I think Paul's right about Stalin. It was because of him that the Soviet
Union's frontline units were virtually annihilated in the first weeks of
Operation Barbarossa. Stalin refused to accept the intelligence that he was
receiving, from his own people and from the British and Americans, that
Hitler was about to attack in the spring of '41, and as a result. forbade
his generals from taking any action that might provoke the Germans. Stalin
believed, right up until the Germans smashed through his lines, that if he
continued to supply Hitler with raw materials (as per their Non-aggression
pact of 1939) the Nazis would direct their loving attentions elsewhere.
What Stalin could not comprehend was the racialist core of Hitler's
ideology (Stalin saw him as just another capitalist leader who could be
bought off), and that the German drive to the east was inevitable. And, the
Soviet peoples paid for it in spades. It's ironic that thousands died on
the Murmansk run to supply the Soviet Union, which had so recently supplied
Hitler in his campaign in western Europe, North Africa, and the Balkans.

Richard M. Affleck, RPA
Senior Archaeologist
URS Corporation
561 Cedar Lane
Florence, NJ  08518-2511
609-499-3447 (phone)
609-499-3516 (fax)



                      paul courtney
                      <paul.courtney2@NT        To:       [log in to unmask]
                      LWORLD.COM>               cc:
                      Sent by:                  Subject:  Re: tanks
                      HISTORICAL
                      ARCHAEOLOGY
                      <[log in to unmask]>


                      08/03/2004 09:15
                      AM
                      Please respond to
                      HISTORICAL
                      ARCHAEOLOGY






I think the terrible Murmansk run probably was of significant military
importance, especially early on before the Russians began to throw the
Germans westward (the Germans certainly put a lot of resource in trying to
sink the ships) but it was also of prime political importance in promoting
the alliance. The great question still is did the Russians win because of
Stalin or despite him. I think probably the latter. Most of the Rusian
toops
didn't need NKVD execution squads in the rear to throw themselves at the
Russians and the Russian winter had finished off the Grande Armee of
Napoleon. I am not sure if anyone still knows how many milions of Russians
died in the war as Stalin apparently played the figures them down for
propaganda reasons but figures of 20-25 million are often cited.


paul courtney



----- Original Message -----
From: "James Brothers" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: tanks


> Great care should be taken in claiming too much credit for the Allies
> supply efforts to the USSR. While the Murmansk Run did supply a fair
> number of trucks and some aircraft, most of the combat equipment
> (including tanks) used by the Soviets was made in the USSR. Taking
> nothing away from the heroism of the men who manned the ships, much of
> the value of the Murmansk Run was psychological. While it did not
> provide a great deal in the way of supplies, it did bolster Soviet
> morale and may well have kept them in the war. A considerable amount of
> material was also supplied through Iran.
>
> And as Paul has pointed out while the M4 Sherman may not have been the
> best tank, it was dependable and could be produced in vast quantities.
> The US was not alone in deciding to stick with a tried and true piece
> of equipment. The PkwV Panther was clearly superior to the PkwIII and
> PkwIV, yet the Germans continued to produce them. The one thing the
> Germans found especially disturbing about the Sherman was that every
> time you knocked one out, it was replaced by two more.
>
> On Aug 2, 2004, at 7:05 PM, paul courtney wrote:
>
> > As we are allowed to discuss WWII- I have heard Russians say in TV
> > interviews say they weren't too keen on receiving the Shermans as part
> > of
> > the arms shipments. Of course the Brits called  the Sherman the Ronson
> > (after the cigarette lighter) while the Germans called it the Tommy
> > Cooker-
> > for its tendency to burst into flames. The great thing about the
> > Sherman was
> > they were produced in huge numbers and were cheap and reliable. Allied
> > aircraft notably typhoons increasingly took out any German armour that
> > moved
> > as in the carnage of the Falaise pocket. I admire the bravery of the
> > many
> > allied tank crews who took on a Panther or even worse a Tiger tank in a
> > Sherman- most didn't live to tell the tale. The shells normally
> > bounced off
> > unless they hit them accurately from the side at close quarters -
> > that's if
> > they could get that close. One of the lucky breaks of the Normandy
> > landing
> > was Hitler insisted on keeping his best armour well in reserve. One of
> > the
> > reasons German and Russian tanks were advanced was because they
> > actually
> > co-operated on tank development in the 1930s when the Germans were not
> > supposed to have any. One of Stalin's nice tricks like in his pact days
> > handing over the exiled German communist party cadres to the SS for
> > disposal
> > in the concentration camps.
> >
> > paul courtney
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ron May" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 11:00 PM
> > Subject: Re: history films
> >
> >
> >> Ian,
> >>
> >> More than paid for all those Russian arms, we also shipped hundreds of
> > tons
> >> of material to Russia. A late friend's husband was in the merchant
> >> marine
> > and
> >> got a medal from Russia for surviving the Murmansk Run, in which a
> >> great
> > many
> >> American ships were sunk by Nazi u-boats. A lot of those "superior"
> >> tanks
> > were
> >> American Shermans with red stars painted on the turret.
> >>
> >> Ron May
> >> Legacy 106, Inc.
> >