Could the Nazis have conquered the United States?

Considering some of the different outcomes that could have happened during World War Two, historians and researchers have looked closely at how and what would have happened if Germany and the Nazis had tried to invade the US. Before America had joined the war Germany was making advances to the east in the Soviet Union and now most of Europe was suffering under Nazi tyranny and large pieces of North Africa were under German control. When Japan brought America into World War Two, Hitler declared war on the US making the war truly global. The difficulty the Germans would have had is that they needed to invade from somewhere near to the American mainland. This could have been possible if they had used one of the French-governed islands or land in South America. The Germans would have needed this as a launch pad into the mainland, otherwise it would be impossible to launch an attack.

In the United States, gun ownership is widespread, and during the war this would have meant that local people would have been well-armed to fight back against any invaders. As an invading force the Germans would have faced an army around 10 times the size of their own, the Slate reports. The main problem for German troops on the American continent would have been supplies. The German troops even suffered massive supply problems when they invaded the Soviet Union, so to get enough supplies including military equipment, fuel and food across the Atlantic would have been near impossible. Leaving the German army defeated and probably destroyed.

The Nazi U-Boats were no doubt a success during the war, and would have been needed to guard the supply lines all the way across the Atlantic and that wasn’t possible because the Allies warships and air support was making it difficult for the U-Boats to gather momentum.
Fighting and defending their occupied territory in Europe, whilst attempting an invasion on the United States would have surely been suicide for the German army. In addition, Germany was also under attack from Britain’s Royal Air Force. Thus no attack on America was even feasible before the battles on the mainland were won and Great Britain occupied. As we now know, this proved too much for the already overstretched German forces leaving a Nazi invasion of America a thing for dreamers and arm chair generals.


https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/could-the-nazis-have-conquered-the-united-states.html

A friend of mine said to me once that the USA could never be invaded and taken over by a foreign force for the simple reason that Americans all have guns!!!

if the war had ended differently and germany had won the european side of things ...America would have been on bended knee to them......because germany would have had the atom bomb....and the delivery technology

and would have used it......

I don't think gun ownership would have been the main contributor to US inconquerability. The massive natural defenses of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and vast size of the country (where west and east are equally important- unlike in China and Russia), combined with its huge army, industry, resources, and modern weapons at the time- would have ensured even Nazi Germany could never have mounted a successful invasion- with or without US gun ownership.

Of course if Germany had the A-Bomb that changes- but that's another what if.

Eilzel wrote:I don't think gun ownership would have been the main contributor to US inconquerability. The massive natural defenses of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and vast size of the country (where west and east are equally important- unlike in China and Russia), combined with its huge army, industry, resources, and modern weapons at the time- would have ensured even Nazi Germany could never have mounted a successful invasion- with or without US gun ownership.

Of course if Germany had the A-Bomb that changes- but that's another what if.

The thing is Eilzel if Britain had been invaded what would have stopped Germany then having the ability to as the article claims build up armies on French colonies in South America? If they are not in conflict with the US yet they would be able to unhindered build up armies there for an attack. This I believe would still be difficult as no doubt the US would hit before they could build up to be strong enough with a premptive strike, but the US army was not that big at this stage. Around 240,000 army personel were in camps or on postings oustide and inside the US with also the national guard numering around 200,000, with a reserve of around 100,000 in 1940. I agree it would have been very difficult but not impossible if Britain had been knocked out of the war. Al very far fetched but being that men civillians were armed, this could have played a part in forming together scratch armed units for defense if need be.

The thing is even if at that point the nation was unarmed, it would be a quick process to ensure everyone was armed if an invasion seemed possible- indeed if such a possibility did arise the US would have made all moves required to make that difficult. The D-Day landings would have paled in comparison to an attempt to land on and capture a part of the US coastline- especially considering the US navy would be patrolling heavily.

It is far fetched but the what ifs of history are as fascinating as the what was-es

Eilzel wrote:The thing is even if at that point the nation was unarmed, it would be a quick process to ensure everyone was armed if an invasion seemed possible- indeed if such a possibility did arise the US would have made all moves required to make that difficult. The D-Day landings would have paled in comparison to an attempt to land on and capture a part of the US coastline- especially considering the US navy would be patrolling heavily.

It is far fetched but the what ifs of history are as fascinating as the what was-es

Many are armed already though Eilzel, its about training them as troops that what counts, as look at the situation the UK was in after Dunkirk? We scratched together even old men as units to defend the country, as Germany would also do later in the last years of the war. I agree it would still be very difficult to invade being as the US had vast recources but if they had armed forces in place the US south through Texas was perfect geography for Blitzkrieg tactics and then ready access to petroleum taking Texas. If the US had lost such facilities it would certainly have crippled its access to oil, though it would mean that all other Oil output from other states like Oklahoma and California would have to be required for the war industry. This would be the crucial battleground for the deciding factor the conflict, which Germany would also need to suceed as they would be hindered with logistical problems due to the distance to resupply via the sea and having to combat then the US Navy. All very difficult of course, but to me if Germany did have the means to build up an army to invade, the crucial battle and outcome would be decided in Texas. A Commander like Erwin Rommel would have been in his element in this type of terrrain attacking through Texas.

They are fascinating mate....

I think you have to take the atom bomb out of the equation, because there's basically no scenario in which the U.S. has the bomb and Germany does not that Germany wins.

The best scenario for a Nazi conquest of the U.S. would be (to my thinking):

* The Japanese never attack Pearl Harbor and FDR fails to get the U.S. into the war

* The Great Depression further weakens the U.S. through the 1940s and likely the 1950s as well

* Hitler conquers Europe, defeats the U.S.S.R. and takes control over much of the Middle East (he'd need the oil both as leverage against the rest of the world and to fuel his armies)

* The Nazis form an alliance with Mexico (perhaps under the promise of returning formerly Mexican states)

* Germany stages invasions from Mexico and along the West Coast, where the Nazi forces would only have to deal with one of the country's largest cities (Los Angeles) before reaching Chicago, and the U.S. would really have no ally to turn to -- even Canada only had a population of 15 million or so in 1960.

The scenario would also require either for Hitler to remain in control into his 70s or for control of the Nazi empire to pass peacefully to another dictator. I don't think any one of these outcomes would have been entirely implausible, either ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think you have to take the atom bomb out of the equation, because there's basically no scenario in which the U.S. has the bomb and Germany does not that Germany wins.

