The Italians

[Supreme Axis]

Are given much more credit then is due in the game. I'm sorry but as I remeber the Italians were notorious for losing. In fact Hitler delayed his invasion of Russia to invade Yugoslavia to help his Fascist brothers from defeat in Greece. Don't you think it would be a bit more realistic to give the Italian army a -Experience bonus. A factor of 4 even! I have heard some of the damn'dist stories of their losses.....Borderline Comical

[pzgndr]

The Italians are initially weak and vulnerable. That's not to say they should remain that way for the rest of the game! Without immediate German help, Tobruk is especially vulnerable in the first few turns. Historically Tobruk did fall and it wasn't until Rommel was dispatched that they were able to retake it. Greece can become the historical battleground that it was if the Italians initiate an overland campaign and allow the Brits to reinforce Athens. A seaborne invasion to take Athens in one turn is the best bet; however, screw that up and allow the Brits to reinforce Athens and your unsupplied Italians face a real nightmare.

If Italy manages to get through the first half-year without losing Tobruk, without losing most of its fleet to a bold Allied player, and is able to take Greece without difficulty, then it's in pretty good shape to invest in some research and develop a strong combat force. And then it can focus on other adventures.

[Scorpion_sk]

The MPP capability of Italy is much, much larger than it historically should be in the original scenarios.

In reality, think about Italy having 1/4 of the Greater German production in 1938.

As it is, the capabilities of the two nations at the onset (if Italy would start the game as active) are about equal.

[JerseyJohn]

Scorpion_sk

Yes, pretty much agreed historically but not gamewise. Fascist Italy reached it's peak in the early thirties as the Nazis were emerging in Germany. Initially Mussolini shunned Hitler's advances! The Italian airforce of 1930 might have been the best in the world, sending Balbo with a squadron of seaplanes across the Atlantic.

Things began unravelling in '36 with the invasion of Ethiopia. Mussolini exchanged Italy's economic health for an out of the way piece of Africa -- the conquest was based upon a 40 year old agreement with England and France that was no longer valid, Disraeli being long dead and all!

He compounded the problem by assuming the lion's share of equiping Franco's troops during the Spanish Civil War. It appears he didn't expect the real war to begin till at least 1941 and probably later. Italy was in the process of rearming when Germany invaded Poland -- a move Mussolini found out about by reading the newspaper. Naturally he didn't commit to war as his troops were ill prepared, his fleet lacked everything including fuel and spare parts and the Italian Air Force was thoroughly obsolete.

Having gotten into the war, which was supposed to end with the fall of France, Italy's main problem became Mussolini himself with ill prepared and idiotic attacks in all directions.

In North Africa Balbo died in a suspicious miscommunication, being shot down by his own anti-aircraft batteries. His successor, Grazianni advised fortifying Cyraenica but in the end obeyed Mussolini's absurd order to invade Egypt. The result was O'Conner's raid that resulted in a route -- not because the Italians were particularly inept, but because they were cut off on the desert from their water.

On the Riviera an earlier Italina push petered out against strong French hillside fortifications, part of the Maginot program and possibly impregnable from the Italian side; again, an attack no general in his right mind would have ordered.

In Albania Mussolini, opting for the element of surprise, waited till Autumn, when it began raining, and tried to deceive the Greeks by withdrawing troops. On the day this inept masterpiece was launched he sauntered into Hitler's office and said, "My friend, Italy is on the march!" Nobody had bothered to tell him Greece was close to signing a Bulgaria type agreement with Germany; no doubt Yugoslavia would have quietly followed suit and without the Greek invasion there would probably not have been a pro-allied coup.

Mussolini's mind was accurately summed up in an Allied propaganda drawing:

None of which means the Italians couldn't have fought better than they did. In the game it's assumed you're running things, or your opponent, not Mussolini. If you want to take that army out of Tobruck and march it east you'll no doubt get results pretty similar to Grazianni's. If you send inadequate reinforcements to Albania and launch them against the two armies in Northern Greece you're likely to be routed, just as Il Duce was.

