7 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Desperate stuff Jonny. You're better than that.

No he/she’s not “better than that”.

Yes, he/she’s flailing and desperate but remember the old saying: “never argue with an idiot …..”

On 1/26/2026 at 1:30 PM, Bannoi said:

The US our supposedly number one ally said it couldn't be done even tried to stop us if Trump was President he would probably have imposed 1000% tariffs. It wouldn't have mattered what anyone else said we would still have done gone. Three days after the Falklands were invaded a task force set sail.

The Russians our supposed enemy told the Argies you have made a big mistake and you're going to get your arse kicked.

Says something when your enemy holds you in greater regard and has more respect for you than your ally.

I remember 1982 well in was the year I retired from the army after 22 years.

In 1982 I worked a communications center in Panama. My 12 hour shifts became easily 15 hours after the Argentine invasion. Many teletypes to Whitehall. I saw the British freighter Atlantic Conveyor transit the Panama Canal on its way for modification to be a helicopter carrier. Our back channel intelligence activities skyrocketed in volume. I heard several Latino born American soldiers refer to the Malvinas. A previous assignment for us was to the NATO/OTAN communications center in Naples, Italy, that is, Allied Forces South. I learned that France was intensely involved in the military exercises. One customer was the French Military Mission. The French tried to game the system in which they used the Italian Post and Telegraph to send and receive telegrams. Distant end was a French Navy activity in Marseilles. They sent a service message in French stating the circuit was out of service. I pasted that to a sheet of A4 paper and added my own simple translation. I heard the French admiral was chewed out by Admiral Shear. I'm just reminiscing here.

6 hours ago, RayC said:

The British have never done much land fighting; we have always relied primarily on our naval superiority whether for defence or as an attacking force.

If the UK had surrendered in 1940, Germany would have been able to focus on defeating Russia. Germany would also most likely have withdrawn from its' pact with Japan at the same time - and almost certainly after Pearl Harbour - with the result that the US would not have entered the European theatre. Germany would have tightened the noose and effectively starved Russia of all resources. It may have taken a while but - other things being equal - Germany's superior organisation and resources (Russia's armaments were of poor quality) would have told in the end.

Rather like Trump re Afghanistan, you seemingly dismiss Allied losses in the Asian theatre as insignificant. Not only is this distasteful, it is incorrect. AI suggests that the US lost 111,606 combattrons in the war; the other Allies lost 28k. However, a further 35k+ POWs died, most of whom were Brits, Aussies, Kiwis or Dutch. If a distasteful pissing contest is going to be held, then it should be remembered that the number of losses (military and civilian) suffered by the Asian nations - especially China - during WW2 dwarf those of the Allies (including the US) with some sources putting the figure at over 25 million.

Britain not surrendering had nothing to do with anything during the first few years of the war as we did not do much, while 20 million Russian soldiers died fighting the Germans.

Britain was put to one side by the Germans to be dealt with later as it was no threat, we had left most of our equipment at Dunkirk after doing a runner.

Russia was far too vast to be starved, after a couple of years of fighting the Germans on their own the Russians had much superior numbers of tanks and aeroplanes and easily pushed the Germans back and affectively won the war in Europe one their own.

It was the Germans who ended up starving because as the Russians initially retreated to pull the Germans further and further into the country they burnt everything, leaving no food or shelter for the Germans, and the German supply lines were being stretch further and further as time went on, it was an impossible task to win.

The proof was... they did it.

Goering the Luftwaffe general in his usual way overstated he could easily supply the German troops, he failed miserably.

Re your silly comment about allied loses in Asia and the fact I dismissed the numbers as insignificant, making it distasteful is very strange seeing as you have made that up, I said the American paid dearly for their war in the East, read my comment again.

Around 300k Brits and 418k American soldiers lost their lives, 12 million Russians, plus 13 million Russian civilians killed.

28 minutes ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

Britain not surrendering had nothing to do with anything during the first few years of the war as we did not do much, while 20 million Russian soldiers died fighting the Germans.

The Russians were on the German side until 22 June 1941!

PS What about UK v Italy and Germany North Africa & Egypt etc?

3 minutes ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

Britain not surrendering had nothing to do with anything during the first few years of the war as we did not do much, while 20 million Russian soldiers died fighting the Germans.

It is simply untrue that "... during the first few years of the war ... we (the UK) did not do much" or that, " ... 20 million Russian soldiers died fighting the Germans" during this period.

In addition to the Battle of Britain there were significant naval battles e.g. Narvik, Juno, Mediterranean, etc.

Russia did not enter the war on the Allied side until June 1941.

Britain not surrendering had much to do with the resolve of Churchill (and the British people) and with Germany not pushing home its' advantage.

3 minutes ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

Britain was put to one side by the Germans to be dealt with later as it was no threat, we had left most of our equipment at Dunkirk after doing a runner.

Once again, you focus on the war on land and completely ignore the war in the air and at sea.

It was a huge strategic blunder for Germany not to concentrate its' efforts in pacifying the UK and also breaking the Molotov - Ribbentrop pact when it did.

3 minutes ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

Russia was far too vast to be starved, after a couple of years of fighting the Germans on their own the Russians had much superior numbers of tanks and aeroplanes and easily pushed the Germans back and affectively won the war in Europe one their own.

Russia was not too vast to be starved. It was neither self-sufficient in food or military resources but instead was heavily dependent on America (via Land Lease) for both. Without US support, the Red Army would have literally starved.

Russia was a important ally and was central to the defeat of Nazi Germany, but it is complete and utter nonsense to suggest that they effectively won the war in Europe on their own.

3 minutes ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

It was the Germans who ended up starving because as the Russians initially retreated to pull the Germans further and further into the country they burnt everything, leaving no food or shelter for the Germans, and the German supply lines were being stretch further and further as time went on, it was an impossible task to win.

