Importance of American lend-lease to Soviet war effort in WW II?

[David Floyd]

Sandman,

What strikes me as particularly suspect is your comment that his comments were taped by the NKVD in 1965 and 1966. The NKVD did not exist in those years.

Actually I just checked that out. It turns out the eavesdropping was attributed to "security organs". I read that and summarized it as NKVD. I did not realize it did not exist at that time. My mistake.

But in any case, you can do a search on the quote. It will come up as I said.

[Sandman]

It sure has come up just as you said. But it's just another person battling for lend-lease like you. It's not particularly convincing.

Alternatively, we could accept that Zhukov didn't know that in a severe situation, the SU could have started using less efficient fertiliser derived explosives, like the Germans actually had to do.

[David Floyd]

It sure has come up just as you said. But it's just another person battling for lend-lease like you. It's not particularly convincing.

Fortunately I'm quoting a book with an author, not some random guy on the Internet.

Alternatively, we could accept that Zhukov didn't know that in a severe situation, the SU could have started using less efficient fertiliser derived explosives, like the Germans actually had to do.

Yes, they could have done that. And they could have also done without Lend Lease food, and eaten grass and mud. And marched a thousand miles through the snow without boots, without Lend Lease boots or locomotives or rail lines. And used wood to build their tanks and airplanes, instead of high quality aluminum and steel supplied by the US. And used poor quality substitutes instead of the over 100,000 tons of natural rubber sent by Great Britain.

But I think that in any case, you are making my point for me. Germany was defeated economically and industrially, and was forced to use poor substitutes for various raw materials they couldn't get enough of. Germany also lost the war.

Go figure.

[Alexander's Horse]

Actually the German war economy didn't get into top gear till the summer of 1944 and then quickly declined because allied armies were closing in from all sides.

War supplies from the West were important to Russia but I intensely dislike this idea that somehow this undercuts the Russian achievement in driving the Germans out of their country, liberating Eastern Europe and taking Berlin. It is one of the greatest feats of arms of all time, a heroic event and at the same time a tragedy of epic proportions. 20 million dead.

Whenever I see the film of the Soviet Flag being hoisted over the Reichstag, it moves me. They came so far and lost so much.

So shut up Floyd, you amateur expert

There are so many dimensions to this which you clearly are simply not mature enough yet to see

[David Floyd]

War supplies from the West were important to Russia but I intensely dislike this idea that somehow this undercuts the Russian achievement in driving the Germans out of their country, liberating Eastern Europe and taking Berlin.

Yeah, most Russians don't like the idea either. "Liberating" Eastern Europe my ass - just another form of brutal dictatorship in reality.

And as to Berlin, the US and British could have been there first, it was political considerations that forced them to allow the Soviets to take Berlin.

It is one of the greatest feats of arms of all time, a heroic event and at the same time a tragedy of epic proportions. 20 million dead.

Yes, it was a great feat of arms. That great feat was made possible because of Lend Lease, though, more than anything else - without US resources, which the Soviet Union simply did not have enough of, especially after having their agricultural areas in the Ukraine and the Donets Basin overrun, I fail to see how it would have been possible for them to defeat Germany.

So shut up Floyd, you amateur expert

There are so many dimensions to this which you clearly are simply not mature enough yet to see

Yeah, OK. This coming from the guy who's post basically consists of "Russian achievement...liberating Europe...greatest feats of arms....heroic event....I'm moved by it..."

Post some facts, not rhetoric.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by David Floyd

Post some facts, not rhetoric.

I would except you just aren't in my league in your basic knowledge of the history of the war so what's the point?

Anyone who seriously claims the Torch landing somehow caused the fall of Stalingrad is just a joke.

And you should try and have a bit more sensitivity to the feelings of Russian posters. This means something to them - its not just lines on a map like it is for you.

I don't think there is any argument that US intervention was decisive in the war in the West but to claim that the United States somehow also won the war in the East is just laughable. So I laugh

So go and study some more son, and then we can talk.

[David Floyd]

I would except you just aren't in my league in your basic knowledge of the history of the war what's the point?

Good dodge

Anyone who seriously claims the Torch landing somehow caused the fall of Stalingrad is just a joke.

Actually what I said was that without the Torch landings, Germany might have had enough resources to extricate 6th Army.

And you should try and have a bit more sensitivity to the feelings of Russian posters.

If one gets their feelings hurt by other people saying that their country would have been defeated without foreign assistance, maybe that person shouldn't participate in such discussions.

don't there is any argument that US intervention was decisive in the war in the West but to claim that the United States somehow also won the war in the East is just laughable.

So you are saying that without the US in the war AT ALL, the Soviet Union still would have won?

Now THAT'S laughable.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Yeah, most Russians don't like the idea either. "Liberating" Eastern Europe my ass - just another form of brutal dictatorship in reality.

And as to Berlin, the US and British could have been there first, it was political considerations that forced them to allow the Soviets to take Berlin.

That's utterly preposterous, if the Americans/Brits faced even half the troops the Soviets were up against on the Eastern front they would have been stopped dead in their tracks. Look at how bad the battle of the bulge set back the westerners. And those troops were just a drop in the bucket compared to the numbers on the eastern front.

That great feat was made possible because of Lend Lease, though, more than anything else - without US resources, which the Soviet Union simply did not have enough of, especially after having their agricultural areas in the Ukraine and the Donets Basin overrun, I fail to see how it would have been possible for them to defeat Germany.

