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

[Serb]

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Just a couple of comments. It is not quite correct to illustrate the magnitude of lend-lease by singling out some specific area (e.g. trucks, locomotives) and pointing out an impressive percentage of lend-lease supplies versus the corresponding Soviet production. It is more correct to compare the gross numbers that include ALL products. Thus the total lend-lease to the USSR amounts to $11 billion (BTW it was $31 billion to Britain). At the same time, the USSR production is estimated at $190 billion. You see the point?

This what I always was tried to say. Case is closed, no matter what David think.

All this **** reminds me this situation:
A house of one man is on fire. He run to his neighbor and scream "I need help"
N: Sorry it is not my problem. I don't have to risk my life in fight for your house.
M: But, your house is close. If we will not stop the fire now, your house will be next.
N: I doubt this.
M: Fight with fire alone.
*later*
The fire is growing, and there is a real threat that next house will fire too*

M: *Again begging for help* Look, I told you if you will not help me, your house is next.
N: It is not my house. I don't have too.
M: At least, give me a fire extinguisher.
N: No, I can't. What if you are right? I would need it for myself.
M: GIVE ME SOMETHING!!!
N: Ok, take this buker of water.
M:*runs away to fight the fire again*

*few hours later when the fire is almost over*
N: *Apears in shining fire-fighter uniform.* Ok, I come to save you and our street from the horrible disaster. Don't worry, everything is under control now. I'm a proffesional. I will stop this fire within few seconds.
M:*almost totaly exhaused after hours of fight* Thank you ****** freind.
N: Drops a glass of water on fire.

Reporters arrived.
M: Drops on ground senseless.
Reporters: Who stoped this terrible fire?
N:Well, at the beggining it was M., I have supplied him with all nessecary equipment and training. Later I finished it myself.
R: Sir, you are so gentle, without you our street would be in ruins now.
N: It was my duty.

End of story

[Serb]

Originally posted by TheStinger


I don't think DF has ever said soviet regiments consisted of us tanks, he may have said that the trucks and trains that brought them and the tropps to the fronts were US though

Then I think, that you didn't have conversations with him about the same topic before.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Further, considering how close Manstein came to Stalingrad (30 miles, and von Paulus would have broken out if he'd gotten to within 20 or so), it is certainly plausible to state that the reinforcements sent to invade Vichy France and to Africa as a result of Torch could have been effectively used in the relief operation.

It seems that many of you don't have any idea wtf they are talking about.
Stalingrad as city has no importance. The city of Stalingrad WAS ENTIERLY DESTROYED within first months of battle. There were less then half of dozen undestroyed houses in Stalingrad. This clash could happen anywhere, the clash between the major forces of opposing sides. Stalingrad has more importance as symbol, (the city of Stalin), not as strategic city. So, there was no benefit to owe this city, the much imortant thing was to destroy more enemy forces then your own losses.

Aside 99% of you, my statements based on words of alive witness of those events, The men who went throught Stalingrad and was awarded there- my grandfather.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Ned
A Soviet victory was not needed to beat Nazi Germany. All that was needed is for the Soviets not to collapse and tie up a lot of the German army.

What a bullsh*t. Do you have any idea wtf are you talking about? Of course it's unthinkable for modern Americans to think that their army wasn't always strong. You rised on Hollywood propaganda, on movies where Jhon Wayne kills a dozen of nazi with single bullet and the same sh*t. In compare with German war machine, USA army in 1941 was an unexperienced and weak child. Of course, 500 tanks and about 100 000 American troops could easily kicked asses of 5 mln Wermaht soldiers (who conquered almost entire Europe within several months) without any help. Sure, why not every US soldier coul kill 12 nazi with single shot.

Perhaps Roosevelt misjudged, and gave the Soviets too much Lend Lease. They got to Berlin first.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR VICTORY? Durring only one, SINGLE Berlin operation Soviets lost about 300 000 soldiers.(Shut up David, Nazi lost about 470 000) Almost the same number Americans lost during ENTIRE WAR.
And you think, you should have been in Berlin first?

[TheStinger]

The reason for the massive losses in berlin was because the sovs rushed to take the city without adequatley preparing their attack. Stalins fault but then he wasn't one renowned for the welfare of his troops or indeed the general population

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ned

Perhaps Roosevelt misjudged, and gave the Soviets too much Lend Lease. They got to Berlin first.

No it was an allied decision that the Russians should take Berlin. The Western forces were more worried about clearing Bavaria and Austria, the mythical "Alpine redoubt".

And Floyd, your analysis of Stalingrad is completely flawed. The reason the Sixth Army was lost was Hitler ordered them to stay there. They could have broken out.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Serb
Stalingrad as city has no importance. The city of Stalingrad WAS ENTIERLY DESTROYED within first months of battle. There were less then half of dozen undestroyed houses in Stalingrad. This clash could happen anywhere, the clash between the major forces of opposing sides. Stalingrad has more importance as symbol, (the city of Stalin), not as strategic city. So, there was no benefit to owe this city, the much imortant thing was to destroy more enemy forces then your own losses.