The proof was... they did it.

Goering the Luftwaffe general in his usual way overstated he could easily supply the German troops, he failed miserably.

Yes, that is basically what happened but my point revolved around your ridiculous and simplistic implication that Russia single-handed won the war and that American and British efforts were no more than a "mopping up" exercise after the event.

3 minutes ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

Re your silly comment about allied loses in Asia and the fact I dismissed the numbers as insignificant, making it distasteful is very strange seeing as you have made that up, I said the American paid dearly for their war in the East, read my comment again.

I have made nothing up.

To casually dismiss the sacrifice made by other nations and imply - as you have done - that these sacrifices were unnecessary as Russia (in Europe) and the US (in Asia) would have prevailed anyway is distasteful.

I have illustrated that it is extremely unlikely that Russia would have prevailed on its' own and even if it is probably true that the US would win in the Asian theatre, that in no way diminishes the sacrifice made by the other Allies.

In summary, I find the whole tenor of your - and back on topic, Trump's - remarks on this topic, distasteful. They should not have been made.

3 minutes ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

Around 300k Brits and 418k American soldiers lost their lives, 12 million Russians, plus 13 million Russian civilians killed

A tragedy and a sacrifice that should always be remembered and honoured.

18 hours ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

Around 300k Brits and 418k American soldiers lost their lives, 12 million Russians, plus 13 million Russian civilians killed.

You are repeating the Russian Communist lie. Putin puts out a lie that the losses were all by the Russian people. Ethnic Russian losses amounted to a bit under 6 million, civilian and uniformed, largely because of incompetant and murderous leadership. Proportionaaly, Belarus suffered the most, losing 25% of its population, followed by Ukraine (16%) and Armenia (14%). Putin regards these people as Nedochelovek, a Russian version of Untermenschen.

On 1/28/2026 at 10:45 AM, RayC said:

It is simply untrue that "... during the first few years of the war ... we (the UK) did not do much" or that, " ... 20 million Russian soldiers died fighting the Germans" during this period.

In addition to the Battle of Britain there were significant naval battles e.g. Narvik, Juno, Mediterranean, etc.

Russia did not enter the war on the Allied side until June 1941.

Britain not surrendering had much to do with the resolve of Churchill (and the British people) and with Germany not pushing home its' advantage.

Once again, you focus on the war on land and completely ignore the war in the air and at sea.

It was a huge strategic blunder for Germany not to concentrate its' efforts in pacifying the UK and also breaking the Molotov - Ribbentrop pact when it did.

Russia was not too vast to be starved. It was neither self-sufficient in food or military resources but instead was heavily dependent on America (via Land Lease) for both. Without US support, the Red Army would have literally starved.

Russia was a important ally and was central to the defeat of Nazi Germany, but it is complete and utter nonsense to suggest that they effectively won the war in Europe on their own.

Yes, that is basically what happened but my point revolved around your ridiculous and simplistic implication that Russia single-handed won the war and that American and British efforts were no more than a "mopping up" exercise after the event.

I have made nothing up.

To casually dismiss the sacrifice made by other nations and imply - as you have done - that these sacrifices were unnecessary as Russia (in Europe) and the US (in Asia) would have prevailed anyway is distasteful.

I have illustrated that it is extremely unlikely that Russia would have prevailed on its' own and even if it is probably true that the US would win in the Asian theatre, that in no way diminishes the sacrifice made by the other Allies.

In summary, I find the whole tenor of your - and back on topic, Trump's - remarks on this topic, distasteful. They should not have been made.

A tragedy and a sacrifice that should always be remembered and honoured.

I was merely quoting the facts of what went on, you have been influenced by the propaganda around the time and the history being rewritten and the films produced just after the war or estimating what really went on.

The battles you mentioned were small in comparisons to the overall war effort in EUROPE.

And you have changed my original comment to the WW2 as a whole, I said what I said about Europe and then went on to say the Americans won WW2 in Asia almost single handedly and at a great loss.

So simple figures re Europe.

A simple non-propaganda set of genuine stats, no more to be said, the Russians had a 2 to 1 ratio of the equipment in use which allowed them to win the vast majority of the war in Europe against the Germans alone.

Number of Russian military fighters 34 million, Germans 18 million

The Red Army was fighting the full might of the German Army from mid-1941 until 1945, whereas substantial American and British ground combat in Europe didn’t begin until the Normandy invasion (June 1944) — nearly three years later

•  From 1941 to mid-1944, the only force consistently and heavily engaged in land battles against the German army in Europe was the Soviet Union. The German Army was tied up on the Eastern Front fighting them.  

•  British Army ground combat against Germany in Europe only became significant after June 1944, three years after Barbarossa.  

• American ground troops didn’t engage in large numbers on the Western Front until June 1944 (D-Day)— nearly three years after the Soviets began fighting Germany.  

• It’s true Britain fought in engagements like the Battle of Britain and various naval battles, and the U.S. and UK eventually became the major Western Allies. But from June 1941 until mid-1944, the only continuous, full-scale land war against the German Army was on the Eastern Front between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. British and Commonwealth forces were largely tied up in limited campaigns (North Africa, Greece, Crete, the Mediterranean), and American ground combat against Germany didn’t begin in earnest until D-Day in June 1944 — nearly three years after Barbarossa. In terms of sheer scope, intensity, and strategic impact, the Eastern Front was the main arena where Germany’s land army was worn down.

Category	Supplied By the Americans	Produced by the USSR	% from The Americans
Tanks & self-propelled guns	12,000	105,000	10%
Aircraft	14,800	157,000	9%
Trucks & jeeps	430,000	265,000	62%

On 1/28/2026 at 3:38 PM, Roadsternut said:

You are repeating the Russian Communist lie. Putin puts out a lie that the losses were all by the Russian people. Ethnic Russian losses amounted to a bit under 6 million, civilian and uniformed, largely because of incompetant and murderous leadership. Proportionaaly, Belarus suffered the most, losing 25% of its population, followed by Ukraine (16%) and Armenia (14%). Putin regards these people as Nedochelovek, a Russian version of Untermenschen.