The Italian fleet lacked gunnery radar, spart parts and all types of fuel and oil assets. It had capable officers and crews, the least infiltrated by political hacks of any branch,

and during the war it pulled off several daring feats such as sinking two British Battleships in Alexandria Harbor (a midget sub frogman raid) and did a very good job of getting supplies through to North Africa. Malta finally became decisive when Rommel, after taking Tobruck, decided not to pause for it's invasion, taking the German and Italian paratroopers in his army instead; an acknowledged mistake. Once it was reinforced there was nothing the Italian convoys could have done other than run the gauntlet, which they dubbed "the death run" with good reason.

But the question in making it a game is whether we want to simply rewalk the trodden footsteps or speculate a bit on what might have happened with better leadership or some other minor adjustment.

The bulk of Rommel's Panzerarmee Afrika was made up of Italians. Though poorly equiped and not well officered, they fought well for him providing the anvil for his German hammer. The two Italian armored divisions, Ariete and Littorio, though horribly equiped, attacked effectively beside the 15th&21st Panzer Divisions and held their zones at El Alemain till they ceased to exist as organized divisions! Nothing more can be expected of any unit.

As it stands, Italy isn't about to conquer Europe, or even Yugoslavia (which Mussolini had also been eye-balling since the 20s) on it's own. It's southern ports are inadequately defended, and nobody's singing "Hail Italia, Italia Rules the Waves!" It hasn't even got an airforce! How much weaker is it supposed to be?

[ December 30, 2002, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[jmbunnelle]

The whole point of SC is the ability to manipulate historical outcomes via research expenditures. Otherwise it would be an oversimplified TOAW and very little fun.

Italy did not have the industrial capacity to sustain a serious ground war. And what they did have was poorly organized, unlike Germany. For example, after the initial corporate bids and test flights, the Luftwaffe focused on two primary fighters, the BF109 and the FW190, with industry creating as much standardization as possible in order to increase production and efficiency through the subsequent variants. By contrast, the Regia Aeronautica offered contracts seemingly at random, with the Macchi C.200, Fiat G50, Re2000, CR42, Macchi C.202 (totally different design from the C.200), with virtually no upgrades that did not consist of creating a completely different aircraft. Structurally speaking, the Fiat G50 and G55 Centauro have nothing in common, nor does the C.200 and C.202. In fact, if I recall correctly, the only plane to get substantial improvements via variants was the C.202 Folgore, which later evolved into the C.205V (for Veltro) and later the N model, all of which shared components. And this was just before Italy bailed out. Following the Spanish Civil War, they did not believe that bombers needed escorts so fighter design did not advance as rapidly as it should have. The Regia Aeronautica was also reluctant to move away from the radial engines, and it wasn't until they finally imported a batch from Germany that they began work on the C.202.

[ December 30, 2002, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: jmbunnelle ]

[JerseyJohn]

jmbunnelle --

All true and thanks for the info. Britain and the U. S. were making similar pre-war mistakes regarding bombers. Some British planners in the mid-thirties thought fighters would have some vague interception role. Fortunately others saw things more accurately.

Italy's entire war apparatus was corrupt and, as you say, things were done pretty much at random. Particularly in the Air Force, which is odd considering it's earlier high standing. Oddly, they had people doing good research work on jet engines while others looked into better biplanes!

Germany had a certain amount of that as well and we need not look far to see 1939-40 photos of American aircraft carriers still carrying bi-planes (which were, admittedly being quickly relegated to training duties) while the torpedo planes that delivered the fatal rudder hit to Bismark were also biplanes -- and that was the middle of 1941!

In terms of stregnth points Italy's army was much larger than it's representation in the game (200,000 of whom were stranded in East Africa) and it has no airforce at all. I think that's fair penalization.

Industrially Italy was smaller though not dissiimilar to France. What she lacked was raw materials. In 1936 it was thought Ethiopia was an unexploited treasure trove of resources. She also lacked oil, ironically not suspecting it lay a'plenty in Libya, where water wells were often contaminated by elements of crude. During the see-saw battles both sides accused the other of poisoning the wells in retreat!