The best scenario for a Nazi conquest of the U.S. would be (to my thinking):

* The Japanese never attack Pearl Harbor and FDR fails to get the U.S. into the war

* The Great Depression further weakens the U.S. through the 1940s and likely the 1950s as well

* Hitler conquers Europe, defeats the U.S.S.R. and takes control over much of the Middle East (he'd need the oil both as leverage against the rest of the world and to fuel his armies)

* The Nazis form an alliance with Mexico (perhaps under the promise of returning formerly Mexican states)

* Germany stages invasions from Mexico and along the West Coast, where the Nazi forces would only have to deal with one of the country's largest cities (Los Angeles) before reaching Chicago, and the U.S. would really have no ally to turn to -- even Canada only had a population of 15 million or so in 1960.

The scenario would also require either for Hitler to remain in control into his 70s or for control of the Nazi empire to pass peacefully to another dictator. I don't think any one of these outcomes would have been entirely implausible, either ...

Couple of points Ben.

He would not need the Middle east if he conquers USSR, as thery had oil in the Caucasus.

Britain would need to be taken out of the game because Germany would require Naval supremacy within the atlantic to supply its forces in the US. The British Navy may have been on the back foot with convoys against the U-boats in the early part of the war but they had supremacy against any German fleet, based on numbers of surface warships. Germany did not have enough to challenge the Royal Navy. Thus taking out Britain would be crucial to any chance of an invasion of the US


Mexico point is very interesting as would greatly help.

Also interesting your tactical views where and how they would invade

I think another point would be on Americans with German ancestry if they would be treated as American Japanese were.

Agree on the A-bomb scenario.

Air superiority would have been key here which clearly would give the US the major advantage here due again to a logistical nightmare for Germany to resupply aircraft. The US would not have the same problem and would have ramped up production. This one point more than any makes me believe it would have been near impossible for the Germans to succeed.

Britain would definitely had to have been conquered, but it'd be interesting to game that out and consider a British exodus to Canada in particular.

I was just including the Middle Eastern scenario because one, you know they'd have gone for it anyway, and two, that sort of stranglehold on the global oil market would enable them to more easily keep the likes of Australia on their good side. Plus enable them to guarantee oil to Mexico even during the invasion.

Of course, the idea of Hitler holding together this size of an empire for very long would be pretty dubious in the first place

Ben_Reilly wrote:Britain would definitely had to have been conquered, but it'd be interesting to game that out and consider a British exodus to Canada in particular.

I was just including the Middle Eastern scenario because one, you know they'd have gone for it anyway, and two, that sort of stranglehold on the global oil market would enable them to more easily keep the likes of Australia on their good side. Plus enable them to guarantee oil to Mexico even during the invasion.

Of course, the idea of Hitler holding together this size of an empire for very long would be pretty dubious in the first place

True enough Ben, I think you are right they would have hit the Middle east to, but when you think about it both Britain and France had been subdued by this point and thus surely then would Germany not already have control of them or could have if needed to? That is more my point I guess as there would be little needed if Germany had knocked out the two controlling powers of this area. Though it did make me ponder your point on an exudus to Canada of the British to Canada that some colonies would remain loyal to this exiled Gorvernment just as we saw with the Free French under De Gaulle. Where some Vichy territories capitulated very quickly because they were pro Free French/ So I have to conceed that you do have a good point on why they may have still been a need to invade.

Last point I would disagree on, with further victories would only just add to his already godlike imagie that people viewed him with during his early victories. When he was winning many held him in the highest awe. I think how he used the far right in countries conquered to basically run them would have cemented his hold on power. Still I would be very interested to listen to your reasons buddy as to why you think his hold would not last? As looking back he was able to still get Germany to continue fighting even after his death, even when it was well know the war was truly lost. The 1944 bomb plot was seen in the main as an act of treason by many even when Germany was clearly losing the war. I think his hold on such an empire would have been near untouchable, if he conquered Britain and the USSR as well.

Interesting though to have an actual American view on this, which has really got my interest.

Thanks Ben  

No problem, and now that I think more about it, I think you're right about how victories added to the confidence in Hitler -- his instability would probably tend to be more hidden and compensated for by other Nazi leadership if they kept winning. It's possible to imagine him even in senility holding on at least as the public face of power.

Here's a scary thought, though -- given that so many of Hitler's atrocities only became well-known after the war ended, what if he never had to invade the U.S.? A post-FDR president, still presiding over a Depression-wracked country, might have capitulated to the Nazis or even come to them for help.

Germany was a land power.  It had wimp naval forces.  Even an off-shore invasion from one of the Antilles Islands would have been too much for them.

Not to be deterred, Germany did plan an invasion of the US...German style.  Over land, from Mexico, and at a much earlier date.  A letter dated Jan. 19, 1917, signed by the German Foreign Secretary, Arthur Zimmerman, and addressed to the German Minister, Heinrich von Eckhardt, in Mexico City, revealed the plan.

The text of the letter is as follows:

WWI Centennial Gallery wrote:Berlin, Jan. 19, 1917.

On Feb. 1 we intend to begin submarine warfare unrestricted. In spite of this, it is our intention to endeavor to keep neutral the United States of America.

If this attempt is not successful, we propose an alliance on the following basis with Mexico: That we shall make war together and together make peace. We shall give general financial support, and it is understood that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona. The details are left to you for settlement. You are instructed to inform the President of Mexico of the above in the greatest confidence as soon as it is certain that there will be an outbreak of war with the United States, and suggest that the President of Mexico, on his own initiative, should communicate with Japan suggesting adherence at once to this plan. At the same time, offer to mediate between Germany and Japan. Please call to the attention of the President of Mexico that the employment of ruthless submarine warfare now promises to compel England to make peace in a few months.
ZIMMERMANN.

During the subsequent days of the Weimar Republic and early Nazi Germany, the Germans built a great army and developed a magnificent air force, but never a great navy.  She never caught on to tactics, logistics and supply problems, etc., which also plagued her submarine efforts in both wars.  

Truly, the Brits had a maritime national character...which ultimately spelled the difference.  That's why a couple of funky little islands off the coast of Europe, were able to rule the world so completely in the nineteenth-century.

The Zimmerman telegram is interesting Quill and arguably cost Germany the First World War (just finished a great read on WW1 from the pov of the Central Powers 'Ring of Steel' highly recommend it!); funnily enough I think a Mexican/German alliance would have worked far better in 1917 than it would have in 1944/45

Ben_Reilly wrote:No problem, and now that I think more about it, I think you're right about how victories added to the confidence in Hitler -- his instability would probably tend to be more hidden and compensated for by other Nazi leadership if they kept winning. It's possible to imagine him even in senility holding on at least as the public face of power.

Here's a scary thought, though -- given that so many of Hitler's atrocities only became well-known after the war ended, what if he never had to invade the U.S.? A post-FDR president, still presiding over a Depression-wracked country, might have capitulated to the Nazis or even come to them for help.

