PDA

View Full Version : American proposal to send planes to the USSR?



Wildnoob
11-26-2011, 07:32 PM
To the WWII aviation enthusiasts, I just found this:

It should also be remembered that as early as 1942, when the war was still undecided, Stalin was offered an Anglo-American bomber force that would operate from the Caucasus beginning in 1943, but for political reasons he rejected the proposal, desiring only the aircraft.4 The $11 billion of Lend-Lease also provided raw materials, foodstuffs, and technical assistance vital to Soviet sustenance and production.

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/...may-jun/collins.html (http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1974/may-jun/collins.html)

I found very interest. Specially because we sometimes heard that the Western Allies only wanted the Soviets to worn out the Germans.

Treetop64
11-27-2011, 08:29 AM
Generally, this is common knowledge to most around here and anyone with a well-read interest in air combat during WWII.

Wildnoob
11-27-2011, 10:54 AM
Thanks for the arrogance.

Sillius_Sodus
11-27-2011, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by Treetop64:
Generally, this is common knowledge to most around here and anyone with a well-read interest in air combat during WWII.

I consider myself well read when it come to WWII aviation and I hadn't heard about it. The ferry flights from Alaska, shuttle bombing missions, sure, but not the offer to run a bombing campaign from the Urals.

Thanks for posting that Wildnoob.

Treetop64
11-27-2011, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
Thanks for the arrogance.

I'm sorry you perceived it that way, Wildnoob. I was only stating a plain fact. It's a topic that's been discussed before in the forums, however, by no means is that meant to imply that you shouldn't have posted the info.

Next time I'll try to use more sensitive language as to not offend you.

horseback
11-29-2011, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
To the WWII aviation enthusiasts, I just found this:

It should also be remembered that as early as 1942, when the war was still undecided, Stalin was offered an Anglo-American bomber force that would operate from the Caucasus beginning in 1943, but for political reasons he rejected the proposal, desiring only the aircraft.4 The $11 billion of Lend-Lease also provided raw materials, foodstuffs, and technical assistance vital to Soviet sustenance and production.

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/...may-jun/collins.html (http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1974/may-jun/collins.html)

I found very interest. Specially because we sometimes heard that the Western Allies only wanted the Soviets to worn out the Germans. There were political issues on both sides; Stalin wanted absolute control of any forces operating within Soviet territory and the US wanted a deal essentially the same as the one it had with the Commonwealth--the US would be first (plus) among equals, and the chain of command would allow US units to operate along US doctrinal rules, with minimal interferance from the host country as long as basic mutually agreed upon rules were followed.

In short, the US government would not let Stalin decide where its sons would fight and die and Stalin could not let the Allies operate an independent military force within his borders. Everybody had their own trust issues.

cheers

horseback

Dolemite-
12-04-2011, 02:31 AM
Wildnoob, this is a 10 year old forum for a 10 year old game, one that centers around the Eastern Front air war. It would be arrogant to presume this topic has 'never' been brought up before.

Tully__
12-04-2011, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by Dolemite-:
Wildnoob, this is a 10 year old forum for a 10 year old game...
That still gets lots of new members every year who may not have seen it before. Additionally, I've been around for pretty much the whole ten years and don't recall ever seeing it posted before (not saying it never was, just that I don't recall it). I see no arrogance in the post at all and accusations such as that are totally uncalled for.

Even if there were ten other posts of the same information in the front page it's a job for the moderation team, not derogatory comments from the public.

EJGrOst_Caspar
12-06-2011, 12:46 PM
I've been here since years too and I do read much too... and I also haven't heard about it. So, no problem Wildnoob... you will find recipients anyway. And thanks!

And people, who get bored, better just shouldn't read.

Luno13
12-06-2011, 04:49 PM
What's up with this crucifixion of Wildnoob? I never knew the allies offered their men to fight on Soviet territory (barring the Free-French and others).

As for foodstuffs, apparently the Soviets really only got Ketchup and non-essentials (according to my relatives who grew up during that time). It must have been better than the saw-dust bread rations in Leningrad though.

horseback
12-09-2011, 02:37 PM
Luno, from my own reading of several Soviet memoirs, the lion's share of foodstuffs went to the soldiers or airmen on the front lines; I remember reading a lot of complaints about the food while they were in training or rest/recuperating facilities and more than few comments about being glad to get back to combat status and better rations. If your relatives didn't see much 'American' food besides ketchup, their complaint should be filed with the government the Americans entrusted the distribution of the food to. Remember also that bread baked in the USSR from American or Canadian wheat probably didn't come with a 'Made in North America' label either.

Canadian, American and some South American countries' farms were being asked to feed most of the free world's populations during WWII, and there was only so much shipping tonnage available to ship those foodstuffs along with the trucks, steel, aviation fuel, ammunition, clothing, blankets, guns, tanks, airplanes and replacement parts.

Of course the Germans and Japanese were making a considerable effort to divert those supplies to the ocean bottom, and they were quite successful for quite a while. Most experts agree that the Battle of the Atlantic wasn't won until mid-1943, and the U-Boats were still a threat to war's end (and of course, the LW could attack any convoy headed for Murmansk right up to May 1945).

cheers

horseback

Wildnoob
12-10-2011, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by Luno13:
I never knew the allies offered their men to fight on Soviet territory.

I belive many people don't know about this proposal as well. I told that to Treetop because this.

