"Yes, Wikipedia gives a different result, and so do the top ten results on Google.

I'm sure some Russian historian can cook the books when needed."

You're right, google + wikipedia beats peer reviewed scholarly work by a historian going through the archives any day.

Peer reviewed my ass...

I've lived and still live in the area, if you're an American then, I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to USSR or RUS.

What exactly are we arguing about anyway?

You're the guy who said the famine took place in 1936 and that Ukraine comprised 80% of all Soviet agricultural production, and to top it all off said that Hitler was less brutal?

У тебя нет убедительности.

I may not remember the exact year, does not mean it didn't happen :)

Yes, Hitler was less brutal. He was crazy, Stalin was not.

One's mental health has nothing to do with how we judge their level of brutality. Hitler was genocidal and condoned and even ordered experimentation on those he considered lower than even the lowliest stray dog.

What evidence does anyone have that he was crazy, in real psychological terms? Is evil the same as crazy? Eichmann seemed like your average bureaucrat in temperament.

Interesting topic. :)

lets continue this in a lengthy game called life after death because they seem to still be living even though they are dead hitler and stalin that is

@ Putin

While I still hold to my belief that the USSR could not have survived without US support, you have made me question the objectivity of western historians, so good job. However, there are a few things I want to point out.

You claim that the fighter planes mentioned previously were not top of the line. Well, thats not our fault. Since the US government wasn't purchasing those models and the USSR was, the USSR was highly involved in the planning and production stages of the aircraft, and many changes were made due to recommendations by Soviet test pilots. The end product was in essence , Soviet designed, American built.

You say that the aid that did come from lend-lease came after it was really needed. This is true, but put it in perspective. The one Soviet port we shipped goods through -Murmansk - was ice bound for part of the year. The USSR wasn't officially cleared for lend lease until November 1941. And above all, by 1943, USA was providing lend-lease with almost $1 billion of goods a month, compared to $600 million in all of 1941, most of which was not war material. It just takes time to re-tool factories, test designs, and ramp up production.

You also claim that the USSR received no guns from the Americans. Again false. "The Russian offensive which drove the Germans out of White Russia and a large part of the Ukraine was aided by thousands of guns, planes, tanks, trucks, and other items provided by us." I am not saying that we produced the majority of Russia's guns - we produced less than 10% - but to say that we produced none is a lie.

Not only that, but "we have also provided machine tools and other equipment to help the Russians manufacture their own planes, guns, shells, and bombs." So, we helped you make your own stuff. Stalin says it best, I believe, "Premier Joseph Stalin, in a toast at a dinner party at the Teheran Conference in ate October 1943, declared, “Without American machines the United Nations never could have won the war.” In addition to machines, we also gave the USSR over 3 million tons of food, something that's kinda significant.

On another note, you were disputing the importance of our victories over Germany in North Africa. Well, in addition to GB losing its major connection with India, if Suez had fallen into German hands, the way would have been open for Germany to push into the Iraqi and Iranian oilfields which fueled *each* of the allies war efforts and was a major supply route to the USSR.

Alright, last thing, sorry to keep this so long. I just want to add that I believe the mayor of Leningrad offered the city's surrender and hitler stubbornly refused and laid siege to it instead, tying down several hundred thousand German troops while letting several hundred thousand Russian troops live to fight another day.

My sources, as I knew you are going to ask, are the encyclopedia britannica, wikipedia (for the P-63, it had a valid scholarly citation though) and mostly from
http://www.historians.org/projects/giroundtable/Lend_Lease/LendLease2.htm
The last one is the website of the american historians association, and the source is primary documents - pamphlets distributed by the US government in 1944, before the USSR was our enemy. the disclaimer says figures may not be current ones.

Both are excellent leaders in their own cultures.
I'd have Stalin as leader. He seems like a nice guy. He did what he did inspired of good will. I don't know about Hitler though.

,Mr. Goldfinger,

My response.

1-The planes were lent to the Soviets, not sold, so it's not like the Soviets were choosing which planes they were getting. The P-39s in particular, were thought to be of shoddy quality by both the British and the USAAF. The former rejected their use after one test. It's hard to claim their poor quality was the result of Soviet design. These planes were only good for ground support.

2-I don't dispute the points about Murmansk (the sailors who shipped supplies were heroic) or the slowness of getting Lend Lease up and running. That pretty much buttresses my point.