That is indeed very thought provoking your last point. Though Japan would have still attacked the US based German success, of which they did anyway with the success the Germans had up to that point in the east. It is believed that if Japan had waited a few more weeks until the reverses started to happen, Japan may never have attacked the US until its original plan to do so in 1946.
All very interesting.

There is very little chance that Germany could have defeated the USA because if Britain had fell the RAF, the Royal Navy and the merchant fleet as well as much of British industrial out put on aircraft production and technology would simply have moved to the Eastern seaboard of the USA where it would join up with the US military in protecting the Eastern seaboard and the Caribbean Islands. It would simply be impossible for Germany to launch an attack on mainland USA from the sea because the distance is just too great to establish a bridgehead and sustain it to any great degee. They would have been blown away.

The only option they would have would been an attack up through Mexico but the USA had the good sense to make sure their own backyard was covered before trotting off tto Europe to fight the Nazi's where there was always the possibility that it may not be successful. Over half a million second and third generation people of Mexican origin most with ties of some sort to family back in Mexico joined and fought for the USA after the Pearl Harbour attack .

The USA poured economic aid into Mexico and bolstered their industrial capacity where they were supplying equipment and services to the USA. They called on Mexican workers to come to the USA to help solve the labour shortage by working in the industrial sector and the farms under the Bracero programme with the promise that those who did so throughout the campaign would be granted permanent settlement in the United States.

Mexico was already battling the Germans at sea who were targetting Mexican flagged shipping on the Eastern coastline supplying the USA and Mexico ultimately declared war on Germany and Italy in May 1942 so that was that sorted. The Mexican airforce joined the battle with their own pilots and aircraft with their squadron being attached to the USAF command. They were called the 'Aztec Eagles'.

The USA did the same with Venezuela who were the largest oil producer in South Amerca. Again economic aid and industrial capacity was put in place and they bolstered them up with the lease-lend programme so the oil was secured and denied to the Germans.

The USA had the good sense to make sure all the loose ends were nicely tied up with gilt edged top dollar guarantees which in effect would have left the Germans with only the A bomb option.

Nah, nae chance.

I agree with Ben, what is they already had a fifth column... Walt Disney was not exactly without influence and he is just one that we know about

if the south decided to rise again at the same time it could have been rather different

the US politics was far from resolute in its opposition to the Nazi until pearl harbor

veya_victaous wrote:I agree with Ben, what is they already had a fifth column... Walt Disney was not exactly without influence and he is just one that we know about  

if the south decided to rise again at the same time it could have been rather different

the US politics was far from resolute in its opposition to the Nazi until pearl harbor  

Ben's views were very interesting on this I agree.

Everyone leaves Russia out of the equation; yet truth be known, it was Russia that defeated Hitler.

Russian General Georgy Zhukov was magnificent.

Original Quill wrote:Everyone leaves Russia out of the equation; yet truth be known, it was Russia that defeated Hitler.

Russian General Georgy Zhukov was magnificent.

Its not as simple as you are claiming and Germany could have defeated the USSR.
In the first couple of years of the war on the eastern front the USSR was heavily reliant on resources from the US. In fact the US supplied the vast majority of their trucks and Jeeps, which without they never would have been able to have pulled off the great encirclement battles they did, which relied heavy on speed.

I think you do have to credit Russia, though. The Nazis could have beaten them, that's certain, but for many reasons, they did not. I think a Soviet defeat would have really changed the entire complexion of the war.

Speaking of Mexico, I want to showcase the good man Guy Gabaldon, U.S. Marine, a Mexican-American hero who captured 1,000 Japanese:

Gabaldon's wartime experience was the basis for the 1960 Hollywood movie "Hell to Eternity," a memoir, and most recently, Rubin's documentary, "East L.A. Marine: The Untold True Story of Guy Gabaldon."

It is also at the heart of a campaign aimed at persuading Congress and the president to award Gabaldon what supporters say he deserves: the Medal of Honor. In July, the Los Angeles City Council and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa honored Gabaldon.

The actions that earned Gabaldon the nickname "the Pied Piper of Saipan" took place in June 1944 on the 25-mile-long island in the Northern Marianas in the western Pacific Ocean. Marine Pvt. Gabaldon killed 33 Japanese soldiers on his first day of combat, he said. Later he changed tactics.

Disobeying orders, Gabaldon went behind enemy lines by himself looking for Japanese. He "daringly entered enemy caves, pillboxes, buildings and jungle brush, frequently in the face of hostile fire," reads the citation that went along with his Navy Cross. The goal was to get the Japanese to surrender.

Years later, Gabaldon called his actions foolish, but back then he had reasons to believe he would succeed.

Many years before, in Boyle Heights, a Japanese American family had taken in Gabaldon -- a wayward boy, prone to trouble -- and raised him. He experienced Japanese language, food and culture firsthand.

During the war years the family was sent to an internment camp and Gabaldon joined the Marines. He used his limited Japanese language skills in his contacts with Japanese soldiers and civilians.

"I think it was his bravado and his cockiness that really helped his success," Rubin said.

Gabaldon persuaded some of the Japanese on Saipan with promises that they would receive food, water and medical care. To others he issued threats. "He was just a tough little Hispanic kid that just had a lot of guts," said John Schwabe, an attorney in Portland, Ore., who was a captain and Gabaldon's commanding officer. Gabaldon's action saved lives on both sides and was instrumental in "helping to shorten the campaign," Schwabe said.

Gabaldon was wounded by machine gun fire after the island was secured.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/06/local/me-gabaldon6

Please don't forget the British Merchant Navy who fought through mountain high waves and ice cold seas to deliver food and arms to the Russians at great cost to themselves!

nicko wrote:Please don't forget the British Merchant Navy  who fought through mountain high waves and ice cold seas  to deliver food and arms to the Russians at great cost to themselves!

Very fair point Nicko who played a vital role.
Often over looked.

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Everyone leaves Russia out of the equation; yet truth be known, it was Russia that defeated Hitler.

Russian General Georgy Zhukov was magnificent.

Its not as simple as you are claiming and Germany could have defeated the USSR.
In the first couple of years of the war on the eastern front the USSR was heavily reliant on resources from the US. In fact the US supplied the vast majority of their trucks and Jeeps, which without they never would have been able to have pulled off the great encirclement battles they did, which relied heavy on speed.

Nevertheless, the USSR prevailed.  It proves they had what it takes.  They got precious little help from the British and America, and then only at the end.

Strategically, one might point to American bombing of Germany's manufacturing capability in the Ruhr Valley, but to win a territorial war you need boots on the ground.  Russia had that.