This isn’t about Putin or modern politics — WWII casualty figures have been studied by historians across dozens of countries for decades. The Soviet Union’s war dead included Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Armenians, and many other nationalities. No serious historian says the losses were “only Russian,” and no serious historian says they were “mostly not Russian” either. The Soviet Union was a multi-ethnic state, and all its peoples suffered enormously under the German invasion.

The key historical point is that the USSR as a whole bore the brunt of the land war against Germany, regardless of modern national borders or current governments. Those losses were recorded, analysed, and debated long before Putin was in power. Turning WWII casualty history into a present-day political argument doesn’t change the scale of the Eastern Front or who was doing most of the fighting there.

WWII casualty research didn’t start in the Kremlin in 2000 — it’s been a field of international scholarship since the 1940s.

7 minutes ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

I was merely quoting the facts of what went on, you have been influenced by the propaganda around the time and the history being rewritten and the films produced just after the war or estimating what really went on.

The battles you mentioned were small in comparisons to the overall war effort in EUROPE.

And you have changed my original comment to the WW2 as a whole, I said what I said about Europe and then went on to say the Americans won WW2 in Asia almost single handedly and at a great loss.

So simple figures re Europe.

A simple non-propaganda set of genuine stats, no more to be said, the Russians had a 2 to 1 ratio of the equipment in use which allowed them to win the vast majority of the war in Europe against the Germans alone.

Number of Russian military fighters 34 million, Germans 18 million

The Red Army was fighting the full might of the German Army from mid-1941 until 1945, whereas substantial American and British ground combat in Europe didn’t begin until the Normandy invasion (June 1944) — nearly three years later

•  From 1941 to mid-1944, the only force consistently and heavily engaged in land battles against the German army in Europe was the Soviet Union. The German Army was tied up on the Eastern Front fighting them.  

•  British Army ground combat against Germany in Europe only became significant after June 1944, three years after Barbarossa.  

• American ground troops didn’t engage in large numbers on the Western Front until June 1944 (D-Day)— nearly three years after the Soviets began fighting Germany.  

• It’s true Britain fought in engagements like the Battle of Britain and various naval battles, and the U.S. and UK eventually became the major Western Allies. But from June 1941 until mid-1944, the only continuous, full-scale land war against the German Army was on the Eastern Front between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. British and Commonwealth forces were largely tied up in limited campaigns (North Africa, Greece, Crete, the Mediterranean), and American ground combat against Germany didn’t begin in earnest until D-Day in June 1944 — nearly three years after Barbarossa. In terms of sheer scope, intensity, and strategic impact, the Eastern Front was the main arena where Germany’s land army was worn down.

Category	Supplied By the Americans	Produced by the USSR	% from The Americans
Tanks & self-propelled guns	12,000	105,000	10%
Aircraft	14,800	157,000	9%
Trucks & jeeps	430,000	265,000	62%

I am influenced by propaganda but you are able to analyse things in a detached, objective manner? Yeah, right.

A case in point is that you, yet again, continue to focus on the land war and casually dismiss the war in the air and sea, plus events up until Russia joining the Allied effort in June 1941 as insignificant. They were anything but.

These are not facts but a scenario that, if it had occurred, then more likely than not it would have resulted in a Germany victory (I have stated most of this before but you are yet to offer a convincing counter argument)

1) Britain sues for peace in 1940

2) The Battle of Britain does not take place. Instead Germany repurposes British aircraft, naval vessels and land vehicles for its' own war effort, as well as requisitioning UK shipyards, munitions factories, etc for its own needs

3) The US does not enter the European theatre. Lend-lease does not happen, thus depriving Russia of vital supplies.

4) Germany and its' allies control all of Europe and its' surrounding waters with the exception of the Russian landmass. Germany controls Ukraine, thus depriving Russia of its biggest source of food.

5) Russia is surrounded on 3 sides. The open (Pacific/ Asian) side offers no respite as neither Japan nor the US will intervene on Russia's behalf.

Result: Russia is under blockage/ siege with no access to raw materials outside of its' homeland. Germany, under no threat of allied bombing, can devote its full attention to Russia.

Wrt to Russia's production. This AI search result puts a more nuanced context to the raw figures which you produced. Note the comment attributed to both Stalin and Khrushchev " ... that without American aid, they (Russia) would not have won the war".

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+components+did+the+us+supply+which+are+vital+for+the+russian+war+effort+in+ww2&client=ms-android-xiaomi-terr1-rso2&hs=ypFp&sca_esv=ccd4ef3e8288fb18&sxsrf=ANbL-n7YpJabNvAi32YQ3J8atwTAMnSYgw%3A1769701850964&udm=50&fbs=ADc_l-aN0CWEZBOHjofHoaMMDiKpaEWjvZ2Py1XXV8d8KvlI3o6iwGk6Iv1tRbZIBNIVs-6iDmwA0DfFNhZv1_cWDrH-jkdaxbH4qqTf6kDRAlykVUVmk0VPzZ4Sg9d9TGqpHPv7bWZpsiHwT0ojprZUKfEhIuMaV-wN5dWn377Gfn0TckHGaAf7ZhZh87B7ap6-C1Jo43QJD_vUvzTE3xD1rG-CIzVpSFyHPvpgR8tzsyEKR72aNo0&aep=1&ntc=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibm72RjbGSAxWeVEEAHbEKI14Q2J8OegQIEBAE&biw=392&bih=735&dpr=2.75&aic=0&mstk=AUtExfBpSuPllIurWO6lsmRa75NTkf_sdHzKV8-IKPJW2GKdiMryWoT-7EDsx1nWZNJBDftDqF3UqvEJDD0EjIbTMIAkXaw20X41-TPKxFMaJgtQGkJGbxVHzBE90n5DMOEl4mNlTPHXtZUEo9pxk_8iiz2EJHK2C4u0NrMxTux7eAkvK7EX8KTLyAa6FTotrvcISytOxGcqOw1whF-ZsqnTaq0H3qTpC6IQJxwVPxGKNbshpkYoPB_EbK397XnA6GGFYVB6MJ38FIo-lXGWaqIDwyD0wc2bCDsn3mM&csuir=1

