet Union was concerned, yes there was apprehension on the part of English elites towards Soviet Union however the major Jewish financial powers made sure nothing conclusive was done towards that end, just like the Jews in America were also pro-Communist and pushed for relations between America and the USSR.

But France was not a threat to England. France itself had colonies back then. Russia was a threat to English criminal colonial empire, and eventually it was Russia and China that destroyed colonial empires. Russia and China (after 1949) supported independence movements all across the World.

Also, to add to the above, more French civilians were killed by American and British carpet bombing than under German occupation:

"Between the time of the German victory in the Battle of France and the liberation of the country, the Western Allies bombed many locations in France. In all 1,570 French cities and towns were bombed by Anglo-Americanforces between June 1940 and May 1945. The total number of civilians killed was 68,778 men, women and children (including the 2,700 civilians killed in Royan).[1]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_France_during_World_War_II

The term Perfidious Albion was coined by the Frenchmen Marquis de Ximenès:
"Perfidious Albion England or Britain considered as treacherous in international affairs, in a rendering of the French phrase la perfide Albion, said to have been first used by the Marquis de Ximenès (1726–1817). Both terms are recorded in English from the mid 19th century." (source)

American historian Bernard Lewis in turn said that:
“America is harmless as an enemy but treacherous as a friend.” (source)
While I don't fully agree that it is harmless as an enemy, I fully agree that it is treacherous as a friend

England used Poland as bate to declare war on Germany and destroy all of Europe.

England did not care about Polish territorial integrity. The English simply brushed aside the Polish government in exile when the Katyn Massacre controversy came out that Soviets murdered and tortured Polish officers.

And when the war was over England allowed Poland to fall under Soviet occupation.

We were not fully free then, but we are not fully free now neither. Unelected bureaucrats from Brussels constantly meddle in our internal affairs. Not to mention that Yankee bribed some politicians in Warsaw and established CIA torture chamber in Stare Kiejkuty in northern Poland violating Polish law.
Some bad things were done when Poland was part of Soviet bloc but don't forget that population of Poland rose form 24 millions in 1946 to 38 millions in 1989.

 

[The Sandman]

This is perhaps one of the greatest mysteries of history.

Britain and France declared war on Germany because the latter "violated" Polish territorial integrity. But when the Soviet Union did the same there wasn't a peep from Britain or France.

Makes you wonder, did Britain and France really care about Poland? Or was this just a ploy by powerful Political and financial forces to destroy Germany?

Also, Hollywood and the American establishment was full of Russian Jews who fled the persecutions of Tsarist Russia and were very pro-Bolshevism/Communist and viewed the Soviet Union with great sympathy. The entire media and press in America would portray Soviet Union as similar to Western Democracy, whereas Germany, Italy and Japan were portrayed as evil Authoritarian nightmarish nations.

This is corroborated by the Polish ambassador to America Count Jerzy Potocki:

"The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with Nazism.Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible -- above all religious persecution and concentration camps are exploited -- this propaganda is nevertheless extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and knows nothing of the situation in Europe.

It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign which is conducted above all against National Socialism, [the] Soviet Russia is almost completely excluded. If mentioned at all, it is only in a friendly manner and things are presented in such a way as if Soviet Russia were working with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the clever propaganda the sympathy of the American public is completely on the side of Red Spain."

@Nilgiri @The Sandman @Psychic

Thought provoking!

 

[Hamza913]

You missed this part of article that I already posted:

“In addition, the first lend-lease shipments during the winter of 1941-1942 reached the USSR very late, although during those critical months Russia was able to put up an impressive fight against the German aggressors all on her own, without any assistance to speak of from the democracies of the West.”



Churchill writes ... don’t expect Churchill to admit that England was in bed with Hitler and founded him. Also don’t forget that Churchill murdered millions of people in Bengal in 1944.

Photo above - Prime Minister of England Chamberlain together with Hitler and Ribbentrop.



According to historian Geoffrey Roberts Soviet Union could have won against Nazi Germany alone:

Only major difference between the English and Nazis was that the English were focused mostly on killing people in Africa and Asia, and Nazis were focused on killing Slavs and Jews in Europe. The English in 1950s even created English death camps in Kenya to kill Kenyans (mostly Mau Mau people).

Let's not forget what the Americans did to the Japanenese.

Everyone seems to forget that (with the exception of Hiroshima and Nagasaki of course).