I thought we established long ago in this thread that the American supplies were only 5% of the Soviet total, therefore an inconsequential footnote to the Soviet's victory. Moreover, there has been some talk that the Soviets didn't actually start recieving shipments until '42, when the most critical threat had already passed. Come on Dave, you know I love you, but stop beating this dead horse.

[David Floyd]

That's utterly preposterous, if the Americans/Brits faced even half the troops the Soviets were up against on the Eastern front they would have been stopped dead in their tracks. Look at how bad the battle of the bulge set back the westerners. And those troops were just a drop in the bucket compared to the numbers on the eastern front.

You are arguing two separate things. First, you say that it is "preposterous" to state the US could have been in Berlin first. Then, you support that with another argument - that if the US faced the number of troops the Soviets did, they would have been stopped.

That argument does not refute my position in the least.

The validity of that argument itself is also doubtful. Volkssturm and tank-hunters on bicycles weren't gonna stop the US any more than they stopped the Soviets. US and British air power also dominated the battlefield, and could rip up any large concentrations of armor the Germans wanted to put together.

Further, the US Army of 1944 was not the US Army of 1942 - they were certainly capable of defeating the Germans. As to your specific Battle of the Bulge example, part of the reason the Germans went so far at first was due to weather grounding Allied airpower and the fact that they were initially only facing relatively new US infantry divisions, and managed to retain the element of surprise.

But come on - launching a counteroffensive by scraping together the last of your reserves against vastly superior, well-supplied forces with air supremacy and numerical superiority is too monumentally STUPID to be considered a possibility to begin with. So I guess you have the US on the fact that they shouldn't have underestimated the depth of Hitler's stupidity.

I thought we established long ago in this thread that the American supplies were only 5% of the Soviet total, therefore an inconsequential footnote to the Soviet's victory. Moreover, there has been some talk that the Soviets didn't actually start recieving shipments until '42, when the most critical threat had already passed. Come on Dave, you know I love you, but stop beating this dead horse.

The 5% figure had to do with the overall dollar amount, not overall production. If you look over the figures I already posted, you'll see that Lend Lease shipments of AFVs and (to a lesser extent) aircraft were not all that decisive, but that is not the case at all in terms of things such as raw materials/resources, locomotives, railroad track, food, etc.

[David Floyd]

Really? So the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe was actually a POSITIVE thing? Please

[Ned]

David, Lend Lease supplies did not begin arriving in Russia until early 1942. Therefore, the Battle of Moscow was won solely by the Soviets. From this point on, the Germans had no chance against the Soviets. The tide had turned against them. The Germans achieved no major successes in 1942, while the Soviets built up many new armies for the winter counter-attack. When those newly built armies entered the battle, German troops were in almost constant retreat, enomously outmanned and outgunned, with every counterattack easily defeated.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by David Floyd

And as to Berlin, the US and British could have been there first, it was political considerations that forced them to allow the Soviets to take Berlin.

Okay, now your quoting my corrections from earlier in the thread

I'm sorry but I just see this whole thread as a big troll on your part.

The question of the influence of Western support to Russia on the outcome of the war in the East is an intriguing one but we just won't know the answer for some time I suspect.

[monkspider]

I won't say too many good things about Stalin, but it was better than the Nazis. Plus by about the 60s and 70s the standard of living for the average eastern european was pretty good, much better than before the war. So yeah, joining the Soviet Union ended up being pretty good for the countries in Eastern Europe.

[David Floyd]

Therefore, the Battle of Moscow was won solely by the Soviets.

I can buy that, as long as you concede that the weather at the time had at least as much to do with the German defeat as Soviet resistance did.

The Germans achieved no major successes in 1942, while the Soviets built up many new armies for the winter counter-attack. When those newly built armies entered the battle, German troops were in almost constant retreat, enomously outmanned and outgunned, with every counterattack easily defeated.

A few points. First of all, the SU's ability to transport troops up and down the front and to various locations depended to a large degree upon locomotives and railroad tracks - of which well over 80% of each were supplied by the US.

Secondly, the SU's ability to supply these armies depended to a significant degree upon Lend Lease. US food shipments throughout the war were enough to feed an army of 12 million for five years, for example. Lend Lease also provided much of the ammunition and explosives for these armies.

Third, the SU's ability to build these armies in the first place depended to a significant degree upon Lend Lease, particularly in Lend Lease raw materials. As I've pointed out before, large percentages of coppor, steel, aluminum, etc., were given to the Soviet Union. Also, Lend Lease accounted for most of the SU's complex and versatile machine tools.

Fourth, the SU's ability to operate these armies depended to a significant degree on Lend Lease. Hundreds of thousands of trucks were provided - trucks of a much higher quality than domestically produced ones. Further, large percentages of aviation fuel were provided by Lend Lease.

[David Floyd]

AH,

Okay, now your quoting my corrections from earlier in the thread

Actually I believe I was the first to bring up the point about the US being able to take Berlin first.

I'm sorry but I just see this whole thread as a big troll on your part.

Of course, I didn't even start the damn thread.

The question of the influence of Western support to Russia on the outcome of the war in the East is an intriguing one but we just won't know the answer for some time I suspect.

Well, as more and more documents from the era are declassified by Russia, Lend Lease keeps looking more and more significant.

monkspider,

I won't say too many good things about Stalin, but it was better than the Nazis.

Even for the East Germans? I doubt it.

Plus by about the 60s and 70s the standard of living for the average eastern european was pretty good, much better than before the war.

Not compared to the standard of living for the average western European