I'd have to give Russia 65% of the win, and the British and America 35%. Britain saved Britain for American hardware, true; but the Russians provided the boots on the ground.

Original Quill wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Its not as simple as you are claiming and Germany could have defeated the USSR.
In the first couple of years of the war on the eastern front the USSR was heavily reliant on resources from the US. In fact the US supplied the vast majority of their trucks and Jeeps, which without they never would have been able to have pulled off the great encirclement battles they did, which relied heavy on speed.

Nevertheless, the USSR prevailed.  It proves they had what it takes.  They got precious little help from the British and America, and then only at the end.

Strategically, one might point to American bombing of Germany's manufacturing capability in the Ruhr Valley, but to win a territorial war you need boots on the ground.  Russia had that.

I'd have to give Russia 65% of the win, and the British and America 35%.  Britain saved Britain for American hardware, true; but the Russians provided the boots on the ground.

Sorry but that is incorrect, they had plenty of help with supplies that many merchant Navy men risked their lives to get supplies to Russia that in the first two years of the Eastern front conflict helped save the USSR Quill. Even at the battle of Kursk there were battlians of Sherman and Churchill tanks in use by the USSR. There is no denying their sacrifice of the many great military leaders they had, but they certainly had little regard for the men, who's sacrifice was very heavy indeed. Actually the bombing campaign starved Germany of its fighters that were needed on the Eastern front. The two other fronts created by the US and Britain were also vital in starving Germany of concentrating all its forces on the eastern front, which was vital. The invasion of Sicily made Hitler call off Operation Citadel.

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nevertheless, the USSR prevailed.  It proves they had what it takes.  They got precious little help from the British and America, and then only at the end.

Strategically, one might point to American bombing of Germany's manufacturing capability in the Ruhr Valley, but to win a territorial war you need boots on the ground.  Russia had that.

I'd have to give Russia 65% of the win, and the British and America 35%.  Britain saved Britain for American hardware, true; but the Russians provided the boots on the ground.

Sorry but that is incorrect, they had plenty of help with supplies that many merchant Navy men risked their lives to get supplies to Russia that in the first two years of the Eastern front conflict helped save the USSR Quill. Even at the battle of Kursk there were battlians of Sherman and Churchill tanks in use by the USSR. There is no denying their sacrifice of the many great military leaders they had, but they certainly had little regard for the men, who's sacrifice was very heavy indeed. Actually the bombing campaign starved Germany of its fighters that were needed on the Eastern front. The two other fronts created by the US and Britain were also vital in starving Germany of concentrating all its forces on the eastern front, which was vital. The invasion of Sicily made Hitler call off Operation Citadel.

Yes, America provided the supplies through the lend-lease program. And American and British merchant seaman brought those supplies over to the theater. But as gallant as they were, the merchant seamen did not fight this war.

The Russian Army, and the brilliant field tactics of the Russian generals, was responsible for the ultimate victory. I certainly give credit to the strategic aspects of the war--the bombing, the failure of German intelligence, logistics and supplies--but what the Russians did to the Germans at Kursk was nothing short of magnificent. And that was all she wrote for the Third Reich. Supply lines aside, you've gotta give credit where credit is due.

Original Quill wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Sorry but that is incorrect, they had plenty of help with supplies that many merchant Navy men risked their lives to get supplies to Russia that in the first two years of the Eastern front conflict helped save the USSR Quill. Even at the battle of Kursk there were battlians of Sherman and Churchill tanks in use by the USSR. There is no denying their sacrifice of the many great military leaders they had, but they certainly had little regard for the men, who's sacrifice was very heavy indeed. Actually the bombing campaign starved Germany of its fighters that were needed on the Eastern front. The two other fronts created by the US and Britain were also vital in starving Germany of concentrating all its forces on the eastern front, which was vital. The invasion of Sicily made Hitler call off Operation Citadel.

Yes, America provided the supplies through the lend-lease program.  And American and British merchant seaman brought those supplies over to the theater.  But as gallant as they were, the merchant seamen did not fight this war.

The Russian Army, and the brilliant field tactics of the Russian generals, was responsible for the ultimate victory.  I certainly give credit to the strategic aspects of the war--the bombing, the failure of German intelligence, logistics and supplies--but what the Russians did to the Germans at Kursk was nothing short of magnificent.  And that was all she wrote for the Third Reich.  Supply lines aside, you've gotta give credit where credit is due.

Sorry but to say the merchant navy did not fight when many lost their lives is an appalling thing to say and belittles the great and dangereous work they did. The Russians in the main had numerical advantage which greatly helped their military campaigns, where they could replace losses and Germany could not. This is not to take away anything from the Military leaders but again they were happy to sacrifice countless men. If Germany had attacked far earlier as Manstein planned to do they could have caused a massive upset as he did at Kharkov as he did in early 1943. So again the Germans could have won at Kursk, which the invasion of Siciliy put paid to his by the Operation being cancelled.

Most people get many facts wrong about the tank battle that commenced at Prokhorovaka, as in reality the actual battle took place between about 850 tanks and not the exagerrated 1300 often subscribed to. In the immediate battle on the 12th between the II SS Panser Corps which had around 250 tanks, against the Fifth Guard Tank Army had around 600 of which 31 were Churchills, some T-70 light tanks and the remainder T-34's. This battle was a draw, it was hardly a Soviet victory as the Soviets lost 400 tanks compared to 70 for the Germans who were experts at Tank recovery. This left a very balanced tank force facing each other for the following day but as stated, Hitler called it off and removed forces to deal with the invasion of Sicily. Many German Commanders though that if they had continued they could have won here as already in the South alone they had claimed 1,800 tanks and 24,000 prisoners. Okay the north had gotten and made very little ground, but this battle could have if the Germans had persisted been won.

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, America provided the supplies through the lend-lease program.  And American and British merchant seaman brought those supplies over to the theater.  But as gallant as they were, the merchant seamen did not fight this war.

The Russian Army, and the brilliant field tactics of the Russian generals, was responsible for the ultimate victory.  I certainly give credit to the strategic aspects of the war--the bombing, the failure of German intelligence, logistics and supplies--but what the Russians did to the Germans at Kursk was nothing short of magnificent.  And that was all she wrote for the Third Reich.  Supply lines aside, you've gotta give credit where credit is due.

Sorry but to say the merchant navy did not fight when many lost their lives is an appalling thing to say and belittles the great and dangereous work they did.

Well, you are given to emotional interpretations, you will admit didge. To say the Russian infantry was more effective in offensive warfare than the British or American merchant navy, is hardly to demean the merchant navies. The whole comparison is yours, after all. You see reason as combat.