 

[Desert Fox]

There were forces in the USA that supported USSR and there were forces that supported Hitler. In my opinion Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a good guy, but there were many bad guys in the USA also:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) was a racist and a Judeo-Capitalist puppet, a Freemason and above all a warmonger, just like Winston Churchill.

At least Hitler was an open German ethno-Nationalist and secondly a European Nationalist. But racists and warmongers like FDR and Churchill who preached freedom and democracy while bombing and suppressing the freedoms of people for their Judeo-Capitalist masters on the other hand were nothing but hypocritical traitors to their own countrymen.

The Ku Klux Klan parade in Washington in 1926:

Franklin D. Roosevelt's vice president Harry S. Truman attended KKK meetings.

There was some US help but IMO it should not be overestimated.

Actually, American capitalist assistance in Soviet Industry development was very crucial. The largest Soviet tank factories were designed by engineers from the Ford company. The best Soviet trucks in WW2 were Ford trucks.

But France was not a threat to England. France itself had colonies back then. Russia was a threat to English criminal colonial empire, and eventually it was Russia and China that destroyed colonial empires. Russia and China (after 1949) supported independence movements all across the World.

French dominance over the continent was certainly worrisome to the English. France had access to German industry and resources as a result of Treaty of Versailles which meant France had gained a dominant position over mainland Europe. This gave British nightmares of Nopoleon again. This was why British became lenient towards German resurgence to balance out the French.

And I disagree that Soviet Union and China were solely responsible for the destruction of European colonial empires. To an extent this is true, but 90% of the credit goes to Winston Churchill who destroyed European empires by launching an unnecessary war against Germany.

WW2 was the death blow to European sovereignty. Post WW2 Europe has become America's colony.

The term Perfidious Albion was coined by the Frenchmen Marquis de Ximenès:
"Perfidious Albion England or Britain considered as treacherous in international affairs, in a rendering of the French phrase la perfide Albion, said to have been first used by the Marquis de Ximenès (1726–1817). Both terms are recorded in English from the mid 19th century." (source)

American historian Bernard Lewis in turn said that:
“America is harmless as an enemy but treacherous as a friend.” (source)
While I don't fully agree that it is harmless as an enemy, I fully agree that it is treacherous as a friend

Well I'm not surprised.

We were not fully free then, but we are not fully free now neither. Unelected bureaucrats from Brussels constantly meddle in our internal affairs. Not to mention that Yankee bribed some politicians in Warsaw and established CIA torture chamber in Stare Kiejkuty in northern Poland violating Polish law.
Some bad things were done when Poland was part of Soviet bloc but don't forget that population of Poland rose form 24 millions in 1946 to 38 millions in 1989.

Not the least surprised.

 

[Saif-ud-Din Qutuz]

Without a shadow of doubt, US economy blossomed after WWs. US was like a bitch playing on both ends for its interests.

 

[bobo6661]

I once read an article in the magazine - author (he was translator or secretar of Molotov, if I am not mistaken) described almost every day of August 1939. The Soviet Union made enormous efforts to form an anti-Nazi alliance in those days - but failed because West did not want it. If Stalin had not signed the pact with Hitler, the Nazi troops after the defeat of Poland would have started a war against the USSR in September 1939. It was absolutely unacceptable - the USSR was not ready to fight with Germany back then.

There was no chance for Polish - Soviet coperation ... 1937-38

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD

 

[vostok]

There was no chance for Polish - Soviet coperation ... 1937-38

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD

No offends, but USSR was tried to form anti-Hitler coalition with England and France, not with Poland.

 

[UkroTurk]

If they had agreed with Stalin , It would have been Russian conquest of Europe rather than German.
It's understable. They shouldn't have left control of Europe to Russia.

 

[Signalian]

Oh, everybody agrees that the USSR's artillery and small-arms industry was sufficient. But it took more than cannons and rifles to fight the war.

Consider first the tank situation: huge amounts of war materiel and production plants were lost in the opening weeks of Barbarossa; surviving plants and personnel were out of operation for months while they were relocated west of the Urals. The Brits rushed to supply their own "Churchill" tanks to fill the gap: over thirty percent of Soviet tanks in the critical Battle of Moscow were of British-made.

The tank situation saw the T-34 coming out of the blue and taking on Panzer III and Panzer IV. The experience of German crews helped in capturing some T-34's and shipping them back to Germany for analysis. The Churchill heavy tanks was plagued with problems apart from its low calibre gun however it had good armor. No where can it be seen that Churchill tanks changed the outcome of the war for Russia. In the early stages of war, even KV-series of tanks were put in action which had better guns and maneuverability than British tanks. There were some 450 British tanks delivered to Russia where as Russian tank losses were 20,000 in 1941. The 30% British tanks you mentioned was just at one instance (Moscow front mostly) and not all were Churchill, there were Valentine Mark III and Matilda tanks too, soon this 30% figure became 16%.

