Who was more effective against Germany, Western Front or Eastern Front?

Sorry for missing you're posts,i did not see it.
Sorry,i should have said Stalin and not Russia
Don't worry about people alaways bring up Stalin being evil,i get it alot cause what nazi's did,germans are bad and all that,we both moan togather LOL.

Well how about the britons contribution in 1939-late 1941? Does that not matter at all!
Briton by herself fighting against the early might and power of the German army,while Russia frought the Weaken german army with America and Briton backing Russia up!
I'm sure if briton had russia and America in 1939-1942,briton would have been had alot more impact aswell!

No doubt that Russia was a major part of the Allies and sufferd alot too but the Russians did have it a bit easier than Briton did years earlier,please don't get me wrong and i am sorry for bringing Russian politics in to it.

All what i have stated must have some impact on the answer to the title thread!

I won't debate this for a couple of days,cause members will get sick of me

Cheers.

 

I am trying my best to keep this thread on topic lol.
Yes,i can be a pain in the but by arguing,and yes it was hush to say that kind of things about Russia.
I to get it all the time that germans and nazi are bad,i am in his situation!So i undertsand how he is feeling after my comments,deeply sorry.

Anyhows,I never had said Russia was not a major Allie at all,i have always seen Russia after 1941,that Russia became a major Allie,but what the problem is that members are forgetting about Britons war effort and how effective it was,i explain in my post before.and this is what the thread title is about.

 

Who's him? Im the Russian one!

Heidi I dont think any member here has forgotten GB's contribution to the war.

 

Opps-So you are the Russian! glad we got that sorted out.

 

Heidi I am sorry for being mean if that is how you took it. I had a ancestor die defending Moscow and another who made it to Berlin. Wish i could have met either one of them. I don't know much about that part of my family because all I know of them is via email and Russians are seemingly a private people.

 

Two very wrong points there Heidi,

First, By no means did the Soviet Union face a weaker German army; they faced Germany's best men and best Generals all the way up until 1945! Operation Barbarossa involved the best divisions that Germany could field as well as almost the entire Luftwaffe against them.

Second, Britain had it easy compared to USSR; the Brits were fighting an air war on their own Turf so they had the advantage of friendly AA to help them as well as increasingly better planes, as well as the fact of having one of the worlds top navies. The USSR had to build a massive portion of their army all over again as they had lost so many men at the border but yet still fought on! Not to mention that Germans were doing regular "purges" of the local populace. It was a miracle that they did what they did; it is merely that we were born and raised in "Western-influence" countries so we are told more about Allies then that of the Soviets.

 

If you think about it what the Soviet Union overcame was literally amazing and when I learned that I had relatives who were part of it I was very proud of it.

 

I'd like to point out Heidi has thus far remained always reasonable and willing to understand her academic errors wherever they are pointed out to her. Let's continue to remain eloquent, gentlemen.

I realise points about the lend lease program have passed since I've been in here, but just wanted to bring one consideration to bare, which is consistently overlooked when this discussion is brought up.
Now, if one is simply arguing patriotically for the role of the US in the war then please disregard this post, but if an apolitical scholar then there is a vitally important distinction to be made for prosperity.

US lend lease came through Turkey and Vladivostok. Not much came through Turkey, it was a difficult journey and a comparative trickle. Just about everything that came in from Vladivostok was stockpiled because of the Siberian railway. It required rebuilding as it hadn't been touched since the revolution.
US engineers and railway building equipment were sent for this purpose. To get the lend lease materiel to where it was needed from the ports. This was why railway equipment and locomotives are on the lend lease too.

According to Soviet documentation, as patchy as it is, late in 1942 American lend lease equipment was starting to get used, mostly trucks, P40s and some light tanks. Up until this time however British lend lease through Murmansk and Arkangelisk had been far and away more significant, both for its earlier start (within weeks of the invasion the first convoys arrived), and also due to the sporadic nature and stockpiling necessary of the American trade routes.

But this doesn't change the way documentation records sent lend lease equipment. It doesn't matter if 1000tons are used, if 1 million tons are sent and 780000 received at port, that is what goes down in the books.

According to Soviet and German documentation, the genuine benefits of Soviet lend lease from the Americans, specifically were truly felt during the Kuban in mid43. Crimean based Germans noted American vehicles had made Soviet infantry suddenly far more mobile than they should've been and attribute several losses to this factor alone. Meanwhile both Luftwaffe and VVS cite the strong presence of American lend lease aircraft (most particularly the Airacobra among guards regiments), which would've been absent without lend lease.

To be perfectly clear the pivotal battles of 1943 which sent Germany packing all the way back to Berlin would've been impossible without US lend lease support. But it is equally important to note that this was not a telling factor until this time and that its pivotal period was short lived and quite regional, production from the Ural factories were already hitting new heights during 1943 and such that the primary equip of all Soviet forces on the battlefield from 1944 was Soviet. That's not to say American and British equipment did not have a presence, and I do not in any way wish to bely the tremendous assistance other war materiel mentioned continued to provide.

 

I apologized to her via pm.

 

Not quite. Depending on how they are calculated China may actually have suffered more.

 

Would it? I'm not at all convinced.

 

I wasn't aware of a LL route through Turkey. I do know that there were routes through Iran and Murmansk as well.

 

I don't believe the term Turkey is correct. There was a route, late in the war that went through the Dardenelles and the Black Sea bound for Soviet ports on the north shore of same.

That route may be called that somewhere, but in general it was referred to as the Black Sea route. This may have required Turkish permission to pass however, so that may be the source of the title (?).

Here is a link to the routes used, the heavier the line the more cargo went on that route:

http://www.o5m6.de/Routes.html

As you can see that one through the Med., and into the Black sea is one of the "thinnest" L-L routes.

 

being an island,would not that make it harder for briton to attack and fight germany than being joined to up to europe and germany?
Would not be harder for briton to take all of there tanks, men and other land equitment over the sea?
Clearly in past plan battles,it was so difficult for Briton and germany to deploye there army over seas.
That's what i don't understand!How is it easier that way for briton?
Other wise i see were you are comming from with the sea and navy aspects.

 

Im sorry lwd, but no matter how you calculate the devastation, Russia was hit worse.

 

There really is no reason to debate this. I was simply making a point to another member who stated that with out Britain the war would be lost, I just turned the tables.

 

The problem with figuring out China's loss of life is two fold. First, the records are spotty at best since a full census had not been taken during the years of internal civil war between the Nationalists and the Communists before the Japanese invaded.

Second, the number of Chinese dead is difficult to pin on an external foe when Chinese are killing their fellow Chinese at the same time they are fighting the Japanese. Then to top it off, each side would blame the other side for the deaths, or they would blame the Japanese if they themselves were responsible.

Too muddled a can of worms to ever get a real handle on in China, but then there are "high and low" number schools in the Soviet loss numbers and which were Stalin's fault and which were just the outcome of the war and not intentional as well. But no matter which numbers one takes, they are still horrendous in their scope.

 

Similar things can be said about calculating the Soviet casualties. Indeed some of the estimates take the prewar population and project it to post war and then subtract the actual post war population from that number to get the Soviet "losses". Since both numbers are not very firm and are of the same order of magnitude it is really difficult to say which was greater with any certainty. Even the time period take is open for debate.