Likely Outcome: Even allowing for the fact that the Eastern front was huge and that, initially at least, Russia was well-protected and could continue industrial production, it is inconceivable - if the UK had surrendered and 'Lend-Lease' had not been enacted - that Russia could have won the war single-handed as you imply. At worst (from Nazi Germany's perspective), it would taken years to break Russian resolve and, due to the enormous area, Germany might have had to fight an endless war against pockets of resistance.

12 hours ago, RayC said:

I am influenced by propaganda but you are able to analyse things in a detached, objective manner? Yeah, right.

A case in point is that you, yet again, continue to focus on the land war and casually dismiss the war in the air and sea, plus events up until Russia joining the Allied effort in June 1941 as insignificant. They were anything but.

These are not facts but a scenario that, if it had occurred, then more likely than not it would have resulted in a Germany victory (I have stated most of this before but you are yet to offer a convincing counter argument)

1) Britain sues for peace in 1940

2) The Battle of Britain does not take place. Instead Germany repurposes British aircraft, naval vessels and land vehicles for its' own war effort, as well as requisitioning UK shipyards, munitions factories, etc for its own needs

3) The US does not enter the European theatre. Lend-lease does not happen, thus depriving Russia of vital supplies.

4) Germany and its' allies control all of Europe and its' surrounding waters with the exception of the Russian landmass. Germany controls Ukraine, thus depriving Russia of its biggest source of food.

5) Russia is surrounded on 3 sides. The open (Pacific/ Asian) side offers no respite as neither Japan nor the US will intervene on Russia's behalf.

Result: Russia is under blockage/ siege with no access to raw materials outside of its' homeland. Germany, under no threat of allied bombing, can devote its full attention to Russia.

Wrt to Russia's production. This AI search result puts a more nuanced context to the raw figures which you produced. Note the comment attributed to both Stalin and Khrushchev " ... that without American aid, they (Russia) would not have won the war".

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+components+did+the+us+supply+which+are+vital+for+the+russian+war+effort+in+ww2&client=ms-android-xiaomi-terr1-rso2&hs=ypFp&sca_esv=ccd4ef3e8288fb18&sxsrf=ANbL-n7YpJabNvAi32YQ3J8atwTAMnSYgw%3A1769701850964&udm=50&fbs=ADc_l-aN0CWEZBOHjofHoaMMDiKpaEWjvZ2Py1XXV8d8KvlI3o6iwGk6Iv1tRbZIBNIVs-6iDmwA0DfFNhZv1_cWDrH-jkdaxbH4qqTf6kDRAlykVUVmk0VPzZ4Sg9d9TGqpHPv7bWZpsiHwT0ojprZUKfEhIuMaV-wN5dWn377Gfn0TckHGaAf7ZhZh87B7ap6-C1Jo43QJD_vUvzTE3xD1rG-CIzVpSFyHPvpgR8tzsyEKR72aNo0&aep=1&ntc=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibm72RjbGSAxWeVEEAHbEKI14Q2J8OegQIEBAE&biw=392&bih=735&dpr=2.75&aic=0&mstk=AUtExfBpSuPllIurWO6lsmRa75NTkf_sdHzKV8-IKPJW2GKdiMryWoT-7EDsx1nWZNJBDftDqF3UqvEJDD0EjIbTMIAkXaw20X41-TPKxFMaJgtQGkJGbxVHzBE90n5DMOEl4mNlTPHXtZUEo9pxk_8iiz2EJHK2C4u0NrMxTux7eAkvK7EX8KTLyAa6FTotrvcISytOxGcqOw1whF-ZsqnTaq0H3qTpC6IQJxwVPxGKNbshpkYoPB_EbK397XnA6GGFYVB6MJ38FIo-lXGWaqIDwyD0wc2bCDsn3mM&csuir=1

Likely Outcome: Even allowing for the fact that the Eastern front was huge and that, initially at least, Russia was well-protected and could continue industrial production, it is inconceivable - if the UK had surrendered and 'Lend-Lease' had not been enacted - that Russia could have won the war single-handed as you imply. At worst (from Nazi Germany's perspective), it would taken years to break Russian resolve and, due to the enormous area, Germany might have had to fight an endless war against pockets of resistance.

Just read the real facts again which I clearly laid out, if you can come up with another set of facts re numbers to counter what I said, then I am willing to listen , stop trying to rewrite history with your personal view of events.

Category	Supplied By the Americans	Produced by the USSR	% from The Americans
Tanks & self-propelled guns	12,000	105,000	10%
Aircraft	14,800	157,000	9%
Trucks & jeeps	430,000	265,000	62%

The Russians had the Germans beat before the Americans turned up in 1944, and the Brits came from under their desks and followed the Americans into Europe.

The American and the Brits were there to stop the Russians taking over the whole of Europe by meeting them after a bit of a hop skip and a jump in Berlin.

1 hour ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

Just read the real facts again which I clearly laid out, if you can come up with another set of facts re numbers to counter what I said, then I am willing to listen , stop trying to rewrite history with your personal view of events.

