Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

But did not kill a single German. Soviet troops had to do that... which was Russian and Georgian and Ukrainian and Belarusian etc etc troops.

Marshal Zhukov said that the war would last 1-2 years longer w/o the aid- that would've caused more losses to the Red Army & the allies; besides, the final defeat of Japan would also happen later.
The T-34's & other tanks' engines used aluminum; railroads that moved armor, ammo, coal & iron ore used locomotives, troops ate foodstuffs & wore cotton, all supplied by Land-Lease. W/o all those, they wouldn't even make it to the front lines, much less kill any1 there.

Marshal Zhukov said that the war would last 1-2 years longer w/o the aid- that would've caused more losses to the Red Army & the allies; besides, the final defeat of Japan would also happen later.

That is very true and he is of course right, but if the Soviet Union had been defeated and the Germans could get rid of Stalin and replace him with a Nazi... plenty to choose from in the Ukraine and Baltic States of course, then with all the resources of teh Soviet Union, all the production facilities, and all the new men at arms.... Yak-3 fighters and T-34/85 tanks, with German upgrades... bigger more powerful engines for the Yaks and other fighters, better optics and communications systems for the tanks, and of course all the resources of the biggest country in the world the western allies would be screwed... the UK would be easily invaded... the combined airpower of Germany and the Soviets would completely eliminate any threat from the Royal Navy or the US Navy... the latter was busy against Japan, but with the Soviet Union on the Axis side Japan could get metal and oil and all sorts of resources without having to move it along a tenuous sea trade route that could be attacked easily.

Soviet Torpedoes worked rather well, and their air power would bolster Japanese air power.

The Soviet Navy would not be amazingly useful in the Pacific, but their aircraft would be pretty damn useful too.

The US didn't send Lend Lease to help the Soviets... the US sent lend lease to get rid of some old shit and help themselves.

If the west wants credit they should have used all that amazing amount of material and equipment... put their young men in them and landed them in France and killed some Germans themselves.... their losses might have been 10 million soldiers lost, and the Soviet losses might have been under one million instead, but it would be US soldiers liberating eastern europe and the cold war need never have happened... the Soviets could have stayed neutral if D DAY had happened in 1940.

The T-34's & other tanks' engines used aluminum; railroads that moved armor, ammo, coal & iron ore used locomotives, troops ate foodstuffs & wore cotton, all supplied by Land-Lease. W/o all those, they wouldn't even make it to the front lines, much less kill any1 there.

If they couldn't buy it from the US, they could have bought it from other countries, though not in such volumes.

Cast off obsolete western tanks and aircraft probably cost more lives than they saved, but as they were fighting a real war against a real enemy instead of playing at war like the western allies did they had to accept what was offered.

W/o all those, they wouldn't even make it to the front lines, much less kill any1 there.

Unlike the western front, the eastern front front line came to you...

The T-34 had no dependence on Lend-Lease whatsoever. The claim that it did is a total lie.

Serious examples of Lend-Lease contributions are Studebaker trucks being used as Katyusha (MLRS) platforms.

Zhukov's statement requires more context. It does not override the actual fact that Lend-Lease shipment
volumes appeared after the tide turned on the eastern front. Quibbling about how the war would progress
in the 1944-45 is BS. It did not depend on the USSR alone. Western allied bombing of Germany cranked
up starting in the second half of 1943 (once Hitler started to lose on the eastern front). There was an obvious
race to prevent the USSR from moving into most of Europe (outside of UK, Sweden). Russian politicians
and generals are always way too generous in their language towards the west.

The US didn't send Lend Lease to help the Soviets... the US sent lend lease to get rid of some old shit and help themselves.

regardless of their ulterior motivations, the aid greatly helped their war production & troops on the ground.

If they couldn't buy it from the US, they could have bought it from other countries, though not in such volumes.

which would have prolonged the war.

Unlike the western front, the eastern front front line came to you...

they had a pre-war plan to set up production in the Urals & Siberia; armor, cannons, other equipment & supplies were made far away from the front. The Germans even had to develop the Ural Bomber to reach those areas, & they didn't succeed.
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.

kvs wrote:The T-34 had no dependence on Lend-Lease whatsoever.   The claim that it did is a total lie.

Serious examples of Lend-Lease contributions are Studebaker trucks being used as Katyusha (MLRS) platforms.  

Zhukov's statement requires more context.   It does not override the actual fact that Lend-Lease shipment
volumes appeared after the tide turned on the eastern front.    Quibbling about how the war would progress
in the 1944-45 is BS.   It did not depend on the USSR alone.   Western allied bombing of Germany cranked
up starting in the second half of 1943 (once Hitler started to lose on the eastern front).   There was an obvious
race to prevent the USSR from moving into most of Europe (outside of UK, Sweden).    Russian politicians
and generals are always way too generous in their language towards the west.

There is plenty of evidence that US and UK strategic bombing had close to no effect. Freeman Dyson for example made statistical studies on this which showed it was pretty much pointless. If you look at German war material manufacturing it kept increasing right until the end of the war. The Germans had decentralized production into a lot of small redundant workshops which made strategic bombing of those pretty much impossible. What made the Germans lose the war is that they run out of trained soldiers to fight it with.

