Turkish lawmakers switch parties in challenge to Erdogan
- Thread starter BMD
- Start date
Who are you to support them,when you share no boundary.
All this Nato Nonsense you been invading countries and looting it.
I don't make Accusations it is the truth you keep Terrorists and trouble makers of India in UK as a part of your foreign policy.
Your crimes pale in comparison to whatever Assad did, Who are you to judge some country or its ruler?
Staying out was not a option when 10 Millions refugees cross border and more come daily running from Genocide, moreover we waited for a whole year for any diplomatic solution, You flatly refused to act against your ally Pakistan and we had to act when Pakistan declared war on us.
When somebody declares war and attacks your country you defend it, you just don't stay out of it.When we share a border with both countries.
I told this many times does it even get into your thick skull?
I don't care who does what as long it is not my border.
After a thorough shafting and Encirclement of British troops in Dunkirk, you ran back to England,
it was the soviets which pushed Nazis from East.
It was they who broke the Nazis back,while you were holidaying in UK.
Let Russians worry about what they want, you don't get to choose what they want for themselves, they are happy with the present system, it works for them. Not everyone likes your Western style Democracy of Loot and plunder.
Nobody made you guardian of the world and nobody appreciates your invasions to install your puppets to loot the countries.Why don't you worry about what happens in your country first?
Why worry and intervene in countries half way around the world,who don't even share a geographical boundary with you.
We don't worry about what happens in Africa, South America. Likewise, you should stick to worrying about your boundaries.
Last edited:
Devil quoting the scriptures, British talking about Massacres?
Irony committed suicide.
Your role played in those countries is there in world history for all to see, and it is not so nice.
LOL, We had to kick out the British to get Democracy, it was not like you gave us Democracy or anything, your were a colonist not a Democracy supporter.
It was Indians who drafted Constitution and Democracy for us,, Not the british.
You were a thief,we had to kick you out to get our house back.
Last edited:
What you said about pakistan is right but how is it related to the topic? Can you explain a little more please? How do you see separate Kurdistan as a threat to Turky where as a separate Kashmir not a threat to India when separation and formation both pakistan and bangladesh has already created problems for us..
Northern Ireland border poll, 1973 - Wikipedia
Your role after the UK left is arguably worse given the time span and state of civilisation, foreign aid etc.
And Pakistan initially had democracy too after the UK left. How strange that democracy suddenly sprouted in that part of the world.
The net flow of cash in all recent wars has been towards the other country. We oppose Assad because he's a) a dictator, b) a war criminal and c) a sponsor of terrorism, d) blocking economic progress in the region.
No it is garbage. The UK would not harbour any known terrorists. We like to deport them as quickly as possible and only the ECTR (European Court of Terrorist Rights) prevents us.
And how many refugees are coming to the EU? Not just recently, but for decades.
And how many British troops were there and how many troops in the Nazi and Italian armies? The idea was to bolster a French force, but the French force turned out to be useless, so the retreated and then invaded in 1944, having successfully diverted German resources away from coastal reinforcement by blowing up some dams.
You mean the Soviet union who was being supported by British supplies through most of their involvement? Look at the timing of the Dambuster's raid and the Soviet advance. That attack was never credited with removing German resources from elsewhere. That raid broke the back of the German industrial heartland that supplied their forces. It took months for it to get back to full capacity.
Russians don't get to vote for what they want though.
I agree the net flow of cash has been about blowing up that country.
You oppose Assad because he stands as thorn to your bigger project of redrawing ME map.
Not because he is a dictator, he can do what he wants, you are not his neighbor nor custodian of ME.
All the Terrorist orgs are based in UK, They get funding from your Govt.
The refugees are coming to EU. because you blew up their country.
It is all part of your policy.
Bolster French ? you got shafted ,surrounded at Dunkirk.nd how many British troops were there and how many troops in the Nazi and Italian armies? The idea was to bolster a French force, but the French force turned out to be useless, so the retreated and then invaded in 1944, having successfully diverted German resources away from coastal reinforcement by blowing up some dams.