Category	Supplied By the Americans	Produced by the USSR	% from The Americans
Tanks & self-propelled guns	12,000	105,000	10%
Aircraft	14,800	157,000	9%
Trucks & jeeps	430,000	265,000	62%

1 hour ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

The Russians had the Germans beat before the Americans turned up in 1944, and the Brits came from under their desks and followed the Americans into Europe.

The American and the Brits were there to stop the Russians taking over the whole of Europe by meeting them after a bit of a hop skip and a jump in Berlin.

I supplied you with REAL data but you choose to ignore it. You also chose to ignore the statements made by Stalin and Khrushchev wrt the critical importance of the Lend-Lease programme.

I will play Devil's Advocate and make the assumption - impossible in practice - that Russia's production would have been unaffected by the absence of components supplied by the US. So Russia has 157,000 aircraft ready to take to flight. The only problem is that it does not have enough aviation fuel as 50% was supplied by the Lend- Lease programme. It's a similar story when it comes to food. Although US supplies amounted to only 2-3% of Russian calorific intake during WW2, it formed 20% of the Red Army's protein intake. A reduction in intake of this magnitude would have had a critical impact on the Red Army. Moreover, Imported food supplies were especially important during the winter of 42/42.

I am not trying to rewrite history. I have actually demonstrated that 1) the UK not surrendering in 1940 and 2) the US's Lend-Lease programme were essential milestones in the Allied victory. Without either of those events, Russian troops would not been in the position that they found themselves in 1944.

On 1/26/2026 at 8:44 PM, BarraMarra said:

You shouldnt call members liars TedG. The Truth could come back and bite your arse as can be seen on just 2 of the videos i posted there are many more most are American fails.

I am calling you people liars. The OP was talking about WW2 and looked up the data and proved you all wrong.

8 hours ago, RayC said:

I supplied you with REAL data but you choose to ignore it. You also chose to ignore the statements made by Stalin and Khrushchev wrt the critical importance of the Lend-Lease programme.

I will play Devil's Advocate and make the assumption - impossible in practice - that Russia's production would have been unaffected by the absence of components supplied by the US. So Russia has 157,000 aircraft ready to take to flight. The only problem is that it does not have enough aviation fuel as 50% was supplied by the Lend- Lease programme. It's a similar story when it comes to food. Although US supplies amounted to only 2-3% of Russian calorific intake during WW2, it formed 20% of the Red Army's protein intake. A reduction in intake of this magnitude would have had a critical impact on the Red Army. Moreover, Imported food supplies were especially important during the winter of 42/42.

I am not trying to rewrite history. I have actually demonstrated that 1) the UK not surrendering in 1940 and 2) the US's Lend-Lease programme were essential milestones in the Allied victory. Without either of those events, Russian troops would not been in the position that they found themselves in 1944.

My father was in the Royal Navy both before and during WW2 he spent most of the war escorting Atlantic & Russian convoys he even had a Russian medal.

He saw a lot of ships torpedoed and bombed and lost friends on those convoys.

My mother was Irish after I was born in 1941 he sent us to live with my grandparents in Ireland for the duration to escape the bombing.

He always had a high opinion of the Russians and was very pro Russia even after the war. I don't know what he would have made of Putin though.

9 hours ago, Bannoi said:

My father was in the Royal Navy both before and during WW2 he spent most of the war escorting Atlantic & Russian convoys he even had a Russian medal.

He saw a lot of ships torpedoed and bombed and lost friends on those convoys.

My mother was Irish after I was born in 1941 he sent us to live with my grandparents in Ireland for the duration to escape the bombing.

He always had a high opinion of the Russians and was very pro Russia even after the war. I don't know what he would have made of Putin though.

I am not trying to denigrate Russia, the Russian people's sacrifice or the Russian armed forces heroism during WW2, far from it. The overwhelming majority of historians recognise that an Allied victory would not have been possible without Russia and I have acknowledged that.

However, equally most historians suggest that both the UK's refusal to surrender in 1940/early '41 and the US's intervention via Lend-Lease were absolutely crucial to the outcome of the war. They are the only points which I am attempting to make.

On 1/30/2026 at 1:55 PM, RayC said:

I supplied you with REAL data but you choose to ignore it. You also chose to ignore the statements made by Stalin and Khrushchev wrt the critical importance of the Lend-Lease programme.

I will play Devil's Advocate and make the assumption - impossible in practice - that Russia's production would have been unaffected by the absence of components supplied by the US. So Russia has 157,000 aircraft ready to take to flight. The only problem is that it does not have enough aviation fuel as 50% was supplied by the Lend- Lease programme. It's a similar story when it comes to food. Although US supplies amounted to only 2-3% of Russian calorific intake during WW2, it formed 20% of the Red Army's protein intake. A reduction in intake of this magnitude would have had a critical impact on the Red Army. Moreover, Imported food supplies were especially important during the winter of 42/42.

I am not trying to rewrite history. I have actually demonstrated that 1) the UK not surrendering in 1940 and 2) the US's Lend-Lease programme were essential milestones in the Allied victory. Without either of those events, Russian troops would not been in the position that they found themselves in 1944.

My stats state clearly what actually happened, historians have said the same thing over and over, if you think that your version of history is true then you are disillusioned, there in no more for me to say as all the facts are there, I can not make it any clearer.

You will be telling me 2 +2 does not in fact equal four, it equals ten.

20 hours ago, RayC said:

I am not trying to denigrate Russia, the Russian people's sacrifice or the Russian armed forces heroism during WW2, far from it. The overwhelming majority of historians recognise that an Allied victory would not have been possible without Russia and I have acknowledged that.

However, equally most historians suggest that both the UK's refusal to surrender in 1940/early '41 and the US's intervention via Lend-Lease were absolutely crucial to the outcome of the war. They are the only points which I am attempting to make.

It did very little to help the Russians.

It did stop the UK from surrendering though due theAmericans feeding them.