Didge wrote:The Russians in the main had numerical advantage which greatly helped their military campaigns, where they could replace losses and Germany could not. This is not to take away anything from the Military leaders but again they were happy to sacrifice countless men. If Germany had attacked far earlier as Manstein planned to do they could have caused a massive upset as he did at Kharkov as he did in early 1943. So  again the Germans could have won at Kursk, which the invasion of Siciliy put paid to his by the Operation being cancelled.

Yes, the Russian Army was huge. That is a part of what I am saying. But to be able to mobilize such a huge machine, and keep track of the individual pieces, was shear brilliance. Add to that the anticipation and defense of the pincer movement that the German Army hoped to do with the Kursk salient, and you would have to say it was Russian genius. It had the elegance of a chess game, turning the German gambit to the Russian advantage.

Didge wrote:Most people get many facts wrong about the tank battle that commenced at Prokhorovaka, as in reality the actual battle took place between about 850 tanks and not the exagerrated 1300 often subscribed to. In the immediate battle on the 12th between the II SS Panser Corps which had around 250 tanks, against the Fifth Guard Tank Army had around 600 of which 31 were Churchills, some T-70 light tanks and the remainder T-34's. This battle was a draw, it was hardly a Soviet victory as the Soviets lost 400 tanks compared to 70 for the Germans who were experts at Tank recovery. This left a very balanced tank force facing each other for the following day but as stated, Hitler called it off and removed forces to deal with the invasion of Sicily. Many German Commanders though that if they had continued they could have won here as already in the South alone they had claimed 1,800 tanks and 24,000 prisoners. Okay the north had gotten and made very little ground, but this battle could have if the Germans had persisted been won.

As Wiki says:

Wiki wrote:During World War II, Kursk was occupied by Germany between November 4, 1941 and February 8, 1943. The village of Prokhorovka near Kursk was the center of the Battle of Kursk, a major engagement between Soviet and German forces which is widely believed by historians to have been the largest tank battle in history and was the last major German offensive mounted against the Soviet Union.

Big battles come with big consequences. Yes it was a costly affair, but it crushed the German military machine. It was the equivalent of the Battle of Midway for the American Navy. After that, it was just mopping up.

First of all its nothing to do with effectiveness in combat in regards to showing the upmost respect to what is in effect civillians placing their lives in danger to supply nations as the merchant navy did. Where for a long time the U-boat reigned supreme against the allied convoy ships. Its about you dismissing their effort which again the Russian forces without their effort would have more than likely collapsed in the early years of the conflict on the Russian front. The fact is when the USSR was under the greatest pressure in late 1941, it was actual British Tanks and Planes that helped them, even though they had moved Siberian Divisions for a counter attack against the Germans. A plan which suceeded in halting the Germans but failed in its actual stratgeic aims.

It is estimated that the USSR lost over 20,500 tanks between June 22nd and December 1941, to the point at the end of November 1941 they only had left 600 tanks, most of which were defending the areas around Moscow. By this point British armour was reaching the Russians that by December 1941 British armour made up around 30-40 percent of the Russian tank forces before Moscow and a large contingent of their reserve. By the December 1941 the UK had delivered over 450 plus tanks, which were instrumental in the counter offensive devised by Zhukov. Also around 10 to 15 percent or aircraft was British or American, though mainly Hurricanes. So the Merchant Navy and the British more than anything at this crucial time when Russia was on the brink of being defeated, was instrumental in saving USSR from defeat. By this stage the US had hardly sent anything in comparrison in its lend lease though this would vastly increase and would also be instrumental in keeping the Russian war machin functioning. This is also nothing to take away from the vast industrial output that the USSR did later achieve but this did not become a reality until 1942, and really in full gear by 1943 when less aid was needed. Still they were reliant on many raw materials from the US. So like I say the Merchant Navy sacrifice is one of the most unsung stories of WW2 much of which if Russia had been defeated, there would have been little to stop Germany invading the UK. We owe much to the Merchant Navy and its sacrifice in getting the needed armour, planes, transport, clothing, raw materials etc as seen to the Russians which helped spearhead their offensives which checked the German advance in both 1941 and 1942.

Now I am not denying that the Russians had great commanderds, they most certainly did and it is arguable that Zhukov was the most outstanding throughout the war, even though his offensive on the River Oder late in the war was a mess and badly planned based more on his pride then any strategic thinking. The point is the Russians suffered badly in the first couple of years lossing millions as causlties and prisoners. They did however learn German tactics and learn it so well they pulled off some of the greatest encirclement battles in 1944. So I take nothing away from the Russians at all, but your lack of understanding how Russia was on the brink and only survived mainly through the help of British supplies by the great work of the Merchant Navy is very short sighted. That is why more than anything you have very much belittled the part they played in WW2/ So nothing to do with emotions and you should know WW2 is one subject I know inside out mate.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think you do have to credit Russia, though. The Nazis could have beaten them, that's certain, but for many reasons, they did not. I think a Soviet defeat would have really changed the entire complexion of the war.

Speaking of Mexico, I want to showcase the good man Guy Gabaldon, U.S. Marine, a Mexican-American hero who captured 1,000 Japanese:

Gabaldon's wartime experience was the basis for the 1960 Hollywood movie "Hell to Eternity," a memoir, and most recently, Rubin's documentary, "East L.A. Marine: The Untold True Story of Guy Gabaldon."

It is also at the heart of a campaign aimed at persuading Congress and the president to award Gabaldon what supporters say he deserves: the Medal of Honor. In July, the Los Angeles City Council and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa honored Gabaldon.

The actions that earned Gabaldon the nickname "the Pied Piper of Saipan" took place in June 1944 on the 25-mile-long island in the Northern Marianas in the western Pacific Ocean. Marine Pvt. Gabaldon killed 33 Japanese soldiers on his first day of combat, he said. Later he changed tactics.

Disobeying orders, Gabaldon went behind enemy lines by himself looking for Japanese. He "daringly entered enemy caves, pillboxes, buildings and jungle brush, frequently in the face of hostile fire," reads the citation that went along with his Navy Cross. The goal was to get the Japanese to surrender.

Years later, Gabaldon called his actions foolish, but back then he had reasons to believe he would succeed.

Many years before, in Boyle Heights, a Japanese American family had taken in Gabaldon -- a wayward boy, prone to trouble -- and raised him. He experienced Japanese language, food and culture firsthand.

During the war years the family was sent to an internment camp and Gabaldon joined the Marines. He used his limited Japanese language skills in his contacts with Japanese soldiers and civilians.

"I think it was his bravado and his cockiness that really helped his success," Rubin said.

