Grandfather Lenin wrote:
What really gets on my nerves about the way americans write their text books is that they leave out everything good about any other countries except themselves. THe only thing that peopel really learn about the USSR in my school comes from me when I stand up and tell people the truth of what happened, most of them think I'm lieing and just ignore me, but the one with an open mind actually learn the truth, and Leningrad was one of those truths that most will never hear about, and it was the worst seige of a city in history. During the actual war America promised to start D-day 3 years before they did, yes they did send supplies, but hey didn't have that many men in the pacific, so they could spare a few, they wanted to see the Soviet Union to take a few hits from hitler before they came to the rescue. Even when they did start putting people into Europe, to fight the Nazis it was when we had pushed them out of our borders and started marching into occupied territory, I personally don't belive in coinsidence, they did it because they wanted to snatch a little peice of victory right under our noses and watch our people die before they step in.
During 1941 and 1942 the United States was not at war with Germany. The United States entered the war with Germany on December 8, 1942. Therefore, the argument that the United States did not lend help to the Soviet Union is completely disqualified as propaganda. It is
true that the Soviet logistical machine relied almost completely on American studabaker trucks, and it is true that a major part of the late 1941 and early 1942 armored forces were composed of early war American tanks. It is also true that had it not been for American supplies, INCLUDING MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF FOOD STUFF, coming up through Persian and Murmansk, theirs a fairly good chance that Moscow would
have fallen by December. In fact, it is a commonly argued fact, most recently written by Pat McTaggart in an article he wrote for WWII History that said that had the Germans successfully cut the rail from Murmansk to the center of Russia, Moscow would have had quite the shock as the walls of the Red Army crumbled around the Third Rome.
Did you know that had it not been for the Allied landing in Sicily Operation Citadel would have continued? This might not have that big of an implication on you now. However, the battle wasn't won by the Soviet might - it was won by poor planning on Germany's part. Had von Manstein gotten his way and continued with the battle, no matter the casualties on the German side, the Kursk Pocket had a good chance of being bagged. Although, yes, the Soviets still had massive free manpower to flex, the closing of the Kursk Pocket would have ended in the capture or death of Koniev, as well as the capture or death of hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops; and believe it or not, the Soviets were at the end of their tether, no matter how many men they claimed to have. Their barrels of manpower had been scraped clean by July 1943. Had they suffered the same amounts of casualties they had suffered throughout 1941 and 1942 they would have serious problems for the remainder of the war.
The D-Day landings also tied up massive amounts of men in France and Western Germany. Hitler moved most of his men to the Western Front for his Ardennes Offensive planned for December 16th of 1944. Did you know that his Eastern front was almost swept clean? During the January investment of Germany Zhukov lost some one hundred thousand men to mere Volksstrum
units in the Seelow Heights, and Koniev suffered equally attempting to cross the Spree River. Imagine those crossings and tarversings that the Germans kept the bulk of their panzer forces in the area! It would have been hell for the Soviets.
And I can back this up. In May of 1944, at Targul Frumos, (which I wrote an article for on these forums but was lost a while back...), Manteuffel was able to defeat a vastly superior force of Soviet manpower with his sole GrossDeustchland Division and remnants of a small panzer division. Koniev was severly defeated and the actual defeat of Romania was pushed back by over two months. Although small, and almost inconsequential, victories like these were repeated all over the front, and it would have surely been costly to the Red Army. So, the Allied Armies in France actually allowed the Red Army to sweep over Eastern Germany in a campaign that would be less costly, both in material and men.
So, in conclusion, the West wasn't as useless as you think.
Leningrad was the longest siege in human history. However, worst I doubt it. Although more people died in that siege than in any other siege, you can't compare the brutality to such sieges such as the ones that Chinggis Khan set up against his enemies. You can't compare it to the siege of Jerusalem during the First Crusade, that when the Christian army entered it slaughtered Muslim, Jew and Christian alike - accounts saying that the soldiers slaughtered with blood to their ankles. But that's a mere perspective - their will be those that will attribute it as you have done, and you really can't argue against it. So, I will end my own argument here.