The simple stats tells all, the USSSR produced over 90% of their own arms and supplies, they outnumbered the Germans in weapons and troops 2 to 1, the Americans has very few troops during the part of the war where the Russians were fighting, the Brits had hardly any active fighting, the Russians did it almost single handily themselves re defeating the Germans, simple facts.

Yes people can overplay the parts the British and Americans did in Europe, and someone can say Stalin said this or that as he played politics as politicians do but the facts are clear for all to see.

Category	Supplied By the Americans	Produced by the USSR	% from The Americans
Tanks & self-propelled guns	12,000	105,000	10%
Aircraft	14,800	157,000	9%
Trucks & jeeps	430,000	265,000	62%

20 hours ago, RayC said:

I am not trying to denigrate Russia, the Russian people's sacrifice or the Russian armed forces heroism during WW2, far from it. The overwhelming majority of historians recognise that an Allied victory would not have been possible without Russia and I have acknowledged that.

However, equally most historians suggest that both the UK's refusal to surrender in 1940/early '41 and the US's intervention via Lend-Lease were absolutely crucial to the outcome of the war. They are the only points which I am attempting to make.

True, in a way as if the UK had surrendered then the Russian would have taken over the whole of Europe if the Americans did not have an aircraft carrier to land on (England) in order to stop the Russians in Berlin, the was would indeed have a different outcome.

A deep dive bigger picture about how Trump has changed the USA - Europe (including UK) relationship. Trigger warning to maga folks.

9 hours ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

My stats state clearly what actually happened, historians have said the same thing over and over, if you think that your version of history is true then you are disillusioned, there in no more for me to say as all the facts are there, I can not make it any clearer.

You will be telling me 2 +2 does not in fact equal four, it equals ten.

7 hours ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

True, in a way as if the UK had surrendered then the Russian would have taken over the whole of Europe if the Americans did not have an aircraft carrier to land on (England) in order to stop the Russians in Berlin, the was would indeed have a different outcome.

7 hours ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

It did very little to help the Russians.

It did stop the UK from surrendering though due theAmericans feeding them.

The simple stats tells all, the USSSR produced over 90% of their own arms and supplies, they outnumbered the Germans in weapons and troops 2 to 1, the Americans has very few troops during the part of the war where the Russians were fighting, the Brits had hardly any active fighting, the Russians did it almost single handily themselves re defeating the Germans, simple facts.

Yes people can overplay the parts the British and Americans did in Europe, and someone can say Stalin said this or that as he played politics as politicians do but the facts are clear for all to see.

Category	Supplied By the Americans	Produced by the USSR	% from The Americans
Tanks & self-propelled guns	12,000	105,000	10%
Aircraft	14,800	157,000	9%
Trucks & jeeps	430,000	265,000	62%

The reality is that that Russian war-time leaders are on the record as stating that lend-lease was critical to victory in WW2, something you casually dismiss as 'polite diplomatic talk'. No doubt, you know that for a fact as well.

I have never questioned the data which you have posted or questioned what actually happened. I am not a fantasist living in some alternative universe. Of course, the UK did not surrender in 1940, of course lend-lease was enacted.

It is not my version of history. It is a counter-factual based on what could have happened if the UK had surrendered in 1940 and lend-lease had not subsequently been enacted. It is presented to show their crucial significance.

You have made no attempt to engage in debate and have simply receited ad naseum, "I have presented the facts" as though your very pronouncements should be seen as the definite word. That doesn't work with me nor historians who continue to debate these issues. If you are too arrogant, blinkered and stubborn to analyse an alternative view then that's your problem.

Anyway, I'm done here. It is pointless in me wasting any more time in continuing this discussion. But before I do, I'll leave a link to an historian who also has his own version of history.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-soviet-union-couldnt-have-won-world-war-2-without-andrew-wright-s4kcc

1 hour ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

My stats state clearly what actually happened, historians have said the same thing over and over, if you think that your version of history is true then you are disillusioned, there in no more for me to say as all the facts are there, I can not make it any clearer.

You will be telling me 2 +2 does not in fact equal four, it equals ten.

21 hours ago, RayC said:

The reality is that that Russian war-time leaders are on the record as stating that lend-lease was critical to victory in WW2, something you casually dismiss as 'polite diplomatic talk'. No doubt, you know that for a fact as well.

I have never questioned the data which you have posted or questioned what actually happened. I am not a fantasist living in some alternative universe. Of course, the UK did not surrender in 1940, of course lend-lease was enacted.

It is not my version of history. It is a counter-factual based on what could have happened if the UK had surrendered in 1940 and lend-lease had not subsequently been enacted. It is presented to show their crucial significance.

You have made no attempt to engage in debate and have simply receited ad naseum, "I have presented the facts" as though your very pronouncements should be seen as the definite word. That doesn't work with me nor historians who continue to debate these issues. If you are too arrogant, blinkered and stubborn to analyse an alternative view then that's your problem.

Anyway, I'm done here. It is pointless in me wasting any more time in continuing this discussion. But before I do, I'll leave a link to an historian who also has his own version of history.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-soviet-union-couldnt-have-won-world-war-2-without-andrew-wright-s4kcc

I have given you all the facts and it is pointless giving them to you a again, if you want to make 2 + 2 equal ten or have pointed me to an article which is incorrect then it is not my fault, live in your dream world full of propaganda. amateur history, and I will live in the real world.

9 hours ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

My stats state clearly what actually happened, historians have said the same thing over and over, if you think that your version of history is true then you are disillusioned, there in no more for me to say as all the facts are there, I can not make it any clearer.

You will be telling me 2 +2 does not in fact equal four, it equals ten.

7 hours ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

True, in a way as if the UK had surrendered then the Russian would have taken over the whole of Europe if the Americans did not have an aircraft carrier to land on (England) in order to stop the Russians in Berlin, the was would indeed have a different outcome.