Are you sure of that?
I always thought Stalingrad was on the way (railroad) to the Caucasus. The Germans take Stalingrad and the Caucasus is isolated.
Or was there another railroad line closer to the Caspian sea? Through Astrakhan?

[Harovan]

See Serb, what it means to have Americans as allies? Every of your victories they try to turn into theirs, and if they delivered you field kitchens, they'll say after, that "the victory is ours, because a hungry soldier can't fight". You can't blame them on that, it's part of the big propaganda machine. They need this to create and support this "We are the greatest" feeling.

You are also influenced by former Soviet and now Russian propaganda. The former I remember well from my years in the USSR, and I must say, your "We are the greatest" propaganda was no less than theirs is. The latter I don't know, I haven't been in Russia for 8 years, but I suspect it's not less than it was then, rather more, because Russia hasn't got a lot of other things to make people proud these days.

So Torch made the victory in Stalingrad possible? Well, Torch surely had some influence, although I think it's importance is rather overestimated, just like El Alamein. Rommels Africa corps was only one of many German armies and a large part of it were Italian forces. IIRC, it had only 5 panzer bataillons. Nice "tank army", no? But doesn't all that mean, that without Stalingrad the "Torch" could have been doused, and pretty quick, if it would have been possible at all?

When will people understand, that none of the sides "saved the other side's ass", and that all sides put their weight in the victory. Without the 2nd front the Soviet bloodtoll would have been a lot bigger, even though I think they would have finally won the war in all cases. And without the Eastern front the invasion force in the Normandy would today be on the ground of the English channel. That simple.

[David Floyd]

Vagabond,

After all, what, you think the USSR was unable to manufacture trucks or locomotives by itself? Given the lend-lease supplies, it simply concentrated on other areas of production. If there had been no lend-lease, the USSR would have had to redistribute its manifacturing capabilities. Just remember it was 11 versus 190.

That $11 billion in Lend Lease, though, was actually in many cases natural resources the Soviets could not produce in large enough quantities because the Germans overran their supplies. It was also things such as complex machine tools which the Soviet Union probably couldn't manufacture on its own either.

And in any case, imagine how much weaker the Soviet armies would have been if all that money had to go to buying domestic made Soviet equipment for logistics, rather than just tanks and planes.

is not quite true for the military equipment (tanks and airplanes). The reason is simply that the US didn't supply its best military equipment. In many cases it was an outdated and used equipment.

Very true. But two points. First of all, I have never really argued that US military help in Lend Lease turned the tide of the war. Secondly, the AFVs (armored fighting vehicles) provided by Lend Lease were definitely much more reliable than Soviet models, and get keep going for longer. Perhaps this is the reason Western light tanks were requested up to the end of the war, and the entire 1st Guards Mechanized Corps was equipped with Shermans in 1945.

First off, until 1944 there was no activity whatsoever in France. When you landed in Normandie, the Soviet victory was already predetermined and imminent anyway.

Well, Dieppe was a fairly major raid, not to mention German troops tied down in France, and those troops that had to be put together to invade Vichy France.

As for the Allied activity in North Africa, it's ridiculous that you even mention it so seriously. Just compare the numbers of German troops committed there and there and their respective casualties.

No, it's certainly not ridiculous, considering the fall of Africa led to the fall of Sicily, which knocked Italy out of the war. Because of this, by the end of the war, Germany had 1 million men in Italy, and they were also forced to put 27 divisions in the Balkans. Those are not inconsiderable forces.

serb,

Ah I knew you'd show up

David, you post the same crap as always. Find some proof of your statements. I don't by a crap about Soviet regiments totaly consisted of American tanks in 1941.

Well, I'll look for a source on that.
I DO, however, have a source on an entire Soviet corps equipped with Shermans in 1945, so the Red Army obviously wasn't adverse to the idea.

This what I always was tried to say. Case is closed, no matter what David think.

Unfortunately not. However, you never really listen to my arguments anyway, so it might as well be case closed.

[quote]It seems that many of you don't have any idea wtf they are talking about.
Stalingrad as city has no importance. The city of Stalingrad WAS ENTIERLY DESTROYED within first months of battle.(etc. etc. etc.)[quote]

None of that has anything to do with what I said.
Nowhere did I say Stalingrad was important - 6th Army was important, and that's why the relief operation was launched in the first place.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR VICTORY? Durring only one, SINGLE Berlin operation Soviets lost about 300 000 soldiers.(Shut up David, Nazi lost about 470 000) Almost the same number Americans lost during ENTIRE WAR.
And you think, you should have been in Berlin first?