You mean the Soviet union who was being supported by British supplies through most of their involvement? Look at the timing of the Dambuster's raid and the Soviet advance. That attack was never credited with removing German resources from elsewhere. That raid broke the back of the German industrial heartland that supplied their forces. It took months for it to get back to full capacity.
It was Hitler who halted your destruction to let you leave that place.
You were hardly having supplies when your ships got torpedoed by U-boats
You give too much credit for yourself, ask any historian it was the Nazi's Loss in Stalingrad and the Battle of Kursk(the biggest tank battle in world history), that turned the tide of war, till then they were kicking Brits all around.
You mean to say, you couldn't get supplies from USA yourself, but you were Air dropping supplies to USSR who was far away East?
Great joke.
You are nobody to decide what Russians want. Worry about yourself.
He's holding back the economic development of the region in general as well as oppressing his own people and the occasional Sarin attack.
Oh sure they are. Too much RT India.
They blew up their own countries after dictators were removed. Learn to distinguish the difference.
Nope. The plan the evacuate Dunkirk was very well execute. Sadly the French Army was useless against the Germans. The British supplied the Soviets. Take a look at the aircraft they used.Bolster French ? you got shafted ,surrounded at Dunkirk.
It was Hitler who halted your destruction to let you leave that place.
You were hardly having supplies when your ships got torpedoed by U-boats
You give too much credit for yourself, ask any historian it was the Nazi's Loss in Stalingrad and the Battle of Kursk(the biggest tank battle in world history), that turned the tide of war, till then they were kicking Brits all around.
You mean to say, you couldn't get supplies from USA yourself, but you were Air dropping supplies to USSR who was far away East?
Great joke.
List of aircraft of the Red Army Air Forces - Wikipedia
- Bell P-39 Airacobra (5,007 supplied from the United States, 4,719 reached Soviet Union)
- Bell P-63 Kingcobra (2,421 supplied from the United States)
- Curtiss P-40 Kittyhawk/Tomahawk (2,425 supplied from the United States)
- Hawker Hurricane (2,952 supplied from Britain)
- North American P-51 Mustang (small numbers supplied)
- Republic P-47 Thunderbolt (195 supplied from the United States)
- Supermarine Spitfire (1,331 supplied from Britain)
- De Havilland Mosquito
- Douglas A-20 Havoc (2,771 supplied from the United States)
- Handley Page Hampden (23 supplied by the United Kingdom)
- North American B-25 Mitchell (862 supplied from the United States)
Did Russia Really Go It Alone? How Lend-Lease Helped the Soviets Defeat the Germans
BY ALEXANDER HILL
7/12/2008 • POLITICS, WORLD WAR II
Soviet general A. A. Kuznetsov climbs from a British Hurricane cloaked in Soviet colors. (National Archives)
The Soviets have long insisted that Lend-Lease aid made little difference. Newly discovered files tell another story
After a series of dramatic Nazi successes during the opening stages of Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, foreign observers predicted that Soviet resistance would soon collapse. By October, German troops were poised outside both Leningrad and Moscow. But the Germans were doggedly held off in front of Moscow in late November and early December, and then rolled back by a reinvigorated Red Army in a staggeringly brutal winter counteroffensive.
That the Soviet victories of late 1941 were won with Soviet blood and largely with Soviet weapons is beyond dispute. But for decades the official Soviet line went much further. Soviet authorities recognized that the “Great Patriotic War” gave the Communist Party a claim to legitimacy that went far beyond Marxism-Leninism or the 1917 Revolution, and took pains to portray their nation’s victories in World War II as single-handed. Any mention of the role that Western assistance played in the Soviet war effort was strictly off-limits.
During Nikita Khrushchev’s rule in the late 1950s and early 1960s, there was a window of greater frankness and openness about the extent of aid supplied from the West under the Lend-Lease Act—but it was still clearly forbidden for Soviet authors to suggest that such aid ever made any real difference on the battlefield. Mentions of Lend-Lease in memoirs were always accompanied by disparagement of the quality of the weapons supplied, with American and British tanks and planes invariably portrayed as vastly inferior to comparable Soviet models.