7 hours ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

It did very little to help the Russians.

It did stop the UK from surrendering though due theAmericans feeding them.

The simple stats tells all, the USSSR produced over 90% of their own arms and supplies, they outnumbered the Germans in weapons and troops 2 to 1, the Americans has very few troops during the part of the war where the Russians were fighting, the Brits had hardly any active fighting, the Russians did it almost single handily themselves re defeating the Germans, simple facts.

Yes people can overplay the parts the British and Americans did in Europe, and someone can say Stalin said this or that as he played politics as politicians do but the facts are clear for all to see.

Category	Supplied By the Americans	Produced by the USSR	% from The Americans
Tanks & self-propelled guns	12,000	105,000	10%
Aircraft	14,800	157,000	9%
Trucks & jeeps	430,000	265,000	62%

The reality is that Russian war-time leaders are on the record as stating that lend-lease was critical to victory in WW2, something you casually dismiss as essentially 'polite diplomatic talk'. No doubt, you know that for a fact as well.

I have never questioned the data which you have posted or questioned what actually happened. I am not a fantasist living in some alternative universe. Of course, the UK did not surrender in 1940, of course lend-lease was enacted.

It is not my version of history. It is a counter-factual based on what could have happened if the UK had surrendered in 1940 and lend-lease had not subsequently been enacted. It is presented to show their crucial significance.

You have made no attempt to debate this counter-factual and have simply receited ad naseum, "I have presented the facts" as though your very pronouncements should be seen as the definite word. That doesn't work with me nor historians who continue to debate the importance of the UK not surrendering in 1940 and of the lend-lease programme. If you are too arrogant, blinkered and stubborn to acknowledge that debate then that's your problem.

Anyway, I'm done here. It is pointless in me wasting any more time in continuing this discussion. But before I do, I'll leave a link to an historian who also has his own version of history.

Why the Soviet Union Couldn’t have Won World War 2 Withou...

The Soviet Union did more than any power to defeat Nazi Germany in World War 2. It fought the majority of the German army, with its European allies, for most of the conflict while the Western Allies f

Just now, JamesPhuket10 said:

I have given you all the facts and it is pointless giving them to you a again, if you want to make 2 + 2 equal ten or have pointed me to an article which is incorrect then it is not my fault, live in your dream world full of propaganda. amateur history, and I will live in the real world.

Why is that article incorrect? It states facts and interprets them. And therein lies the problem: Within the context of a discussion about the events of WW2, there are multiple facts and multiple ways of interpreting them and therefore multiple opinions. Your interpretation of events is not a fact; it is your (and others) opinion. I (and others) have a different opinion.

You are clearly incapable of recognising this distinction and, by extension, are therefore incapable of engaging in rational debate which is what intelligent people do in the real world.

5 minutes ago, RayC said:

The reality is that Russian war-time leaders are on the record as stating that lend-lease was critical to victory in WW2, something you casually dismiss as essentially 'polite diplomatic talk'. No doubt, you know that for a fact as well.

I have never questioned the data which you have posted or questioned what actually happened. I am not a fantasist living in some alternative universe. Of course, the UK did not surrender in 1940, of course lend-lease was enacted.

It is not my version of history. It is a counter-factual based on what could have happened if the UK had surrendered in 1940 and lend-lease had not subsequently been enacted. It is presented to show their crucial significance.

You have made no attempt to debate this counter-factual and have simply receited ad naseum, "I have presented the facts" as though your very pronouncements should be seen as the definite word. That doesn't work with me nor historians who continue to debate the importance of the UK not surrendering in 1940 and of the lend-lease programme. If you are too arrogant, blinkered and stubborn to acknowledge that debate then that's your problem.

Anyway, I'm done here. It is pointless in me wasting any more time in continuing this discussion. But before I do, I'll leave a link to an historian who also has his own version of history.

Why the Soviet Union Couldn’t have Won World War 2 Withou...

The Soviet Union did more than any power to defeat Nazi Germany in World War 2. It fought the majority of the German army, with its European allies, for most of the conflict while the Western Allies f

Why is that article incorrect? It states facts and interprets them. And therein lies the problem: Within the context of a discussion about the events of WW2, there are multiple facts and multiple ways of interpreting them and therefore multiple opinions. Your interpretation of events is not a fact; it is your (and others) opinion. I (and others) have a different opinion.

You are clearly incapable of recognising this distinction and, by extension, are therefore incapable of engaging in rational debate which is what intelligent people do in the real world.

You said, "You are clearly incapable of recognising this distinction and, by extension, are therefore incapable of engaging in rational debate which is what intelligent people do in the real world."

My answer is would you consider someone who has a Masters degree from Oxford University in software engineering and 30 years experience in the field as a freelancer working for large international companies all over Europe and the USA where logic, information gathering, analysis, design is key, not be capable of understanding such a simple subject like the history of the 2nd WW in Europe.

With such a job, the politics, incorrect opinions have to be stripped off and the facts have to be left clear and undiluted.

Yes the land lease helped, but without it the USSR would still have beaten the Germans, it may have taken them longer, they built 90% of all the tanks, aircraft etc themselves way out of the reach of the Germans and it was just a matter of time before they put it all in to action.

The Germans were outnumbered two to one in all equipment and in the number of soldiers etc.

There USSR would have beaten the Germans even sooner had Hitler not told them to hold on until the last man, they should have surrender much earlier.

Your argument is a bit like saying a team's supporters at a football match caused their team to win by cheering them on even though the team scored ten goals to one against their opponents.

America is poised to strike Iran lets see how quick the yanks ask other nations to help them. Russia has Nukes and has threatened to use them, didnt see Trump threatenening a strike o n Moscow.

