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

[Ned]

After reading these posts, let me say that my original thinking that the Soviet stands at Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad had little to do with Lend Lease. Thereafter, Lend Lease certainly helped the Soviets roll back the Germans primarily due to the locomotives, rails and trucks. But, as I suggested, it would have been sufficient simply for the Soviets to tie the German Army up deep in Russian territory, while the Allies landed in France and took Berlin. A rollback was not necessary. Think of how the world would have been different if the USSR had never even come close to Poland, let alone Berlin.

As to casualties in taking Berlin, I doubt the US would have taken so many as the Russians. The way we fought battles even then was to rely heavily on airpower. Besides, the German army really wanted to surrender to American forces and may not have fought so fiercely.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Serb


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.

As ever Serb you are confusing critisicm of Stalin with that of the russian people, they are not the same thing.

He isn't around anymore so you are allowed to say horrible things about him

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
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.

Do you know how Russians called your Shermans? "Zazhigalka" Which means 'lighter". Do you know which the first thing Russian tankists do when they received new Sherman? They remove leather interior out of tank. Because your Shermans fire like lighters if were hit and ther was no chance for crew to survive.

Ah I knew you'd show up

As always.

Well, I'll look for a source on that.

Do me a faivour, please.

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.

In 1945. [/QUOTE] 1945 Not in 1941 on Moscow front.

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

You too.

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.

You are quite a dreamer David. your theories sometimes are very funny. Americans could have won war in 1944? Americans could easily won war vs. Red Army in Europe in 1945? USA could wipe the floor with Russia?

Btw, if so, then why did you stoped? Why you didn't finished war in 1944, if you could. Don't have balls for that?

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Serb, but hidden in a crippled quote of mine
Exactly, I read the same in his dairy.

Rommel had a dairy? Never knew that.

funny typo, ain't it?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Ned
After reading these posts, let me say that my original thinking that the Soviet stands at Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad had little to do with Lend Lease. Thereafter, Lend Lease certainly helped the Soviets roll back the Germans primarily due to the locomotives, rails and trucks. But, as I suggested, it would have been sufficient simply for the Soviets to tie the German Army up deep in Russian territory, while the Allies landed in France and took Berlin. A rollback was not necessary. Think of how the world would have been different if the USSR had never even come close to Poland, let alone Berlin.

Then what you was waiting for? Stalin asked about this since the beggining of war. Why you jamped in war only when it was absolutely clear that nothing could stop Russians? Why you just seat and watch how millions of people killing each other, if you could stop this and save those people?
Perhaps you was just afraid and didn't want to participate in bloodbath? Perhaps you just waited for moment when Soviets and Nazi will weaken each other enough and then jump in war and took all glory for yourselves?

As to casualties in taking Berlin, I doubt the US would have taken so many as the Russians. The way we fought battles even then was to rely heavily on airpower.

How brave. you think Soviets didn't have air superiority during Berlin offence?

Besides, the German army really wanted to surrender to American forces and may not have fought so fiercely.

It's true.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Rommel had a dairy? Never knew that.

funny typo, ain't it?

What so funny?
I'll give you exact quote tommorow if you wish. I have to go now, don't have time.

[Harovan]

Well, a dairy is a milk and cheese producing business. What you mean is a diary .

[Ned]

Serb. Don't misunderstand me. The Russian people fought bravely against the Nazi barbarians. We, the world, owe you our thanks and sympathies for your losses. But you should also understand that we in the West did not like communism. It would have been better for East Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia and the rest if the USSR had not advanced so far as to occupy these territories at the end of the war.

[Serb]

Originally posted by TheStinger


As ever Serb you are confusing critisicm of Stalin with that of the russian people, they are not the same thing.

Sure, Stalin was Georgian.
I just don't think that 300 000 Soviet soldiers sacrificed their life during Berlin offence for nothing.
If you fight, you can't avoid losses. If you are in the middle of really big fight, be ready to expect really big losses. 2,5 millions Soviet soldiers participated in Berlin offence. Big fight, big losses, it's simple. Almost 4 mlns people can't clash and lost only say 17 soldiers.

He isn't around anymore so you are allowed to say horrible things about him

And you think I'm protecting him?
I really have to go.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Well, a dairy is a milk and cheese producing business. What you mean is a diary .

Thank you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I consider it highly arrogant for the Russians here to say that they would have fought on forever against the Germans and not assimilated and become Fascists if the Germans won in Russia.



It is like they think they are somewhat better than the Poles, Ukrainians, etc. If the Germans took over the UK, you would have had a country in Fascists in 10 years. Saying that the USSR would never have become Fascist under Nazi rule is the height of arrogance and is greater bull**** than anything I've read here.

[Arrian]

****. Another pissing match over who saved who's ass?

This is ridiculous. Both sides were dependent on the other. Allies are allies because each side perceives that it needs the other's help. If Nazi Germany had concentrated on one front at a time w/o intereference, the outcome of the war would most likely have been different.