An oft-quoted statement by First Vice-Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars Nikolai Voznesensky summed up the standard line that Allied aid represented “only 4 percent” of Soviet production for the entire war. Lacking any detailed information to the contrary, Western authors generally agreed that even if Lend-Lease was important from 1943 on, as quantities of aid dramatically increased, the aid was far too little and late to make a difference in the decisive battles of 1941–1942.
But since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a trickle of information has emerged from archives in Moscow, shedding new light on the subject. While much of the documentary evidence remains classified “secret” in the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense and the Russian State Archive of the Economy, Western and Russian researchers have been able to gain access to important, previously unavailable firsthand documents. I was recently able to examine Russian-language materials of the State Defense Committee—the Soviet equivalent of the British War Cabinet—held in the former Central Party Archive. Together with other recently published sources, including the wartime diaries of N. I. Biriukov, a Red Army officer responsible from August 1941 on for the distribution of recently acquired tanks to the front lines, this newly available evidence paints a very different picture from the received wisdom. In particular, it shows that British Lend-Lease assistance to the Soviet Union in late 1941 and early 1942 played a far more significant part in the defense of Moscow and the revival of Soviet fortunes in late 1941 than has been acknowledged.
Particularly important for the Soviets in late 1941 were British-supplied tanks and aircraft. American contributions of the time were far fewer. In fact, for a brief period during December 1941, the relative importance of British aid increased well beyond levels planned by the Allies as a result of American reaction to the outbreak of war with Japan; some American equipment destined for the Soviet Union was actually unloaded from merchant vessels and provided to American forces instead.
Even aid that might seem like a drop in the bucket in the larger context of Soviet production for the war played a crucial role in filling gaps at important moments during this period. At a time when Soviet industry was in disarray—many of their industrial plants were destroyed or captured by the advancing Nazi troops or in the process of evacuation east—battlefield losses of specific equipment approached or even exceeded the rate at which Soviet domestic production could replace them during this crucial period. Under these circumstances even small quantities of aid took on far greater significance.
According to research by a team of Soviet historians, the Soviet Union lost a staggering 20,500 tanks from June 22 to December 31, 1941. At the end of November 1941, only 670 Soviet tanks were available to defend Moscow—that is, in the recently formed Kalinin, Western, and Southwestern Fronts. Only 205 of these tanks were heavy or medium types, and most of their strength was concentrated in the Western Front, with the Kalinin Front having only two tank battalions (67 tanks) and the Southwestern Front two tank brigades (30 tanks).
Given the disruption to Soviet production and Red Army losses, the Soviet Union was understandably eager to put British armor into action as soon as possible. According to Biriukov’s service diary, the first 20 British tanks arrived at the Soviet tank training school in Kazan on October 28, 1941, at which point a further 120 tanks were unloaded at the port of Archangel in northern Russia. Courses on the British tanks for Soviet crews started during November as the first tanks, with British assistance, were being assembled from their in-transit states and undergoing testing by Soviet specialists.
The tanks reached the front lines with extraordinary speed. Extrapolating from available statistics, researchers estimate that British-supplied tanks made up 30 to 40 percent of the entire heavy and medium tank strength of Soviet forces before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941, and certainly made up a significant proportion of tanks available as reinforcements at this critical point in the fighting. By the end of 1941 Britain had delivered 466 tanks out of the 750 promised.
The British Military Mission to Moscow noted that by December 9, about ninety British tanks had already been in action with Soviet forces. The first of these units to have seen action seems to have been the 138th Independent Tank Battalion (with twenty-one British tanks), which was involved in stemming the advance of German units in the region of the Volga Reservoir to the north of Moscow in late November. In fact the British intercepted German communications indicating that German forces had first come in contact with British tanks on the Eastern front on November 26, 1941.