Trump loves those Brit’s and they love him as well they all tell me they want a brit trump to clean up the illegals ruining London and Wales

22 minutes ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

You said, "You are clearly incapable of recognising this distinction and, by extension, are therefore incapable of engaging in rational debate which is what intelligent people do in the real world."

My answer is would you consider someone who has a Masters degree from Oxford University in software engineering and 30 years experience in the field as a freelancer working for large international companies all over Europe and the USA where logic, information gathering, analysis, design is key, not capable of such a simple subject like the history of the 2nd WW in Europe.

With such a job, the politics, incorrect opinions have to be stripped off and the facts have to be left clear and undiluted.

Based on my interaction with you in this discussion, yes, and this opinion is reinforced by your reply.

The fact that you consider the history of WW2 in Europe to be "such a simple subject" is misplaced arrogance and telling. For example, I very much doubt that Amazon would have 70,000+ titles on WW2 if it were that simple, as presumably all these tomes would have reached the same 'simple' conclusion.

22 minutes ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

Yes the land lease helped, but without it the USSR would still have beaten the Germans, it may have taken them longer, they built 90% of all the tanks, aircraft etc themselves way out of the reach of the Germans and it was just a matter of time before they put it all in to action.

The Germans were outnumbered two to one in all equipment and in the number of soldiers etc.

You still have not directly addressed the points which I have raised and which are further articulated in the link which I provided, both of which show how crucial Allied supplies (mainly via lend-lease) were to the Soviets. Taking one paragraph from the article, " ... notable supplies (from the Allies to Russia) included 57% of all aviation fuel for the Red Air Force, 53% of all explosives, and almost half of the Soviets’ aluminum, copper, and rubber (all vital for Soviet industry). Finally, they gave 1.75 million tons of food, which prevented a famine in the Soviet Union in the winter of 1942-43."

You presumably think these facts to be insignificant and that the absence of such supplies could have been easily overcome.

22 minutes ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

There USSR would have beaten the Germans even sooner had Hitler not told them to hold on until the last man, they should have surrender much earlier.

I agree that Hitler should have surrendered earlier which would have obviously have resulted in an earlier victory for the Allies.

22 minutes ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

Your argument is a bit like saying a team's supporters at a football match caused the team to win even though the team scored ten goals to one against their opponents.

I have no idea how you can consider that to be a suitable analogy but then I don't have a MSc in Software Engineering from Oxford University, so perhaps that explains things.

Anyway, this time I am done with this exchange. Have the last word if you like. I won't be replying.

37 minutes ago, EastBayRay said:

Trump loves those Brit’s and they love him as well they all tell me they want a brit trump to clean up the illegals ruining London and Wales

You and your British friends are in the minority.

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/53913-where-do-britons-stand-on-europes-relationship-with-the-usa

On 1/27/2026 at 9:25 PM, scottiejohn said:

The Russians were on the German side until 22 June 1941!

PS What about UK v Italy and Germany North Africa & Egypt etc?

That is commonly know, the USSR also invaded Poland a few weeks after the Germans had invaded it.

The battles you mentioned above were as Churchill said, attacking the soft underbelly of the enemy, minor battles.

They did very little to end the war against the Germans, just look at the numbers of troops involved, nothing like the tens of millions of troops the USSR had fighting, plus their massive 2 to 1 superiority of equipment made by The USSR themselves.

16 hours ago, RayC said:

Based on my interaction with you in this discussion, yes, and this opinion is reinforced by your reply.

The fact that you consider the history of WW2 in Europe to be "such a simple subject" is misplaced arrogance and telling. For example, I very much doubt that Amazon would have 70,000+ titles on WW2 if it were that simple, as presumably all these tomes would have reached the same 'simple' conclusion.

You still have not directly addressed the points which I have raised and which are further articulated in the link which I provided, both of which show how crucial Allied supplies (mainly via lend-lease) were to the Soviets. Taking one paragraph from the article, " ... notable supplies (from the Allies to Russia) included 57% of all aviation fuel for the Red Air Force, 53% of all explosives, and almost half of the Soviets’ aluminum, copper, and rubber (all vital for Soviet industry). Finally, they gave 1.75 million tons of food, which prevented a famine in the Soviet Union in the winter of 1942-43."

You presumably think these facts to be insignificant and that the absence of such supplies could have been easily overcome.

I agree that Hitler should have surrendered earlier which would have obviously have resulted in an earlier victory for the Allies.

I have no idea how you can consider that to be a suitable analogy but then I don't have a MSc in Software Engineering from Oxford University, so perhaps that explains things.

Anyway, this time I am done with this exchange. Have the last word if you like. I won't be replying.

Yes that is the best move for you to make seeing as your arguments are very weak and not factual regarding the total effort the USSR made in Europe compared to the other allies, anybody can write biased history books and put them into circulation unchecked.

And yes history is noddy to me compared to software engineering as there is no analysis involved. I remember doing my O level in history, it took me a week to do the whole course and pass the exam.

My analogy re the football match sums up your input into this discussion.

The USSR had tens of millions actually fighting and did most of the work from 1941 until 1945, yes the allies who were not active on a great scale until June1945 sent them some supplies which amounted to 10%, but over 90% of tanks , aircraft etc were produced themselves and you think that 10% vastly aided the Russians in winning the war, not much logic in that argument.

You will be telling me next it was actually the civilians in Britain who won the war in Europe as they bought war bonds and sent food parcels to the allies.

Have a good day.

On 1/27/2026 at 10:45 PM, RayC said:

Once again, you focus on the war on land and completely ignore the war in the air and at sea.

The air and sea were vital to the Allied efforts. The UK and the USA dedicated most of their resources to naval and air power.

18 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

America is poised to strike Iran lets see how quick the yanks ask other nations to help them. Russia has Nukes and has threatened to use them, didnt see Trump threatenening a strike o n Moscow.

Putin often threatens to use nuclear weapons. He knows that firing a nuke would lead to his end.