Gabaldon persuaded some of the Japanese on Saipan with promises that they would receive food, water and medical care. To others he issued threats. "He was just a tough little Hispanic kid that just had a lot of guts," said John Schwabe, an attorney in Portland, Ore., who was a captain and Gabaldon's commanding officer. Gabaldon's action saved lives on both sides and was instrumental in "helping to shorten the campaign," Schwabe said.

Gabaldon was wounded by machine gun fire after the island was secured.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/06/local/me-gabaldon6

Interesting Ben and something I would like to research more into as to be honest was not somebody I am familiar with.
Have not see the movie, though would like to learn more.

So thanks

Cuchulain wrote:First of all its nothing to do with effectiveness in combat in regards to showing the upmost respect to what is in effect civillians placing their lives in danger to supply nations as the merchant navy did. Where for a long time the U-boat reigned supreme against the allied convoy ships. Its about you dismissing their effort which again the Russian forces without their effort would have more than likely collapsed in the early years of the conflict on the Russian front. The fact is when the USSR was under the greatest pressure in late 1941, it was actual British Tanks and Planes that helped them, even though they had moved Siberian Divisions for a counter attack against the Germans. A plan which suceeded in halting the Germans but failed in its actual stratgeic aims.

Let's face it didge...the honour of merchant marines is not what you are here to discuss. Nor is it manufacture of tanks and airplanes. Least of all are you here to discuss me. This is all your attempt to turn conversation into combat. On the war metaphor:

Lakoff and Johnson wrote:"It is important to see that we don't just talk about arguments in terms of war. We can actually win or lose arguments. We see the person we are arguing with as an opponent. We attack his positions and we defend our own. We gain and lose ground. We plan and use strategies. If we find a position indefensible, we can stand on it and take a new line of attack. Many of the things we do in arguing are partially structured by the concept of war." George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors we Live By.

So dispense with the personal. The Battle of Kirsk was a great victory, by the Russians.

Cuchulain wrote:It is estimated that the USSR lost over 20,500 tanks between June 22nd and December 1941, to the point at the end of November 1941 they only had left 670 tanks, most of which were defending the areas around Moscow. By this point British armour was reaching the Russians that by December 1941 British armour made up around 30-40 percent of the Russian tank forces before Moscow and a large contingent of their reserve. By the December 1941 the UK had delivered over 450 tanks, which were instrumental in the counter offensive devised by Zhukov. So the Merchant Navy and the British more than anything at this crucial time when Russia was on the brink of being defeated, was instrumental in saving USSR from defeat. By this stage the US had hardly sent anything in comparrison in its lend lease though this would vastly increase and would also be instrumental in keeping the Russian war machin functioning. This is also nothing to take away from the vast about that the USSR did later achieve but this did not become a reality until 1943, when less aid was needed. So like I say the Merchant Navy sacrifice is one of the most unsung stories of WW2 much of which if Russia had been defeated, there would have been little to stop Germany invading the UK. We owe much to the Merchant Navy and its sacrifice in getting the needed armour as seen to the Russians which helped spearhead their offensive which checked the German advance.

Now I am not denying that the Russians had great commanderds, they most certainly did and it is arguable that Zhukov was the most outstanding throughout the war, even though his offensive on the River Oder late in the war was a mess and badly planned based more on his pride then any strategic thinking. The point is the Russians suffered badly in the first couple of years lossing millions as causlties and prisoners. They did however learn German tactics and learn it so well they pulled off some of the greatest encirclement battles in 1944. So I take nothing away from the Russians at all, but your lack of understanding how Russia was on the brink and only survived mainly through the help of British supplies by the great work of the Merchant Navy is very short sighted. That is why more than anything you have very much belittled the part they played in WW2/ So nothing to do with emotions and you should know WW2 is one subject I know inside out mate.

I'm most impressed. But the fact remains that Russia won WWII. I'm happy to agree that logistics and supply aided their efforts. I have always argued that while the Sherman was inferior by yards to the German Panzer IV, the fact that we outproduced them by 49,274 to 8,553 was provident. But the Russians did it.

The Russian's knew the German plan for the Kursk offensive courtesy of British inteeligence and they were well prepared for it.

It was just too big an ask for the Germans due to being weakened by the Stalingrad campaign and previous harsh winter.

You only have to look at the losses of men and equipment to see that they lost it only on the numbers game.

Original Quill wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:First of all its nothing to do with effectiveness in combat in regards to showing the upmost respect to what is in effect civillians placing their lives in danger to supply nations as the merchant navy did. Where for a long time the U-boat reigned supreme against the allied convoy ships. Its about you dismissing their effort which again the Russian forces without their effort would have more than likely collapsed in the early years of the conflict on the Russian front. The fact is when the USSR was under the greatest pressure in late 1941, it was actual British Tanks and Planes that helped them, even though they had moved Siberian Divisions for a counter attack against the Germans. A plan which suceeded in halting the Germans but failed in its actual stratgeic aims.

Let's face it didge...the honour of merchant marines is not what you are here to discuss.  Nor is it manufacture of tanks and airplanes.  Least of all are you here to discuss me.  This is all your attempt to turn conversation into combat.  On the war metaphor:

Lakoff and Johnson wrote:"It is important to see that we don't just talk about arguments in terms of war.  We can actually win or lose arguments.  We see the person we are arguing with as an opponent.  We attack his positions and we defend our own.  We gain and lose ground.  We plan and use strategies.  If we find a position indefensible, we can stand on it and take a new line of attack.  Many of the things we do in arguing are partially structured by the concept of war."  George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors we Live By.

So dispense with the personal.  The Battle of Kirsk was a great victory, by the Russians.

Cuchulain wrote:It is estimated that the USSR lost over 20,500 tanks between June 22nd and December 1941, to the point at the end of November 1941 they only had left 670 tanks, most of which were defending the areas around Moscow. By this point British armour was reaching the Russians that by December 1941 British armour made up around 30-40 percent of the Russian tank forces before Moscow and a large contingent of their reserve. By the December 1941 the UK had delivered over 450 tanks, which were instrumental in the counter offensive devised by Zhukov. So the Merchant Navy and the British more than anything at this crucial time when Russia was on the brink of being defeated, was instrumental in saving USSR from defeat. By this stage the US had hardly sent anything in comparrison in its lend lease though this would vastly increase and would also be instrumental in keeping the Russian war machin functioning. This is also nothing to take away from the vast about that the USSR did later achieve but this did not become a reality until 1943, when less aid was needed. So like I say the Merchant Navy sacrifice is one of the most unsung stories of WW2 much of which if Russia had been defeated, there would have been little to stop Germany invading the UK. We owe much to the Merchant Navy and its sacrifice in getting the needed armour as seen to the Russians which helped spearhead their offensive which checked the German advance.

