Comments on: Just sayin’….

By: FrankC

FrankC — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 20:53:23 +0000

You are 100% correct that Russia would have been destroyed without lend-lease but with lend-lease the Russian would have beaten Germany with or without a D day.

The only thing that D day accomplished was to prevent the Russians from overrunning Europe more than they did.

This is not to say Russia would have won without the U.S. and Brits. Air power severely hampered the Germans ability to wage a crushing air war against the Russians.

By: mcfly

mcfly — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 03:36:29 +0000

Better tell the historians with the USAF. Guess they can’t get it right, huh?

By: Lee

Lee — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 01:40:33 +0000

Those British bombing raids were carried out at night, with the 8th Air Force bombing the city during the day. The British bombers were sitting ducks during the day, and had no choice but to bomb at night. As for the effectiveness of American airpower, look at the archives of German testemony on the effect of American airpower on troop movements and destoyed equipment. The Battle of the Bulge was fought when it was because of the pounding German forces were taking from American aircraft.

By: mcfly

mcfly — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:51:05 +0000

Most of your assumptions can’t be supported.

Here’s are excerpts from the paper “DETERMINATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF WWII STRATEGIC BOMBING STRATEGY,” by Colonel T. Tracey Goetz, USAF:

US bombing effectiveness was disappointing due to ineffectual bomb loads and fighter
attacks. [...] German
fighters were exacting heavy losses and disrupting bomb runs. Losses sustained in two attacks
on Schweinfurt ball-bearing plants had far-reaching implications on tactics [...]
UK attacks on cities continued with increasing ferocity. The 3-night attack of Hamburg
was noteworthy in that it destroyed 33% of the houses and killed an estimated 60,000 – 100,000
people. This brought serious concern to German officials; even Hitler thought further attacks of
similar weight might end the war. The RAF proceeded to destroy one major urban center after
another.67

The British weren’t “reduced to a second hand role bombing at night.” Such an interpretation is at odds with the facts. They chose to operate at night because they’d earlier encountered the same daylight loss rate as did the Americans.

And as for “daylight precision bombing,” there was no such thing in WW2. Even with daylight, American bombs commonly dropped miles from their target, sometimes hundreds of miles. The British were taking a different and ultimately more effective approach.

By: Lee

Lee — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:22:08 +0000

The part about the war being turned around by the time we got involved. Had the US not gotten involved, there’s no way Germany would’ve lost. Even with the 8th Air Force the bombing campaign came close to being called off due to loss of aircraft and men. There is no way in Hades that Britain could’ve mounted a credible air campaign of any significance on its own. They were reduced to a second hand role bombing at night due to the vulnerability of their bomber aircraft. A landing in Europe would’ve been completely out of the question for the British.

As for the Soviets, had the vast bulk of the Luftwaffe been freed from air defense over the Fatherland, Germany would’ve held complete air dominance over the plains of Western Russia. We know firsthand how badly German forces were mauled by US airpower in the western theater, now imagine if Germany had been in a similar position in the East. Add to that the lack of damage done to German industrial centers, population centers, and oil production in Eastern Europe from US bombers, and the situation swings heavily in Germany’s favor.

By: mcfly

mcfly — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:02:47 +0000

Can you indicate exactly what in ER’s post is “not true at all?”

By: Lee

Lee — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 06:05:11 +0000

It’s easy to understand why. The US also sent the USSR over 100,000 heavy machine tools. Many of the missiles, tanks, and kalashnikovs that were pointed at the US during the Cold War were built on machines with “Made in the USA” stanped on their side. Imagine had the Cold War turned hot and we had lost millions from weapons built with our own technology.

By: podrock

podrock — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 01:04:53 +0000

And at the time, before 12/7/1941, conservatives opposed Lend-Lease.

By: Lee

Lee — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:54:13 +0000

Not true at all. Had the Soviets not been given the massive amounts of material from Lend Lease, they would’ve been slaughtered. 90% of all the explosives they used came from the US; that includes everything from the propellent in rifle ammo to the explosives in the shells of their T-34s. Over one hundred thousand trucks were also supplied. The Red Army wouldn’t have gotten far fighting with sticks and walking the whole way.

By: mcfly

mcfly — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 03:58:53 +0000

History is not a science. It can't be, unless we discount the thick fuzz of human behavior. And interestingly enough, if we did there wouldn't be much left. "Conversion" was the key issue in American economic life in 1940-1942. In many industries, company executives resisted converting to military production because they did not want to lose consumer market share to competitors who did not convert. From here.