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

[Serb]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That should be taken as an indictment of what you did to them more than anything else.

So, you consider a monument dedicated to SS soldiers (a people who kill, tortured and burned civilians alive) as a good thing? Great, just ******* great.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Serb
So, you consider a monument dedicated to SS soldiers (a people who kill, tortured and burned civilians alive) as a good thing? Great, just ******* great.

Six of one, half a dozen of another. They would likely say that and more about the rule of the Communists.

[Serb]

Look on Germany, a country defeated by SU, a country which lost millions of people in war vs. SU. There is no vandalism against monuments dedicated to Soviet soldiers, no one there destroy graves of Soviet soldiers like it happens in Baltic states.
Thats why I'm highly respect Germans and gratefull to them. It's our history, we are not enemies anymore and hopefully never will be again. We have a saying "kto proshloe pamyanet, tomu glaz von" (untranslatable). Looks like guys in Baltic states unable to forgive, unable to be freinds.

They would likely say that and more about the rule of the Communists.

Bs. You perfectly know that its false.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Serb
Look on Germany, a country defeated by SU, a country which lost millions of people in war vs. SU. There is no vandalism against monuments dedicated to Soviet soldiers, no one there destroy graves of Soviet soldiers like it happens in Baltic states.
Thats why I'm highly respect Germans and gratefull to them. It's our history, we are not enemies anymore and hopefully never will be again. We have a saying "kto proshloe pamyanet, tomu glaz von" (untranslatable). Looks like guys in Baltic states unable to forgive, unable to be freinds.


Bs. You perfectly know that its false.

Serb, I suspect there is a duality of feelings toward Russia in Germany. The war generation probably still harbors a lot of anti-Russian feelings just as they also have anti- American feelings. The generations that grew up since were educated by the Allies to reject their Nazi past and see the errors of Hitler. The new generation hardly has any emotional, nationalist connection to the Nazi period. Further, they probably viewed the continued occupation of their country by the allies for decades as necessary given the cold war.

The Luthuanians, in contrast, were reoccupied by the Soviets. Lithuanians grew to resent the USSR and probably looked back the period of German occupation as a period of liberty.

[Sandman]

Context: My scepticism regarding the Zhukov quotes.

Excuse me. A quote is still a quote

Forgive me if I still treat it with doubt. How come no-one else has heard these tapes?

There's a difference between the population and the military. The population was in many cases left on its own, as first priority was given to the military. You don't want a military that is eating grass, after all.

Essential workers are every bit as important as soldiers. You don't want them eating grass either. Five million tons of food is a drop in the ocean. If we compare calories, then the LL food fares better, composed as it was mainly of high-fat foods. But it still remains at best a handy thing to have, not a war-winner.

Considering the fact that a pair of boots probably won't last all that long in a combat environment, and considering the fact that the majority of these millions of boots, shoes, etc., were being worn by the general population, 14 million pairs is a fairly considerable amount

If a pair of boots doesn't last long in combat, then 14 million pairs is not especially helpful. If they do last long in combat, then it is helpful, but war-winning? I doubt it. I also expect SU produced substantial quantities of footwear of their own. IIRC, they killed their livestock at an unsustainable rate. That leather must have gone somewhere. And let's not forget that workers who lived in factories could probably get by with cheap cloth footwear.

True, however, many of these locomotives were captured or destroyed in Western Russia in the first months of the campaign. It's not as if these locomotives were sitting in warehouses behind the lines - they were in use, and one of their major uses was in Western Russia, including sending resources to Germany.

They would still have had the substantial numbers of rolling stock outside of the immediate danger area, and plenty of trains escaped the German invasion, loaded with machinery, workers or deported ethnicites. They certainly lost lots, but they would still have an adequate supply of rail transport, much more than was delivered by LL or produced at home.

Further, if the Soviet Union didn't need all these locomotives, then why do you imagine the US sent them, as opposed to something else?

The utility of trains was presumably greater on the Eastern Front than in the West. Either that, or they just put them in for no reason.

Of course they employed some wooden planes. But I don't think you can argue that these planes were as good as ones made out of some form of metal (generally speaking).

Generally speaking a wooden fighter can take down a metal bomber. The difference between wooden and metal fighters is not so great either.