I'm not saying Italy is Germany, nor even France, but it isn't Yugoslavia either. Basically it was a marginal major power with dillusional leadership. In the game Italy isn't a powerhouse. Any weaker and it would be nothing more than a stepping stone, which it wasn't.

[Supreme Axis]

Your points are taken into consideration. I have done my research over the years, I have heard the leadership was a big part of Italian weakness. They never had any good leadership really, they did serve in Russia. I can't talk very notably about that, as I have checked their WW2 losses and it seems Romania was a far larger contributor as far as lives are concerned<battle casualties> The minute we hit the shores of Sicily<We GIVE UP, we're your friends> the King of Italy was planning to align themselves with the Allies, naturally the Italians weren't very strong believers in their Diktator They executed him! Though come, they did well in WW1 vs Austria-Hungary. I mean, they stood their own, and then some. 5000 French<Southern France> held off an Army of Italians in the Mountains, and it was fortified yes, but hardly a Maginot. The Frogmen, were well thought out! If they would have used more such tactics early in the war<before the Allies were aware> they could have done significant damage. All in all, Italy was a minor Axis power and should be included into the German Economy in the game, as the other Axis Minors. They had no will to fight, they had a bit of a obsolete fighter during the invasion of Russia... though it was equivelant to outdated ME109E... I heard that Ethiopia was morale victory for Italy. It was probably best for them to have layed back, and stayed neutral. Hitler's caring for his Fascist Brother may have kept them out of the war.

The fact is Italians in this game are starting with an equal navy in the Med, an army you can beef up enough to hold off a D-day invasion with. 2 or 3 fighters and you may be able to take Suez, Vichy, Iraq with alone...Historically at anypoint during the War the Italians weren't capable of undertaking such operations. They're early failures are statements to that fact.

Despite everything, I'm certian the average Italian soldier had a lack of nationilism. A lack of morale belief in a Goverment that was obviously corrupt and a War that probably wasn't righteous. So that is not to belittle the Italians as fighting force. As far as suppy, equipment, and readiness are concerned. The British, French and Russians were far inferior at the onset of war. I would give the French a 6 rating for at least building a wall, WHY didn't they stretch it through ardenne and to the ocean? Not very wise... Italy should be a German Minor... You resupply Italian units, ships, etc... in German ports, controlled hexes. They recieve 125 mpps? Britian gets cut down to that amount early.....

[JerseyJohn]

Supreme Axis

Mama Mia!

In a sense Italy started out war weary. All the pre-war Mediteranean Axis plans hinged upon Spain joining as well and capturing Gibraltar. They were not good plans for 1939, the very year Franco finished the war but might have worked a couple of years later when Spain recovered. Also, Mussolini was trying to move at least half of Italy's industry further east of the Po region as he felt it was too vulnerable to aircraft based in France. And he was right.

The Italian troops in Russia wore cardboard boots and had no anti-tank guns capable of even slowing down a T-34 and forget about knocking one out.

It's difficult to have a feeling of nationalism when your leaders pull you by the nose into a war you don't want, then proceed to throw everything away on insane disasters. By Sicily Italy was only waiting for a good time to get out of the war. What they really wanted was a clean neutrality but of course Germany was already helping her defend her coastline, so that was out of the question.

Her last contribution to modern military history was when the BB Litorio (renamed the Italia in '43 -- which, minus gunnery radar and electronics was a pretty modern, formidable battleship with 9x15"main guns & 28 knots) became

the first ship in history to be damaged by a "smart" bomb. A radio guided device sent after the Italian BB after it evacuated Naples prior to the Salerno Landings. An example of Italio/German cooperation.

Italian tanks were too light, their aircraft obsolete, their small arms the worst in Europe, their fleet a bunch of ships without fuel or spare parts and . . .

Well, really, we can talk much more positively about the place if we go back to this fellow:

Except he managed to appoint some fathead named Varus the Governor of Gaul and he lost his worthless life and four of Romes best legions in, of all places, Germany. Nudging history in a whole different direction!