Now I am not denying that the Russians had great commanderds, they most certainly did and it is arguable that Zhukov was the most outstanding throughout the war, even though his offensive on the River Oder late in the war was a mess and badly planned based more on his pride then any strategic thinking. The point is the Russians suffered badly in the first couple of years lossing millions as causlties and prisoners. They did however learn German tactics and learn it so well they pulled off some of the greatest encirclement battles in 1944. So I take nothing away from the Russians at all, but your lack of understanding how Russia was on the brink and only survived mainly through the help of British supplies by the great work of the Merchant Navy is very short sighted. That is why more than anything you have very much belittled the part they played in WW2/ So nothing to do with emotions and you should know WW2 is one subject I know inside out mate.

I'm most impressed.  But the fact remains that Russia won WWII.  I'm happy to agree that logistics and supply aided their efforts.  I have always argued that while the Sherman was inferior by yards to the German Panzer IV, the fact that we outproduced them by 49,274 to 8,553 was provident.  But the Russians did it.

I am afraid the efforts of the Merchant Navy as I proved were very crucial for the Russians which you have yet to show otherwise and to down play their efforts is failing to understandstrategy but how vital their efforts were when Russia was t its most peril. You can continue to ignore history Quill but I will continue to show how many factors played a part and combination in bringing about the defeat of Nazi Germant. Numbers was the key in the end but then errors on the German side by the insanity of Hitler to produce bigger and better, was also another factor. Germany had by the 1941 the ability of Jet planes of which they did not capitalise on, which could have been a game changer with air superiority. Like I said the bombing campaigns by the allies tactically to subdue the Germans into surrender was an utter failure, as it hardened their resolve. Even Germanys industrial output was at its highest in 1944 when its cities were near enough undefended. Though it had one major tactical success that it drew the vast majority of German fighters within German itself to defend from these bombing runs. You see there is so many factors at play here and again Kursk would have been a success at the time if the battle had continue and even more so when Mainstein originally wanted to commit to the offensive which Hitler delayed for wanting to build up more of the New Tigers and Panthers, which the later was rushed into service with many technical problems.

Mainteins counter sroke at Kharkov is seen and use today by many of the worlds military's as one of the best examples of a counter stroke. What many are unaware of it had even bigger ambitions which would have been a huge gamble, but Hitler denied this, which could have been crippling to the Russians at the time. Like I say it is used today extensively by commanders as the bvest examples of a counter stroke. There is much even today to learn about WW2 but you off simplistic views to many of its outcomes Quill. There is no denying the blood the Russians spilt in people and the sacrifice they gave or the great encirclement battles they used later in the war. None of which would have been possible without the lend-lease trucks etc needed for such fast moving encirclement battles.

Didge wrote:I am afraid the efforts of the Merchant Navy as I proved were very crucial for the Russians which you have yet to show otherwise and to down play their efforts is failing to understandstrategy but how vital their efforts were when Russia was t its most peril. You can continue to ignore history Quill but I will continue to show how many factors played a part and combination in bringing about the defeat of Nazi Germant. Numbers was the key in the end but then errors on the German side by the insanity of Hitler to produce bigger and better, was also another factor. Germany had by the 1941 the ability of Jet planes of which they did not capitalise on, which could have been a game changer with air superiority. Like I said the bombing campaigns by the allies tactically to subdue the Germans into surrender was an utter failure, as it hardened their resolve. Even Germanys industrial output was at its highest in 1944 when its cities were near enough undefended. Though it had one major tactical success that it drew the vast majority of German fighters within German itself to defend from these bombing runs. You see there is so many factors at play here and again Kursk would have been a success at the time if the battle had continue and even more so when Mainstein originally wanted to commit to the offensive which Hitler delayed for wanting to build up more of the New Tigers and Panthers, which the later was rushed into service with many technical problems.

You say these factors outreach the efforts of the Russian Army. I'll have to ask you to quantify this. Please tell me in what proportion did the merchant navy contribute relative to the Russian Army.

I mean, the imagination is the limit if we are just listing things...Stalin's canary gave him a lot of pleasure, and perhaps that contributed to the war effort, too.

Didge wrote:Mainteins counter sroke at Kharkov is seen and use today by many of the worlds military's as one of the best examples of a counter stroke. What many are unaware of it had even bigger ambitions which would have been a huge gamble, but Hitler denied this, which could have been crippling to the Russians at the time. Like I say it is used today extensively by commanders as the bvest examples of a counter stroke. There is much even today to learn about WW2 but you off simplistic views to many of its outcomes Quill. There is no denying the blood the Russians spilt in people and the sacrifice they gave or the great encirclement battles they used later in the war. None of which would have been possible without the lend-lease trucks etc needed for such fast moving encirclement battles.

You have lost sight of the question. Apparently, you were saying that the British and American merchant seamen were of greater significance than the entire Russian Army, and I have to question that. While you are at it, how about the workers who built the tanks and aircraft? How much greater was their contribution than the seamen?

Please straighten out your argument. Don't throw in more jibberisih. Let's go one argument at a time. How much greater was the contribution of the British and American merchant navies than the Russian Army and how do you measure it?

Sorry Quill you are offering a poor argument so lets look at the counter offensive in December, which needed amoured tanks etc. We know around 40 percent were British tanks and that the USSR tank force was down to around 650 tanks, that means 260 of them were British for the counter offensive. Could the Russias have pulled off such an offensive with only around 390 tanks, let alone more British tanks were coming into the picture from more convoys? I am not claiming any significane to the sacrifice of men that was lost in stemming the German advance. I stating that without this armoured support, it is very possible the counter offensive could have failed, being as it did not achieve its aims anyway.

Look if you are not going to be serious about this debate, do not waste my time Quill with poor deflections. As I am giving you high details of the actual events then. You have yet to take on any points and are now offering me poor deflections. You have to prove that the Russians could have stemmed or placed the Germans on the back foot in 1941 without the added British Armour and warplanes. Its no good skipping around this and how crucial this military help was for the Russian. At every turn you have avoided this where near half its tank force would have been reduced without this British aid.

In total thoughout the conflict over 22,000 armoured vehicles were supplied to the Red Army from the allies. This is about 20 percent of the actual total armoured vehicles that made up the USSR forces in WW2. That is quite significant which without you are talking one fith less which could have made all the difference in key offensive and defensive battles. Over 14,000 Fighter Aircraft were sent to the Russians, this made up 20 perceent of their aircraft throughtout the conflict. Again one fifth is a huge amount not to have in key conflicts. The biggest contribution was trucks and jeeps over 400,000 from the US alone, which made up a third of their mobility to carry out the massive encirclement battles which would have been very difficult without. There is no need for me to even go into materials that also helped the Russian industry. So I am afraid to say I am giving you plenty of evidence that the Russians may have sacrificed greatly in personal but they benefited greatly from allied supplies which was crucial which without is possible they would not have defeated the Germans, edpcially in the first crucial years of 1941 and 1942. There is no doubt without this military equipment which I have not even gone into many other supplies provided that the USSR would have struggled greatly even further and may have lost to Germany.