Good enough to build tanks with? Possibly - even probably. The point you're missing, though, is that all of these seemingly "minor" sacrifices are adding up. So far we're up to, sans Lend Lease, a much higher proportion of wooden airplanes, tanks made out of low-grade steel, a serious lack of boots among either the military or civilians, causing even more of that group to freeze to death, further cutting production, and a much higher number of Russians getting little to no food. You can easily argue that any one of these things can be overcome, but it's much tougher to argue that if the Soviet Union was faced with all of those disadvantages, and others, they still would have won.

Their proportion of wooden aircraft was pretty high anyway (the majority, IIRC) , and more wooden aircraft is not necessarily a bad thing. Their tanks are renowned for being easy to build, and of course most of the Soviet Union's steel was self-produced. I really think that you are wrong to claim that there would have been crippling shortage of boots if it was not for LL, for reasons posted above. Even considering that the LL food had a higher calorie content than the tonnage suggests, it was still a tiny amount when placed next to the food needed by the population. You are inflating these disadvantages to unrealistic levels.

Context: Soviet rubber supplies

Which was still not likely enough to meet all of Russia's needs.

They developed their synthetic rubber industry to avoid imports. I say it was enough. The 100,000+ tons spread over four years is 25,000 tons per year, compared to the lowest estimate of their rubber production in 1940 of 50,000 tons a year. Even if we accept that they did not increase their wartime production (unlikely) and ignore any stockpiles then that's still just 50% of their output.

Context: Explosives supplies

Agreed, but I think you'll find that throughout history, the country facing the greatest economic disadvantages in wartime usually loses.

They'd still have had 2/3 explosives production without LL plus whatever substitutes came to hand.

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by monkspider
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.

If I remember correctly the element of the 101 Airborne that was in Bastone was sent there to rest. The Germans were lucky to run up against a small part of the 101st.
But then there was this General name Patton who turn his 3rd Army 90* and march 100 miles and took on the Germans and whipped their ass big time.
And BTW Patton requested several times to let his Army go to Berlin but was denied each time by Ike.

David
So far you are doing just fine.

[Alexander's Horse]

The Battle of Bulge was a minor battle compared with the battles that were being fought on the Eastern front at that time.

[David Floyd]

Sandman,

We can hypothesize and give our own estimates all day long, but before we can really go any further, I think what we need are production charts detailing Soviet production, Soviet consumption, and things of that nature.

I don't have ready access to those, but perhaps someone else does. I'll say right now, though, if the evidence indicates that the Soviet Union could have not only survived the war, but also been able to drive the Germans out of their vital areas in the Ukraine and elsewhere, then I'll go ahead and soften my stance. Fair enough?

AH,

The Battle of Bulge was a minor battle compared with the battles that were being fought on the Eastern front at that time.

Well, this is true. But the US also had fewer troops on the line in the West than the Soviets did in the East. The initial German attack swamped thousands of American troops, before US forces were able to get going and deal the Germans a rather large defeat.

[Dr Strangelove]

More German divisions were destroyed during the Battle of Normandy than during Stalingrad or Kursk.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
More German divisions were destroyed during the Battle of Normandy than during Stalingrad or Kursk.

Oh? Tell us more

[David Floyd]

I think he probably means the Battle of France (including Cobra, Falaise Gap, etc.). I seriously doubt he just means D-Day and the few days thereafter.

[Alexander's Horse]

Then in relation to Stalingrad and Kursk he should include units lost in the aftermath, i.e. the Soviet advances from those battles

But Normandy was a big battle - probably the only battle in the West on a par with the major battles in the East.

[David Floyd]

I think he should certainly be more specific.

[Boris Godunov]

This seems like a no-brainer (forgive me if this has been said before, many pages skipped):

Yes, lend-lease was vital to the Soviet war effort.

Yes, the Soviet war effort was vital to Allied victory.

Considering that victory was by no means assured, nor was it especially overwhelming, I think it is ludicrous to try and separate any of the war fronts from the others and think they could have been won independently of the others. It all worked together to defeat Hitler, and it was all necessary to do so.

Acknowledging the vitalness of lend-lease in no way diminishes the Russian war effort. Acknowledging the Russian war effort in no way diminishes the American and British participation in the West and Africa.

And yes, the U.S. would have kicked Soviet butt had they gone to war immediately after the fall of Germany, by virtue of overwhelmingly superior airpower and fresh troops. But that doesn't matter here, now does it?

[David Floyd]

Yes, the Soviet war effort was vital to Allied victory.

Considering that victory was by no means assured

Boris, I pretty much agree with you, except for the above two quotes.

In my opinion, once the US joined the war, victory over Germany was assured regardless of Soviet participation, because of US industry, US money, and US atomic weapons.