[ December 30, 2002, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Supreme Axis]

Agreed!

Though the Russians had 1 bolt action rifle per 10 men? I can't imagine how bad off Greece, Yugoslavia and the Axis minors would have been. They probably had WW1 weapons, if they were fortunate. The Italians should've been a match for Eastern European Powers, if willing to lose more than 50k in men, per battle.<I think Finland and Italy are closest in Casualties amongst German allies?> The Fins don't have the population to man a big army either. They gave the Russians a run for their money. It is really not a 1st Rate World Power... Just seeing it reflected in the game as equal & better to France is a tough one to swallow after about a year of MPP collection...

The Allies had the best tanks, until the Panzer 5 series. Though the Axis leaders and mobility made up for their armor armanent shortcommings. Still<!> I can imagine running an army on a bunch of 1920s equipment as being a real joy against a outfitted Brit/French/Russian Mechanized unit. The Russians shock me! Despite "their Armor," no leadership to begin with. Biplanes mostly and at best during the war the Yakolev. The Italians and Russians should've been about a match for each other without reiforcements from the Motherland.

They have a wealth of history... I think they're tired of war, they did have the most powerful Empire in the World at one time.

[JerseyJohn]

Supreme Axis

The funny thing is Churchill and Mussolini were very fond of each other and during late '39 and early '40 Churchill tried everything to talk Mussolini into remaining neutral. Mussolini kept calling Italy a "Non-belligerant" in a tone indicating that would change shortly.

A lot of British officials were afraid of an Italian entry due to the size of her fleet and the fact she had 200,000 troops each in Libya and East Africa. The nightmare was a pincers going through the Sudan from the south and Egypt from the West. In hindsight such an operation, on logistics alone, would probably have been impossible. But no one suspected Italy was such a paper lion.

After leaving office, even before Germany's surrender, Churchill bolted for a painting vacation in Northern Italy. A lot of cynical people say, as he practically traced Il Duce's final steps, he was more concerned with gathering old letters than painting landscapes. If that isn't already a novel it ought to be!

Finland had a fine, well trained, very brave army with great leadership but it was too small to absorb heavy losses in a protracted war. Regardless how well you fight if you can't replace casualties and your enemy can, you lose.

The Soviet Air Force in the last couple of years of the war was very underated. They lacked most forms of electronic equipment, including radar, and that put them at a disadvantage. But by mid-43 and afterwards they made up for that in sheer numbers. The Stuka was the second most effective tank killer. The number one slot was held by the Sturmovik!

[Supreme Axis]

Agreed, #s were always the strategy for the Soviets during the 20th century. The Yak was the largest produced aircraft of the War. They had female aces. Think how deadly the Sturmovik could've been with radar! Ju87, was bad need of an upgrade from the onset of the war. The FW190 was the only German plane comparable to the Allies after 1940, save the Russian Yaks. The germans kept to their 109s to the end of the war, as their primary fighter plane. Big oversight if you ask me!

Supposedly the Germans caught Stalin's nephew and he confessed that the Russia's were preparing for an invasion of Germany. They had built secret roads.

Another spoke of the first smart bomb having been used on an Italian battleship. Though I thought that I had heard the story differently. That a German Rocket/or Bomb was equiped with a remote control and flown down the smokestack of a British Battleship in the Med early in the war. I wonder if thousands of such weapons would have been built... Would it render a Navy useless?

[JerseyJohn]

The smokestack story sounds vaguely familiar. I have to let it incubate a while, maybe it will surface. The one they used on the Littorio turned out to work against them as it was immediately recognized as radio directed and allied warships were able to establish jamming proceedures. A case of Germany losing an effective weapon because it was used peacemeal instead of in mass from the outset, when nobody had a defence for it.

You make a good point about what the Soviet Army and airforce might have been with better electronics. There are German accounts of Sovier squadrons flying directly over what had to be the main target and bombing objects of much lesser importance while the Germans enjoyed a reprieve. Even their T-34 units were poorly equiped in terms of communications, a radio in the commander's tank and a pole for running signal flags to direct the NCOs commanding the other tanks.