3-While machines and food were helpful, the question is was Lend Lease essential to Soviet survival, which you claim it was. Since it arrived too late for the critical period in which the Germans were at the gates of Moscow, I don't see how you could say it was.
The quote by Stalin, I've seen it in the NYT, that could be a matter of a grateful leader showing his gratitude for the support given. Obviously you want to be nice to people who give you stuff.

4- I did not mean to imply that the Soviets were given "zero" weapons. But it was claimed that the Soviets were well armed because of Lend Lease. I was pointing out Soviet domestic production surpassed German, so none of that has anything to do with Lend Lease. The point is the Soviets did not rely on weapons from Lend Lease.

5-Soviet oilfields in Baku and Grozny would have provided more than enough oil for the Germans. As it were, the Germans got much of their oil from captured Soviet oilfields and Romania. Also, if they wanted Iraqi oil why didn't they send a boatload of aid to the pro-Nazi coup in 1941? It's not as if that was out of the question, since Vichy France controlled Syria nearby. The German involvement in North Africa had much more to do with bailing out the Italians than their own strategy, why did the Afrika Korps go to North Africa to begin with? Had the Germans wanted the Mediterranean, they would have been there much sooner. Malta was undefended in 1940, etc. They didn't appear until the Italians got routed from Egypt.

6-I have no idea what you're talking about re: "mayor" of Leningrad. Before the siege the entire city was mobilized for its defense by the Leningrad administration. The defense of Leningrad was presided over by the Chairman of the Russian SFSR himself.

Mr. Putin.

1- all I have to say is that while Soviets may not have had a choice, their test-pilots flew the planes and made suggestions that were implemented. I agree though that they were mainly ground-attack planes. I am sure the Soviets made their own fighters.

2-cool

3-I still believe the logistical help and especially the food and truck donations were essential, but as for donations of actual guns, tanks, ships, and planes -no, they probably were not essential. And I can agree with your interpretation of that quote

4-alright. I can agree with that too.

5- The only reason I can think of then for the germans to be in North Africa would then be to close the Suez canal. And I believe they had some agents working in Iraq, but not enough to make a difference. All I can say is stupid strategy moves both by the Italians and Germans. they had the potential to win quickly in the Med, but in hindsight didn't do the right stuff to win.

6- My apologies. I did some research and it appears my claim is wrong. It was from a book I read probably 6 years ago, so maybe I remembered incorrectly. So I concede to you here

Putin33: "What evidence does anyone have that he was crazy, in real psychological terms? Is evil the same as crazy? Eichmann seemed like your average bureaucrat in temperament."

I did some checking - as a student of psychology I'm curious about such things - and there is indeed no strong evidence showing that Adolf Hitler had any major psychological disorder, although there was history of such disorders in his family.

Source: Post, Jerrold M. (1999). "Hitler: Diagnosis of a destructive prophet". The New England Journal of Medicine, 340:1691-1692.

"All I can say is stupid strategy moves both by the Italians and Germans. they had the potential to win quickly in the Med, but in hindsight didn't do the right stuff to win."

That's for sure. Mussolini was probably the worst military strategist of the 20th century. Hitler should have just cut his losses.

Actually Italian war strategy was absolutely brilliant. they did more to bring down hitler by being an 'ally' than they would had they openly opposed him.

lol

fiedler +1

If you think the U.S. was the grand saviour of WWII, this visual map of casualties will reveal to you where the real fighting actually took place: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm

The map also shows how the Communist Chinese pretty much steered clear out of harms way and left the heavy lifting to the Nationalists (only to stab them in the back after being weakened by the war).

It's kind of hard to say the CCP stabbed the KMT in the back, since the KMT unleashed the White Terror, purges, and encirclement campaigns against CCP members who were in the KMT.

I agree with you about the heavy lifting though. Although after the war the KMT tried to use Japanese troops as garrisons against the Communists, and told the Japanese not to surrender to the CCP in Manchuria and elsewhere where there no Nationalists.

I mean, KMT generals had to kidnap Jiang Jieshi to get him to stop fighting the Communists and fight the Japanese. It's pretty clear who stabbed whom in the back.

Actually kind of surprising that there aren't more casualties put in the Philippines part of the map, since Manila was one of the bloodiest battles in Asia.

I didn't think Manila was all that bloody compared to tarawa, tinian, saipan, okinawa, or iwo jima

Okinawa and Iwo Jima - those were bloody battles.

The battles maybe not as much, but the Japanese slaughtered loads of civilians during it, possibly 100,000.