Britain and the US knew that keeping the USSR fighting was crucial to their prospects for success, based on what happened in WWI, when Russia surrendered. The Germans were then able to unleash their eastern forces on the western front, and damn near won the war. Keeping the bulk of the Nazi war machine engaged in Russia was the key to being able to turn the tide. Hence lend-lease. It wasn't altruistic. If Hitler had managed to win in the East, the UK & US would have faced a much stronger "Fortress Europe" assuming Hitler didn't manage to successfully invade Britain.

From the Soviet perspective, meanwhile, Stalin needed the UK & US to open another front to relieve pressure on the USSR. Of course, getting all our stuff across the Altantic and in position to invade a fortified Europe wasn't easy, and took some time. Torch was, AFAIK, intended to shut Stalin up for a bit while Overlord came together. It had the additional benifit of knocking Italy out, and tying down German forces down there. Once Normandy was invaded, the Germans were fighting on 3 fronts.

As usual, certain US posters put up speculation about just how important our contributions were to Allied victory, and Serb shows up frothing at the mouth.

-Arrian

ps Sir Ralph: as for the US "we are the greatest" propoganda, please bear in mind that anyone who actually studies WWII in depth ("in depth" being the key here) will draw their own conclusions. So I would hope that you would not immediately discount a post which argued lend-lease was crucial simply because it was from an American.

[Harovan]

Arrian, I don't negate that lend-lease was important, even very, although I wouldn't call it crucial. But I mind if any of the sides (Russia and America) says about the other "We saved your butts", "You'd have lost without us" or "if we hadn't won in <battle1>, you would have lost <battle2>". This is ridiculous, just like the opinion I once heard from an UK guy, that "the Britains won the war with a little help from the US and Russia". All allied powers put their weight in the victory.

And about the "we are the greatest" propaganda... See, I said the same propaganda thing to Serb. It seems to exist in every large power. Be it America, Russia, even UK, not to talk about France, le Grand Nation. We Germans are especially sensitive to this matter, even more since all this pride stuff is well toned down in our country, for a good reason. The last time we had this kind of propaganda, it came from Goebbels and all we know where it lead us. Don't get me wrong, this is not a comparison, because the methods and intents were different. But basically, it's the same effect, "We are better than everyone else, because...". A little national pride is ok. But understand, if I meet a dude on the street, who repeats to say "face it, I'm the greatest and you and all others are scum", I may not hit in his face because he's indeed stronger than me, but he hardly ever will be my friend. And that's the answer to all this why-does-everyone-hate-Americans stuff. Be nice to us and we'll be nice to you, that simple.

And finally: I'm not anti-american, not at all. The United States are a fascinating country, and although I would never move over the pond, I enjoyed my short staying and I have a couple of dear friends there. What makes some of my statements sound anti-american is, that I can't stand this pride stuff and that I'm consequently anti-war (except in civ games that is ) and therefor believe, that this fascinating country is led by, well let's say it not using bad words, a sick and greedy government.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Arrian, I don't negate that lend-lease was important, even very, although I wouldn't call it crucial. But I mind if any of the sides (Russia and America) says about the other "We saved your butts", "You'd have lost without us" or "if we hadn't won in <battle1>, you would have lost <battle2>". This is ridiculous, just like the opinion I once heard from an UK guy, that "the Britains won the war with a little help from the US and Russia". All allied powers put their weight in the victory.

And about the "we are the greatest" propaganda... See, I said the same propaganda thing to Serb. It seems to exist in every large power. Be it America, Russia, even UK, not to talk about France, le Grand Nation. We Germans are especially sensitive to this matter, even more since all this pride stuff is well toned down in our country, for a good reason. The last time we had this kind of propaganda, it came from Goebbels and all we know where it lead us. Don't get me wrong, this is not a comparison, because the methods and intents were different. But basically, it's the same effect, "We are better than everyone else, because...". A little national pride is ok. But understand, if I meet a dude on the street, who repeats to say "face it, I'm the greatest and you and all others are scum", I may not hit in his face because he's indeed stronger than me, but he hardly ever will be my friend. And that's the answer to all this why-does-everyone-hate-Americans stuff. Be nice to us and we'll be nice to you, that simple.

And finally: I'm not anti-american, not at all. The United States are a fascinating country, and although I would never move over the pond, I enjoyed my short staying and I have a couple of dear friends there. What makes some of my statements sound anti-american is, that I can't stand this pride stuff and that I'm consequently anti-war (except in civ games that is ) and therefor believe, that this fascinating country is led by, well let's say it not using bad words, a sick and greedy government.

Sir Ralph, You almost had me until that last sentence. In fact I agreed with everything you said until then. But that last sentence is simply too much.

From one American to you, go **** yourself.

[Arrian]

Ned,

Take it easy. Please remember that there is a difference between criticizing a people and criticizing their government. In a nutshell, he said he likes us and doesn't like our government. Well, ****, that's true of roughly 50% of Americans.

Sir Ralph,

Gotcha. I totally understand a German dislike of propoganda. I'm not big on it either, and cringe at the overt flag-waving "we're #1!" crap. It's embarassing, frankly.

-Arrian