While you mentioned "it took more than cannons and rifles to fight the war", you need to realise the major points you missed.

The other factors that helped Russians against German attack:
1. Change of initial plans by Hitler as he modified the offensive plans by changing the maneuvers of his battle groups.
2. The delays caused by preparation and changing of plans by germans helped Russians as winter approached and all the supply lines froze in cloggy muds for Germans and supply lines kept growing longer and longer.

The Russian industries in far west had to be relocated but that doesnt mean that factories in the east had stopped producing tanks and equipment. In fact Russians burnt crops, destroyed bridges and railways so nothing useful can stay behind for Germans.

Churchill writes that at first the Russians wouldn't tell the Brits what supplies were a priority: the Brits had to guess! But eventually Stalin stepped in and the concentration was on aircraft, aluminum, rubber, and (especially once American supplies began) motorized transport. Without these last the U.S.S.R. could well have defended itself but it would not have been able to engage in large and fast offensive operations; indeed, I think the Red Army likely would not have been able to carry the war into Germany at all.

The Russians would still have been able to carry the war into Germany because of number of reasons. Russians had more manpower than Germany and the German losses were hard to replace, especially the experienced tank crew. It was also once analysed to bring in experienced tank crews from the African theatre to fight Russians. Consistently losing crucial man power in all theatres, Hitler was forced to put young boys and old men into combat and also his divisions strength was reduced to half or below. They only looked full strength on paper. Russian basic tank T-34 was superior to Panzer III/IV while other Russian tanks like KV-series and IS-Series were formidable against Panthers and Tigers and also were produced in large numbers than German tanks. The Russian tank destroyers also had bigger calibre guns than German tank destroyers and were fielded in great numbers while cheaply produced just like German Stug-series. Very soon, Germany was not only fighting Russians but also another strong enemy, USA which also had continuous supply of troops, tanks and equipment. Without lend-lease, it would have just taken Russian long to achieve its goals against Germans.

 

[Cell_DbZ]

The Russians would still have been able to carry the war into Germany because of number of reasons. Russians had more manpower than Germany and the German losses were hard to replace, especially the experienced tank crew. It was also once analysed to bring in experienced tank crews from the African theatre to fight Russians. Consistently losing crucial man power in all theatres, Hitler was forced to put young boys and old men into combat and also his divisions strength was reduced to half or below. They only looked full strength on paper. Russian basic tank T-34 was superior to Panzer III/IV while other Russian tanks like KV-series and IS-Series were formidable against Panthers and Tigers and also were produced in large numbers than German tanks. The Russian tank destroyers also had bigger calibre guns than German tank destroyers and were fielded in great numbers while cheaply produced just like German Stug-series. Very soon, Germany was not only fighting Russians but also another strong enemy, USA which also had continuous supply of troops, tanks and equipment. Without lend-lease, it would have just taken Russian long to achieve its goals against Germans.

I don't believe that the Red army would have ever made it to Germany without Lend-lease. The Soviets would have kicked out Germany out of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine without the Lend-lease, but that would have been it. Lend-Lease didn't offer them much in the form of weaponry like tanks (western tanks given in 1941-1942 were often critisized beign of poor quality). Without the military hardware, the Red Army would have still won, however of course it still helped.

Some statistics:

-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

Lend-Lease was crucial in delivering logistics like locomotives, railworks and aircraft fuel, all crucial for advancing towards Germany, without it, the Eastern front would have stagnated around the Polish border.

Some statistics:

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

-Locomotives
Soviet 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%

-Aluminum (1000t)
Soviet: 263
Allied Deliveries 328.1
Total: 591.1
Allied Proportion: 55.5%

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

The Lend-lease wasn't just done to help the Soviets, it was done because not only was the Lend-lease crucial for them; it was crucial for the allies as well.
Think about it, if the Soviets didn't liberate Eastern Europe from the Germans, guess who would have had to do all that? The allies; it would have cost the allies an unbelievable amount of lives (which has been paid by the Soviets). Also, the Eastern front would ave stagnated, allowing Hitler to focus more of his recourses to te western front as well, making the fighting even more fierce.
For the record, I am not down-playing the sacrifice the Soviets had to make at all, I'm just saying the Lend-lease was important for not just the Soviets, but for the Western powers too.