Text 15337, 146 rader
Skriven 2005-10-31 15:48:13 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
     Kommentar till en text av FRANK SCHEIDT
Ärende: Re: American War Help
=============================
Frank,
 
> I don't think so.  They did a fine job of soaking up German
> ammunition.  Remember this:  It took the Red Army two *years* to
> cover the same ground the Germans did in *one-half* year ... and
> *that* was only because the US had entered the war ...
 
I think you are honest in your remarks and not just a troublemaker. So let me
offer the following clarification.
 
From 1936 through 1939 Stalin organised a purge among the Russian officers.
About 4 out of 5 were shot because they were deemed to be enemies of the
Communist cause. That includes 3 or 4 of the 5 Marshalls. Technically he
wiped-out as good as his complete general staff because "they were not good
communists".
 
By 1940 that left the Russian army completely understaffed with very young
untrained and unprepared officers in charge. There was no overal Russian
command-structure either anymore and decisions/planning often had to be
taken/performed locally without the intelligency needed for them.
 
When the Nazis invaded Russia, the Russians had a superior force of armor for
example, like 3 times as many tanks. But nobody was in charge of logistics so
in many cases tanks went into battle, drove the Nazi-forces back, and when they
ran out of fuel the tanks were abandoned and the Nazis advanced again. In
troops the number was about equal, in aircraft the Russians had more but they
made the same mistake as the Americans did at Pearl Harbour ... they were
neatly lined-up and the Nazis had a field-day destroying the Russian air-force.
 
Let us not forget that in Stalin uncle Adolph nearly had a twin ... also a
dictator, also a military incompetent, also a ridiculous ideology. Stalin had
trusted Hitler, when the Nazis amassed troops and supplies close to the Russian
border Nazi-officials said it was to get them out of range of the British
bombers, Stalin bought it and ordered not to shoot-down the several hundred
reconnaissance flights the Nazis were conducting over Russia as far as the
Ural. The signs were very clear but not to Stalin.
 
So when the Nazis marched into Russia, the Russians were completely unprepared,
which explained the rapid advance.
 
The Nazis also had an ideology which stated they needed "Lebensraum", meaning
space to live. The plan was take all the food Russia could produce, starve the
population to death and replace it by ethnic Germans to create a Great German
nation. In the process millions and millions innocent Russian civilians were
murdered and starved to death.
 
> Belgium was occupied in 1939-40.
 
Belgium was attacked on May 10th 1940, not 1939.
 
> The Russian "Eastern Front" for
> Germany didn't begin until June 1941.
 
The build-up of a force in the east however began as soon as the advancing
troops in the west reached the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea.
 
> WD> When the Americans moved-in girls could not be left on the streets
> WD> anymore because there were gang-rapes all-over, there was murder,
> WD> criminality, thieving, black-marketeering ... all by Americans.
 
> So?  What did that have to do with the massive contribution the
> US made to winning the war.
 
Merely explaining the apprehension that some people have towards the US.
 
> BTW there was a great deal of
> exaggeration of "rape" during those frantic times.
 
On the countrary, reading the old local papers from those days one can read the
stories. The city of Antwerp alone had over a thousand registered pregnancies
by young girls as a result of American rape. There was a baby-boom 9 months
after they passed-through ...
 
The same problems still exist when naval-units of NATO enter port. I lived for
about 30 years at exactly the dock where these units always moored, I saw what
I saw ... also fighting, stabbing, MP's running all over the place etc...
always American personnel, never the Brits, never Canadians, never Spaniards,
never French...
 
> No disrespect to your late mother but her story may have been
> exaggerated a bit ... [sigh] ... surely if her story were
> accurate (WRT rapes, other criminality, etc.) I would have heard
> of it from the many guys I knew who served in the European Theater.
 
My guess is they would have shut-up about it as much as they could, nothing
honourable in it.
 
There have been many TV-programmes here about kids fathered by American
military personel. When they went searching for their biological fathers they
were almost always met with hostility like "How dare you intrude into the life
of a law-abiding American citizen, war hero and father of 3-4 fine American
kids". I'm pretty certain such programmes "never" make it overthere.
 
> -- *all* invading armies are guilty of such acts --
 
Hey ... we were not being "invaded" ... we were being "liberated" ... there's a
difference.
 
> In the *Pacific*?!?!?!  What did they do there other than stab
> the Japs in the back after the war was essentially over?
 
[about Russians]
 
I said that all the Russian-losses were more than the losses of all other
parties combined, including the European and Pacific theatre.
 
> I don't think so.  The Russians later acknowledged that -- after
> the fall of Communism, of course.
 
That's bridging to the future, a mere political statement. What the convoys did
was deliver a number of essentials to keep the Russian military-effort afloat.
 
You have to be realistic ... with one or maximum 2 convoys a week (but usually
just one) of let's say 50 freighters each carrying 10,000 tonnes (that is a
gross exageration, usually that was only half as evidenced by the U-boat logs
where victories were claimed) then a convoy would carry 500,000 tonnes of goods
"a week", assuming there were no losses ... for the needs of Russia that is a
drop on a hot plate. Please be reasonable.
 
The convoy-help assured that the enormous industrial potential of Russia had
some time to start-up, but once it was going the convoys lost in importance.
 
> Of course the Russians didn't just sit down and accept the German
> invasion.  However without American supplies they'd have been
> beaten.
 
There is no way that in a conventional war you can beat Russia ... look at a
map what size it has ... there is no way an invader can generate the troops
necessary to cover such an area. It's the same with the US ... in a
conventional war you cannot beat the US ... it is too big ... and both
countries when given some leeway have such a potential that they'll always be
able to mount a decisive counter-strike.
 
> I've *never* read that.  And don't forget, the current American
> "news"media are strongly anti-American.  They tend to exaggerate
> everything which makes America look bad.
 
Duh? ... I'm surprised at that. My impression is that when the going gets
tough, America one way or the other unites.
 
Take care,
 
 \%/@rd

--- DB 1.89sl/100000
 * Origin: "Leonard will be free" - http://www.leonardpeltier.org (2:292/854)