In the post war years, when that situation no longer existed, nobody took them for granted, that much is certain.

[ December 30, 2002, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[GroupNorth]

Stalin's captured nephew spilled the beans? What?

There has been a (conspiracy) theory resurfacing over the years that Stalin, indeed, was planning for an eventual attack on Germany in the mid 40s.

One Russian pseudo-scholar tooted this theory with a gob of unsubstantiated evidence. He claimed that Russia was building a massive paratroop/armour force for operations in Germany. It was all circumstantial hogwash, and nearly universally dismissed.

The basis of this conspiracy theory goes back as far as 1918-19, when Soviet spies WERE actually financing communist radicals during the instability and uprest after WWI. The Soviets gambled to Sovietize Germany on the cheap. The Freikorps were contracted to deal with the agents and uprest mercilessly. Soviet agents continued to operate in Germany for long after, but mostly for esponiage purposes.

Much later, in 1945, several surviving Nazi elites swore that Operation Barbarossa was a preventative war against a global conspiracy vs international Communism and Stalinist expansionism, as well as Jewry. Doenitz apparently went to his grave believing that the Germans were doing the good work of what the Allies should have been doing: containing, squeezing, and destroying Communism/Russia. Sounds silly to me. After all, the Germans spent the first part of the war assisting the Soviets and hammering the anti-communist West.

Of course, this all clashes with the more sinister multi-goal Ostpolitick, which was simmering in Germany before Hitler ever penned it in Mein Kampf. Hitler himself had many reasons for violent eastward expansion. But in Dec 1940, when he put plans for the Barbarossa contingency into motion, he did so mostly with the angry aim of removing the sneaky Soviet chess piece, so he could finally scare Britain into a conditional peace, or pursue the war unmolested with his east flank secure. Also, what crystallized his fateful decision was that the Soviets, in Poker-like secret meetings, told Ribbentrop they wanted to extend their sphere ridiculously far and wide, while Germany did all the fighting vs the West to facilitate this 'free' Soviet expansion (as witnessed in the Baltic states and Poland).

Anyway (breath). Has anyone read of some real history that seriously uncovers the 'supposed' Stalinist aim of the USSR getting Germany, before Germany got the USSR? I've only read the one book and it's garbage.

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

The Soviet Union had no plan for an pre-emptive attack on germany. After the disastor of the winter war, and I really have to thank the finns, stalin had realized that his army would have difficulties with the germans. He started some reforms and brought back experienced officers from the "re-eductation" exile. Stalin was scared of the German Army and he had every right to be.

Russians plans where if attacked they would use their superior numbers to steamroll through Poland and on into Germany. Obviously this didn't work as by July 1941 Stalin was trying to gain a peace with germany by offering HUGE chunks territory. Of course the germans refused as they were rolling on and thought they could have all they wanted.

Hitler cost the Germans the war in Russia. As the war went on Hitler meddled in his armies affairs more and more. Stand fast may have saved AG Center from collapse in the winter of 41/42 but as we approach the 60th anniversary of the surrender of the 6th Army at Stalingrad, we can see how it doesn't work.

Stalin on the other hand allowed more and more freedom of action to his generals as the war went on. Eventually he only played the generals against each other, like Konev and Zhukov at Berlin, and let them handle the details of how to get it done.

While the T34 may have been a primitive tank when compared to the west, it was effective. The soviets were willing to accept the losses as long as they gained the victory.

Russian equipment was also purposely kept primitive as the army was lacking in the education that the western powers enjoyed. I have stripped both an M-1 Garand and a M91/30 Mosin Nagant and I'll tell ya it was easier to reassemble the M91/30. I won't even get started on my German MP-40. That's a bugger.

Then there was lend-lease. The russians only really liked two things, american transport (jeeps & duce and halfs) and tinned meats (spam). They felt the rest of the equipment was woefully inferior or to complicated. Giving the M3 Lee tank the nickname of "a grave for 6 brothers." Some items like the airacobra they had mixed feelings on, along with the Browning .30 MG.