The exploits of the British-equipped 136th Independent Tank Battalion are perhaps the most widely noted in the archives. It was part of a scratch operational group of the Western Front consisting of the 18th Rifle Brigade, two ski battalions, the 5th and 20th Tank Brigades, and the 140th Independent Tank Battalion. The 136th Independent Tank Battalion was combined with the latter to produce a tank group of only twenty-one tanks, which was to operate with the two ski battalions against German forces advancing to the west of Moscow in early December. Other largely British-equipped tank units in action with the Western Front from early December were the 131st Independent Tank Brigade, which fought to the east of Tula, south of Moscow, and 146th Tank Brigade, in the region of Kriukovo to the immediate west of the Soviet capital.
While the Matilda Mk II and Valentine tanks supplied by the British were certainly inferior to the Soviets’ homegrown T-34 and KV-1, it is important to note that Soviet production of the T-34 (and to a lesser extent the KV series), was only just getting seriously underway in 1942, and Soviet production was well below plan targets. And though rapid increases in tank firepower would soon render the 40mm two-pounder main gun of the Matilda and Valentine suitable for use on light tanks only, the armor protection of these British models put them firmly in the heavy and medium categories, respectively. Both were superior to all but the Soviet KV-1 and T-34 in armor, and indeed even their much maligned winter cross-country performance was comparable to most Soviet tanks excluding the KV-1 and T-34.
A steady stream of British-made tanks continued to flow into the Red Army through the spring and summer of 1942. Canada would eventually produce 1,420 Valentines, almost exclusively for delivery to the Soviet Union. By July 1942 the Red Army had 13,500 tanks in service, with more than 16 percent of those imported, and more than half of those British.
Lend-Lease aircraft deliveries were also of significance during the Battle of Moscow. While Soviet pilots praised the maneuverability of the homegrown I-153 Chaika and I-16 Ishak fighters—still in use in significant numbers in late 1941—both types were certainly obsolete and inferior in almost all regards to the British-supplied Hurricane. The Hurricane was rugged and tried and tested, and as useful at that point as many potentially superior Soviet designs such as the LaGG-3 and MiG-3. There were apparently only 263 LaGG-3s in the Soviet inventory by the time of the Moscow counteroffensive, and it was an aircraft with numerous defects. At the end of 1941 there were greater numbers of the MiG-3, but the plane was considered difficult to fly. The Yak-1, arguably the best of the batch, and superior in most regards to the Hurricane, suffered from airframe and engine defects in early war production aircraft.
A total of 699 Lend-Lease aircraft had been delivered to Archangel by the time the Arctic convoys switched to Murmansk in December 1941. Of these, 99 Hurricanes and 39 Tomahawks were in service with the Soviet air defense forces on January 1, 1942, out of a total of 1,470 fighters. About 15 percent of the aircraft of the 6th Fighter Air Corps defending Moscow were Tomahawks or Hurricanes.
The Soviet Northern Fleet was also a major and early recipient of British Hurricanes, receiving those flown by No. 151 Wing of the RAF, which operated briefly from Soviet airfields near Murmansk. As early as October 12, 1941, the Soviet 126th Fighter Air Regiment was operating with Tomahawks bought from the United States by Britain. Tomahawks also served in defense of the Doroga Zhizni or “Road of Life” across the ice of Lake Ladoga, which provided the only supply line to the besieged city of Leningrad during the winter of 1941–42. By spring and summer of 1942 the Hurricane had clearly become the principal fighter aircraft of the Northern Fleet’s air regiments; in all, 83 out of its 109 fighters were of foreign origin.
British and Commonwealth deliveries to the Soviet Union in late 1941 and early 1942 would not only assist in the Soviet defense of Moscow and subsequent counteroffensive, but also in increasing Soviet production for the next period of the war. Substantial quantities of machine tools and raw materials, such as aluminum and rubber, were supplied to help Soviet industry back on its feet: 312 metal-cutting machine tools were delivered by convoy PQ-12 alone, arriving in March 1942, along with a range of other items for Soviet factories such as machine presses and compressors.