Without Eisenhower forcing them to stop, General Simpson's US Ninth Army could have been in Berlin easily before the Russians, and Patton's Third Army could have taken Czechoslovakia and much of Austria.
This assumes that Patton's supplies are still cut off in 1944 to prepare for Operation Market Garden - if those supplies are NOT cut off, there is nothing between Patton and Germany, and it's conceivable the war could have ended in 1944.

AH,

And Floyd, your analysis of Stalingrad is completely flawed. The reason the Sixth Army was lost was Hitler ordered them to stay there.

Of course this is correct. I'm arguing from the standpoint that this order would not have been changed, and thus the only way to save 6th Army was to relieve it. If Manstein's force had come to around 20 miles away from Stalingrad, von Paulus probably would have violated orders and broken out anyway.

[Serb]

Originally posted by TheStinger
The reason for the massive losses in berlin was because the sovs rushed to take the city without adequatley preparing their attack. Stalins fault but then he wasn't one renowned for the welfare of his troops or indeed the general population

Bullsh*t.
It was well prepared. It started at night and first time in history large light projectors were used there. Before April 16 1945 humanity never saw such large scale night offense. The reason was a feirce resistance and well prepared defensive fortifications.

[Saint Marcus]

weren't the total supplies the USSR got in the Lend Lease deal about 1% of their total production in the war? I remember reading it somewhere, I'll look it up.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Dry

Are you sure of that?
I always thought Stalingrad was on the way (railroad) to the Caucasus. The Germans take Stalingrad and the Caucasus is isolated.
Or was there another railroad line closer to the Caspian sea? Through Astrakhan?

Well, perhaps I oversimplificated a bit.
But I was trying to say smth diferent. Both sides acted unusualy in this battle, the fought feircly, fought untill last men standing. As I said the city was entierly destroyed within few months of battle and I guess ruins of Stalingrad and its strategic position didn't cost loss of entire army. I mean they could retreat while they can, but they prefered to stay and continue the fight.

[TheStinger]

The attack was massive, but as the soviets lost more soldiers in the space of 3 weeks than they has in the last 6 months then something was wrong.They could have seiged berlin and waited for it to surrender, which it would have done. Stalin wanted Berlin and therefore sacrificed his own men needlesley

[Serb]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
See Serb, what it means to have Americans as allies? Every of your victories they try to turn into theirs, and if they delivered you field kitchens, they'll say after, that "the victory is ours, because a hungry soldier can't fight".

Yes I see, they can't be trusted.

You can't blame them on that, it's part of the big propaganda machine. They need this to create and support this "We are the greatest" feeling.

Why I can't? They twist history as they wish and create myths. Almost 60 years ago their president said that:"... courage, fortitude and devotion of defenders of Stalingrad will inspire forever in hearts of all free people. Their glorious victory stemmed the tide of invasion and marked the turning point in war of Allied Nations against the forces of aggression." Roosevelt was mistaken. After 60 years David f.e. beleive in general ****ness of Russian army.

You are also influenced by former Soviet and now Russian propaganda. The former I remember well from my years in the USSR, and I must say, your "We are the greatest" propaganda was no less than theirs is.

Yes, I know. Thank you

The latter I don't know, I haven't been in Russia for 8 years, but I suspect it's not less than it was then, rather more, because Russia hasn't got a lot of other things to make people proud these days.

A lot of changed here since 1994. Anyhow today we have much more different sources of information. And modern view on WW2 is different from Soviet times.

[QUOTE]So Torch made the victory in Stalingrad possible? Well, Torch surely had some influence, although I think it's importance is rather overestimated, just like El Alamein. Rommels Africa corps was only one of many German armies and a large part of it were Italian forces. IIRC, it had only 5 panzer bataillons. Nice "tank army", no? QUOTE]
Exactly, I read the same in his dairy.

When will people understand, that none of the sides "saved the other side's ass", and that all sides put their weight in the victory. Without the 2nd front the Soviet bloodtoll would have been a lot bigger, even though I think they would have finally won the war in all cases. And without the Eastern front the invasion force in the Normandy would today be on the ground of the English channel. That simple.

Not for David.
In accordance with David, Russians saved their asses because of weather and American trucks, because Russians are ****y warriors. And American victorious army could single handenly defeat nazi, because US military is the best military force in human history.
*goes to throw-up*

[Serb]

Originally posted by TheStinger
The attack was massive, but as the soviets lost more soldiers in the space of 3 weeks than they has in the last 6 months then something was wrong.They could have seiged berlin and waited for it to surrender, which it would have done. Stalin wanted Berlin and therefore sacrificed his own men needlesley

Oh really? A seige?
Does it describe Russians as bad warriors?
Perhaps Germans acted in different way?
In 1941 Hitler ordered to TOOK Moscow, not to seige it. And they lost about 1 million of soldiers and didn't acheived their goal. Now compare it with Russian 300 000 and completed goal.