The main reason I reenact Soviet and not American is because it's important to teach the public that the war was decided before Normandy. Normandy just hastened the end.

SC does a great job of showing what would have happened if the Soviet Union had been knocked out. Imagine all those veteran German soldiers waiting in France for the allied landings.

The USSR probably would have been able to defeat the germans as long as Hitler was in command. We'll never know.

As far as it's concerned the ALLIES won the second world war. It was a combined effort of all those involved. And we should be grateful to those that fought, no matter what nationality.

[SeaWolf_48]

Once again JJ you are right about the Italians. One of my friends has a Cacano 6.5 Rifle and it's brand new, only been dropped once. This rifle helped the allies win the war, and in no way could L.H. Oswald hit a moving target three times with that weaponed.

Every game I have played as allies or axis, against AI or on the net, Italy ends up with about six or seven armies in Russia plus a major player in the Med. This would have been impossible for Italy to support. The game needs a cap on the number of units each Armed Force can produce.

However, in the game Italy starts of too weak. No air units or HQ units, which historicly they did have at the beginning of their war.

[JerseyJohn]

SeaWolf_48

What it amounts to is, in 1940 Italy was too strong to be weak and too weak to be strong -- but I agree, all her ports should be covered and if the Army in Tripoli (which should have the Balbo HQ and aircover) doesn't attempt to invade Egypt, the British shouldn't be able to dislodge it. Tobruck was an Italian fortress before it was a British fortress; it was lost because in 1940 Grazziani stripped it of guns and defenders for the ill-fated invasion.

Konstatin

Absolutely. The idea of a Soviet premptive war in the early forties is a game design concept and has nothing to do with history. Stalin knew it and Hitler knew it too.

GroupNorth

Read all through that thread of yours thinking this is nonsense, garbage, then I get to that last line of yours and you say the book it was based upon is garbage! I respect you too much to argue. I think we're talking about the world according to Molotov and Ribbentrop; truly the Brother's Grimm. Sounds like much disinformation all settling in one book. But it's good to read these things and even better to evaluate them properly. Worth the time and effort and a good read.

The post WW I period, particularly in Eastern Europe and it's aftermath of the unrealized Brest-Litovsk Treaty is a pet interest of mine. Very interesting stuff and not much written on it.

[ December 31, 2002, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Supreme Axis]

I am not as boned up on the particulars as I was as a boy. I was much in love with history World War 2 and read every possible novel I could in existence about the subject. Though I do know Russia was about Winning the war for Germany. It is afterall the the Beginning and the End of the Third Reich. American and British Strategic bombing contributed to the demise of Nazi Germany. Though it was primarily Russian troops who fought the ground war and died to free much of Eastern Europe and whose battle casaulties have been estimated anywhere from 12.5-25 million. I've heard figures as high as 36 million dead period. The Germans were prepared to fight the Russians. They were not evenly matched. Though in the end it didn't matter. LendLease did provide more than a few junky items. Millions of enfields...replaceable parts...and a lucky few fighters..and whatever junk obviously the Soviets didn't have available. Even a poor weapon, is a deadly one in city fighting. The Nazis inspired hate in the countries they occuppied, at first the Russians saw them as liberators. Though soon felt the wraith of their Idealism<?> Ethnic cleansing... Leibenstrom<sp

Perhaps if Hitler would have spent a little less on miracle weapons..i.e. jets, rockets, subs, huge artillery pieces<no practical use>, battleships... North Africa was a sideshow...He could have had a bit extra for a push in 1942 into Moscow the transportation center and destroy it utterly. Likely forcing the Russians on an extreme defensive role.

Britian and the US, would have had more production for awhile. Though slowly Hitler would have built a fortress noone could ever penetrate and eventually destroy Britian and then in the end who knows... The War ended IMHO on declaration of war on the US...between that and Stalingrad you spread yourself way to thin. The Western Allies were smart. They had small losses relatively speaking.

[SeaWolf_48]

KVK you are obviouly proud of your Russian heritage, we all are proud of our Fathers and where they came from, my forefathers were from Scotland and England.