Wildnoob
12-10-2011, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
To the WWII aviation enthusiasts, I just found this:

It should also be remembered that as early as 1942, when the war was still undecided, Stalin was offered an Anglo-American bomber force that would operate from the Caucasus beginning in 1943, but for political reasons he rejected the proposal, desiring only the aircraft.4 The $11 billion of Lend-Lease also provided raw materials, foodstuffs, and technical assistance vital to Soviet sustenance and production.

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/...may-jun/collins.html (http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1974/may-jun/collins.html)

I found very interest. Specially because we sometimes heard that the Western Allies only wanted the Soviets to worn out the Germans. There were political issues on both sides; Stalin wanted absolute control of any forces operating within Soviet territory and the US wanted a deal essentially the same as the one it had with the Commonwealth--the US would be first (plus) among equals, and the chain of command would allow US units to operate along US doctrinal rules, with minimal interferance from the host country as long as basic mutually agreed upon rules were followed.

In short, the US government would not let Stalin decide where its sons would fight and die and Stalin could not let the Allies operate an independent military force within his borders. Everybody had their own trust issues. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

An example of this lack of trust is in D-Day. It didn't happened earlier mainly due to manpower shortages. The Soviets probably would be capable of fill that gap quickly if the Anglo-Americans could use Soviet troops as well, and consequentely defeat Hitler earlier.

TipsyTed
12-11-2011, 03:21 AM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
An example of this lack of trust is in D-Day. It didn't happened earlier mainly due to manpower shortages.

Hm, what if they simply "waited" to see how the soviet bear and nazi godzilla fight ends? What if they invaded western Europe after it became apparent Soviets will crush nazi Germany (which was nothing to doubt about after victories at Stalingrad and Kursk) simply to prevent it from being occupied by the Soviets? What if D-Day was much more a move towards shaping the post war world map, a move much more directed towards the rising Soviet Union than towards by then declining nazi Germany? What if they simply "raced" towards east just like Soviets raced towards west - each to get as large a piece of post war Europe as possible? It's, for instance, hard to believe Stalin wouldn't occupy France too once he'd steamroll over Germany haven't it already been occupied by western powers...

Just thinking aloud here.

Luftw4ffe
12-11-2011, 04:38 AM
Originally posted by TipsyTed:
Hm, what if they simply "waited" to see how the soviet bear and nazi godzilla fight ends? What if they invaded western Europe after it became apparent Soviets will crush nazi Germany (which was nothing to doubt about after victories at Stalingrad and Kursk) simply to prevent it from being occupied by the Soviets? What if D-Day was much more a move towards shaping the post war world map, a move much more directed towards the rising Soviet Union than towards by then declining nazi Germany? What if they simply "raced" towards east just like Soviets raced towards west - each to get as large a piece of post war Europe as possible? It's, for instance, hard to believe Stalin wouldn't occupy France too once he'd steamroll over Germany haven't it already been occupied by western powers...

Just thinking aloud here.

conspiracy theories http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif
does make you think though

horseback
12-11-2011, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
To the WWII aviation enthusiasts, I just found this:

It should also be remembered that as early as 1942, when the war was still undecided, Stalin was offered an Anglo-American bomber force that would operate from the Caucasus beginning in 1943, but for political reasons he rejected the proposal, desiring only the aircraft.4 The $11 billion of Lend-Lease also provided raw materials, foodstuffs, and technical assistance vital to Soviet sustenance and production.

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/...may-jun/collins.html (http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1974/may-jun/collins.html)

I found very interest. Specially because we sometimes heard that the Western Allies only wanted the Soviets to worn out the Germans. There were political issues on both sides; Stalin wanted absolute control of any forces operating within Soviet territory and the US wanted a deal essentially the same as the one it had with the Commonwealth--the US would be first (plus) among equals, and the chain of command would allow US units to operate along US doctrinal rules, with minimal interferance from the host country as long as basic mutually agreed upon rules were followed.

In short, the US government would not let Stalin decide where its sons would fight and die and Stalin could not let the Allies operate an independent military force within his borders. Everybody had their own trust issues. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

An example of this lack of trust is in D-Day. It didn't happened earlier mainly due to manpower shortages. The Soviets probably would be capable of fill that gap quickly if the Anglo-Americans could use Soviet troops as well, and consequentely defeat Hitler earlier. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I cannot agree with you here. The US and other Allied armies had more than sufficient manpower in Britain well before D-Day (consider that they had Patton commanding a rather large body of men and weapons in Southeastern Britain to convince the Germans that we were going to make our main thrust at Calais, and it worked to the point that for several hours the Germans were convinced that the Normandy landings were feints designed to draw their armor away from 'the main attack'), but amphibious landings have very specific requirements that have to all fall within certain space of hours. The tides have to be low around dawn, the weather has to meet certain minimums for at least two or three days (which requires that it be done in late spring or summer) and you must be able to guarantee air superiority over the beachhead and overwhelming sea superiority around it.

If you throw in the need for a moonless night to permit a major airborne assault, the days available to make the cross-Channel attack are very limited in any given year.

The only place we had manpower shortages because of the buildup for D-Day was in Italy, where they were forced to operate on the proverbial shoestring because all the manpower and supplies were sitting in England waiting for the invasion of France.

Soviet troops would have been welcome there, but Stalin would never have agreed to taking part in a unified Allied command if the Soviets weren't running the show.

cheers

horseback