I don't see the problem here, the Allies won the war, each and every country,
all the fighting men, all the merchant marine and all the civilians affected did their part, it may well have been a different outcome had possibly any one of the countries or armed sections or civilians not done what was required to the best of their numerical, economic orcommanders prowess. Some had numerical superiority, some had fewer boots on the ground but fought as well as anyone, some had economic superiority, and actually madde money, others put their all into it and came out practically broke, lets not disrespect anyone for their input, each and everyone did what they were capable of at the time - all contributed.

Vintage wrote:I don't see the problem here, the Allies won the war, each and every country,
all the fighting men, all the merchant marine and all the civilians affected did their part, it may well have been a different outcome had possibly any one of the countries or armed sections or civilians not done what was required to the best of their numerical, economic orcommanders prowess. Some had numerical superiority, some had fewer boots on the ground but fought as well as anyone, some had economic superiority, and actually madde money, others put their all into it and came out practically broke, lets not disrespect anyone for their input, each and everyone did what they were capable of at the time - all contributed.

I agree they all did their part and this all stemed off some poor comments made in regards to basically dismissing the crucial help that the merchant navy provided. When as seen it was in the end very crucial. Again I am taking nothing away from the brilliance of some of the Russian commanders and the sacrifice made by many of its personnel. The views made about the help of the Merchant Navy were poor and needed to be addressed to show how significant they were.

If proof is needed regarding the merchant marine The Russians to this day have a hearty welcome and great respect for anyone who served in the Artic convoys and had a medal made for those who served. I believe some received them before the Iron curtain came down and some or their families are receiving them now. A local man who is in his nineties recently received his along with a very cordial thank you from the Russian people.

Vintage wrote:If proof is needed regarding the merchant marine The Russians to this day have a hearty welcome and great respect for anyone who served in the Artic convoys and had a medal made for those who served. I believe some received them before the Iron curtain came down and some or their families are receiving them now. A local man who is in his nineties recently received his along with a very cordial thank you from the Russian people.

Excatly and even the Russians themselves admit to how vital the help was provided and given.
Everyone certainly played their part and I just think the merchant Navy do not get the deserved credit they are certainly due.

I agree Vintage. But didge is out to minimize the contribution of the Russian Army, and I don't get it.

How do you quantify such a claim? That's all I'm asking.

Original Quill wrote:I agree Vintage.  But didge is out to minimize the contribution of the Russian Army, and I don't get it.

How do you quantify such a claim?  That's all I'm asking.

Which shows you have not understood a single point and hey ho that seems to be the end of this debate I guess.
The point made was how crucial that effort was and the supplies being crucial to the battles they were needed in.
You brought this about based on your poor somments in regards to the Merchant Navy. I have stated many times I am not taking anything away from the brilliance of the Russian Commanders and the sacrifice of the men. Even the Russians now freely admit how crucial this aid was.

Night

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I agree Vintage.  But didge is out to minimize the contribution of the Russian Army, and I don't get it.

How do you quantify such a claim?  That's all I'm asking.

Which shows you have not understood a single point and hey ho that seems to be the end of this debate I guess.
The point made was how crucial that effort was and the supplies being crucial to the battles they were needed in.
You brought this about based on your poor somments in regards to the Merchant Navy. I have stated many times I am not taking anything away from the brilliance of the Russian Commanders and the sacrifice of the men. Even the Russians now freely admit how crucial this aid was.

Night

You seem to be going to great lengths to minimize the efforts of the Russian Army.

When you get into that kind of discussion, you have got to support your claims. You are a good list maker, didge. But you are not very good at analysis. It's a different kind of claim and requires different proof.

Get into this with tommy all the time, too.

Poor excuses Quill, you have been given plenty and not going to waste my time any further when you are just stalling now.

So all the best but the new me is not going to go around in circles. You avoided most of the tactical and strategic points I have made throughout.

So again all the best but you have now made this now about point scoring about each other, which is tedious.

Cheers hope you have fun and catch you tomorrow

The contribution of the Artic Convoys and the men who sailed these ships should never be underestimated and I don't think anyone is trying to do that. They supplied milions of tons and equipment to help the Russian Army to hold back the German advances preventing them from penetrating even deeper into Russia making it a long way back. They made a difference and that is the point.
These men, British, American, Canadian and Russian sailed these ships with nothing to defend themselves other than a naval warship scurrying around trying to look after them.The ships then were nothing like the ocean going vessels we see today. They laboured along fully laden in freezing conditions where the crew had to keep the ice from forming on the decks and the upper-structure to stop making the vessel unstable. In winter it was dark almost all day. They deserve all the recognition they eventually got.
Never forget what they did and that won't happen because Edinburgh lad Gavin Tiffin is currently engaged in a fund raising effort for children in our hospitals and he's tied it in with the Artic Convoy memorial which will be unvieled in Saint Petersburg early next month.
You can read up about Gavin here...

http://www.victorydaylondon.co.uk/

Hats off to Gavin - he deserves an medal as well doesn't he?

Didge wrote:So all the best but the new me is not going to go around in circles. You avoided most of the tactical and strategic points I have made throughout.

I'm not saying you are going around in circles. I'm saying you are living in fantasyland. I'm as much a chauvinist for my country as anyone, but to say the British merchant navy contributed more to winning WWII than the Russian Army is pure folly.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:So all the best but the new me is not going to go around in circles. You avoided most of the tactical and strategic points I have made throughout.

I'm not saying you are going around in circles.  I'm saying you are living in fantasyland.  I'm as much a chauvinist for my country as anyone, but to say the British merchant navy contributed more to winning WWII than the Russian Army is pure folly.

In men sacrificed definately the Russians contributed moreand in tactics, skill on the battlefield etc, but theMerchant Navy certainly provided the crucial equipment needed to carry out battles. They had to run the guantlet of U-boat attacks, survace vessels and Aircraft attacks.  We are talking about a substanical amount of resources that was crucial to helping Russia in the end win. Even more so this equipment was vital when Russia was close to defeat. The point is could have Russia have stemmed or defeated thw Germans before Moscow without this badly needed equipment?
That is down to you to argue that they could have still done so, so over to you.