But as far as the Americans sending the Ruskies a few trucks and jeeps is hogwash. Many British and American sailors and Merchant marines, with there ships, went down making the long trip to ArchAngel. Those trucks and jeeps gave the Soviet Infantry superiority during muddy seasons (which is a large part of the year in Russia), and gave them mobilization to kill germans. Not just some food got to Russia, but many Kilotons of wheat were consumed in Ivans belly. The number of german troops used in Norway and No. Finland to combat the Northern route convoys took 10's of thousands away from the gates of Moscow. Looking at naval lists of what went to the USSR, medicine, clothes, food, ammo, cigaretts but not alcohol, tanks (which were used in quite areas but were still were deadly weapons) and trucks, helped Stalin greatly.

If Britian had fallen in 1940-41 by SeaLion Russia would have fallen also.

Yes many russians paid with there lives, killed by Fritz, and the world is grateful for their sacrifice.

Stalin killed more russians than Hitler, however!

[JerseyJohn]

SeaWolf_48

Glad you caught that, I lost it in the shuffle. The convoys were particularly useful in delivering trucks, which the Soviets were woefully short of. Many of the other weapon items, especially tanks, they had their own massive production of. They could also have used radios and other eloctronic devices but I doubt the U. S. sent much of that.

As for KVK's objectivity, I'm shocked -- shocked ! it's been questioned. -- That sounded pretty sincere, didn't it?

[Supreme Axis]

The British lost quite a bit on their convoys. Was the Turpitz not a North Sea Raider for that purpose? As well as many subs allocated to the region? Churchill was worried about sending more shipments, he said he couldn't afford the loss and Stalin was upset. Rosevelt could afford it... Britian could not afford to lose a major battle...i.e. Normany... Stalin pressured for a 2nd front...Britian became a small player and Russia a bigger one.. Thus the Changing of the guards. In effect Germany-WW2 made a great change in the World. A power shift! It's odd to think that the Russian Army of WW1 fell like dominos with 15 million men. Though they suffered beyond words and never gave in, during the 2nd World War. Stalin supposedly killed from 30-50 million of his own people.

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

Yes Stalin killed more of his people than Hitler. The major difference was Hitler unleashed a War on the World that killed a lot of people.

Hitler killed because he saw them as untermensch that should serve their pure aryan masters. Stalin killed for political motives. Which sounds more kookie?

No country is without blood on it's hands. Maybe not in WWII but things like British colonialism and US treatment of native americans. Ok maybe the Canadians don't have blood on their hands. LOL Of course the Japanese are the only country not to apologize for the blood on their hands.

I would have been purged anyways as I am a Trotsky supporter. I always preferred Trotsy's intellectual approach as opposed to Stalin's brut force.

On the lend lease issue, look at it this way.

The Germans have Panthers, you know that your own industry is building JS-I and T-34/85's, and the Americans send you a Sherman.

The Germans have FW-190's, you know that your own industry is building LA-7's, and the British send you a Hurricane.

So as a russian what would your opinion of Western equipment be?

Yes something is better then nothing, but sometimes not much better.

Good debate.

[JerseyJohn]

Konstantin

". . .I always preferred Trotsy's intellectual approach as opposed to Stalin's brut force. . ."

I always enjoyed his writings too. The man was brilliant which is why Stalin felt so threatened by him. Too bad Lennin didn't make his succession clearer when he still had power instead of waiting till he was bedridden and surrounded by Stalin's agents who freely altered all his final communications.

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

That was odd, it reposted my previous post. So I edited it to say:

Happy New Year and be Safe

Silly computer.

[ December 31, 2002, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Konstatin V. Kotelnikov ]

[JerseyJohn]

Konstantin,

Thanks and likewise.

[ December 31, 2002, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[SeaWolf_48]

Trotsky was an idealistic romantic, steeped in bolshevik nonsence to control the masses. His regime would have been the same as Stalin's. Ruthless and bruttal rubbing out anyone that got in his way. The only good commie is a .........