Once again, raw figures do not tell the whole story. Although British shipments amounted to only a few percent of Soviet domestic production of machine tools, the Soviet Union could request specific items which it may not have been able to produce for itself. Additionally, many of the British tools arrived in early 1942, when Soviet tool production was still very low, resulting in a disproportionate impact. The handing over of forty imported machine tools to Aviation Factory No. 150 in July 1942, for example, was the critical factor in enabling the factory to reach projected capacity within two months.
Lend-Lease aid did not “save” the Soviet Union from defeat during the Battle of Moscow. But the speed at which Britain in particular was willing and able to provide aid to the Soviet Union, and at which the Soviet Union was able to put foreign equipment into frontline use, is still an underappreciated part of this story. During the bitter fighting of the winter of 1941–1942, British aid made a crucial difference.
No but perhaps Russians are, that's why they call it democracy. And when opposition MPs keep suddenly dying and disappearing, that is not free and fair elections.
And that concerns you how if he is impairing economy.
If he had no support. he wouldn't be ruling this long.
Sarin gas attack is by rebels.
It is a genuine concern for all Indians, not of RT or others.
Yeah a very well executed plan of run back to your home, indeed
You mean to say, your people were starving with half loafs of bread,while your creating a artificial famine in Bengal which killed 4 million by diverting wheat shipments to England.
Your Industries,cities got bombed and during all these you were supplying the Soviets?, Sure!
Too Much British/ BBC Propaganda.
So, let them decide it, why are you so worried about it? why meddle in other country affairs.
You obviously don't understand how a dictatorship works. Take the North Korean regime as an example.
Sure, the UK is harbouring terrorists against India. Tell the people anything to distract them from how badly the Indian government is doing relative to the Chinese government.
Fighting is all about footwork.
Yes, when a plane was shot down, there was a new one by noon the following day. The facts of supplies to the Soviets are indisputable. Hence why several UK merchant marines were given medals by the Soviets.
I'm not, I'm just stating how it is. It's a dictatorship masquerading as a democracy and usually propping up other dictatorships.
Sure, the UK is harbouring terrorists against India. Tell the people anything to distract them from how badly the Indian government is doing relative to the Chinese government.
Fighting is all about footwork.
Yes, when a plane was shot down, there was a new one by noon the following day. The facts of supplies to the Soviets are indisputable. Hence why several UK merchant marines were given medals by the Soviets.
I'm not, I'm just stating how it is. It's a dictatorship masquerading as a democracy and usually propping up other dictatorships.
Once again i ask why are you so bothered about North Korea more than North Korea? They like the way their country is run,
why do you interfere in other state affairs? did someone give you Policeman job?
It is not Indian Government saying, it is noticed by common people, you don't like it when people have their opinions against you, Newsflash ,Irish boy, we say what we think. We are not your Country.
The Same USA, UK wanted to attack India in 1971 and asked for Chinese help,stop your sanctimonious posturing will you.
You are pretty footy i can say, you got a lot of footwork to run from Dunkrik,Africa Corps.
Too much MI5,BBC propaganda addles your brain. You were starving, but you were making one plane everyday by noon?
Medals were probably given because of the way they retreated British soldiers from Dunkirk.
You are a Monarchy, it is rich coming from you,the talk of Democracy.
You must be Oppressed by Monarchy masquerading as a Democracy.
Sure they do. They love tapeworm in their gut from having to use human faeces as fertiliser and that soldier who was shot defecting was laughing for joy throughout.
The US went to protect West Pakistan. How many times did the US help you against the Chinese and how many times did the Soviets not?
We did most of the work in Africa, made a comeback from a single airbase in Iraq.
Yeah right, the press always says what they government wants here. When has Russian press ever criticised Putin or asked him when he's going to resign? How's the weather up there. UK press coverage only recently forced the Home Secretary to resign here, when does that ever happen in Russia?
The Monarchy doesn't interfere with politics one iota.