You could argue that only after they started hitting the Romanian oil fields did this strategic bombing have any effect at all and this was only done near the end of the war. Another thing which helped was cutting off Nazi imports of strategic materials like tungsten. Something which did not require any strategic bombing at all.

lancelot wrote:

kvs wrote:The T-34 had no dependence on Lend-Lease whatsoever.   The claim that it did is a total lie.

Serious examples of Lend-Lease contributions are Studebaker trucks being used as Katyusha (MLRS) platforms.  

Zhukov's statement requires more context.   It does not override the actual fact that Lend-Lease shipment
volumes appeared after the tide turned on the eastern front.    Quibbling about how the war would progress
in the 1944-45 is BS.   It did not depend on the USSR alone.   Western allied bombing of Germany cranked
up starting in the second half of 1943 (once Hitler started to lose on the eastern front).   There was an obvious
race to prevent the USSR from moving into most of Europe (outside of UK, Sweden).    Russian politicians
and generals are always way too generous in their language towards the west.

There is plenty of evidence that US and UK strategic bombing had close to no effect. Freeman Dyson for example made statistical studies on this which showed it was pretty much pointless. If you look at German war material manufacturing it kept increasing right until the end of the war. The Germans had decentralized production into a lot of small redundant workshops which made strategic bombing of those pretty much impossible. What made the Germans lose the war is that they run out of trained soldiers to fight it with.

You could argue that only after they started hitting the Romanian oil fields did this strategic bombing have any effect at all and this was only done near the end of the war. Another thing which helped was cutting off Nazi imports of strategic materials like tungsten. Something which did not require any strategic bombing at all.

The same sort of analysis applies to the BS claims that Lend-Lease won the war for the USSR. If material losses
had no significant impact on the Nazi war effort, then how the fcuk would material assistance pivot the whole
Soviet war effort. Every Soviet soldier, machine gun, tank and howitzer did not get shipped in from the west.

Innumeracy is rampant in the west. You can tell this from the fact that even MSM pieces on government finances
are barely touching on any numbers. The claim that the T-34 tank production was due to Lend-Lease takes the
cake for revisionist excrement.

If material losses had no significant impact on the Nazi war effort, then how the fcuk would material assistance pivot the whole Soviet war effort.

it didn't pivot it, but eased strain on their manpower & war production.
The same way how Soviet aid helped Chinese in their war with Japan.

regardless of their ulterior motivations, the aid greatly helped their war production & troops on the ground.

The Soviets killing German soldiers instead of bombing German women and children and tying up 2/3rd of the German war machine is what greatly helped the victory against Germany.

which would have prolonged the war.

The western allies being pussies and not fighting Germans in France prolonged the war rather more.

they had a pre-war plan to set up production in the Urals & Siberia

No they didn't.

They never expect enemy forces to be rolling on Moscow within six months of invading... their experience was WWI, not WWII.

European forces didn't expect such rapid advances either.... the french maginot line was to stop a direct invasion by Germany of France and it did exactly what it was supposed to do. It forced the Germans to invade the low countries... france thought that meant when Germany invaded Belgium etc they could send troops to do all the fighting there and not have to fight on French territory, but the Germans ripped through the low countries like they were not there and France ended up fighting Germany across terrain and in a direction they never expected to fight and despite British forces being there to help they got routed.

The Soviets had three big lines of defences in their west that were supposed to be lines of defence they could fight from... sort of like the Maginot line but obviously much bigger but also never completed.

By the time the war started the lines barely existed and had been stripped of most of the things they would have needed to work.

The Germans even had to develop the Ural Bomber to reach those areas, & they didn't succeed.

The fact that they never developed a long range bomber suggests your claims that teh Soviets were planning to move industry beyond the Urals before the war is bullshit.

The Ural bomber was necessary because the Luftwaffe was to support the German army so it didn't need long range bombers, but it was never put into service because they didn't think they needed it till the Soviets started moving factories and by then there wasn't enough time to design and build such a bomber.

Particularly important for the Soviets in late 1941 were British-supplied tanks and aircraft.

Obsolete crap the British didn't want and were not using.

The fight over Moscow was not won with Spitfires, and their Hurricanes with low octane fuel were worse than ordinary... at least the I-16 were nimble and some had 20mm cannon instead of rifle calibre machine guns in a calibre they didn't have a lot spare of.

Under these circumstances even small quantities of aid took on far greater significance.

You don't just take a tank or an airplane off a ship and get into it and go off and take on Gerry... you have to get the manuals translated into Russian and you have to learn how to operate and maintain them.... then you have to train troops to use them, which is going to take more than a few days or weeks.

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.

What is staggering is that they HAD 20 thousand tanks at the start of the war... most of those lost were useless rubbish like T-37 and T-26 light tanks.

It was a bit of a clue that the Germans used all sorts of captured Czech and other vehicles and modified them as gun carriers etc, but didn't do the same with the light Soviet tanks. It was 120mm mortars and submachine guns and automatic rifles they took from the Soviets and used themselves, though they did use T-34s and KVs.

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.

So thirty five percent is 466 tanks, which means 1,200 odd tanks stopped the Germans at Moscow... did they?

But hang on... your own article says:

The British Military Mission to Moscow noted that by December 9, about ninety British tanks had already been in action with Soviet forces.

So if 90 is 35% of the force then... if 90 is 35% of the force that stopped the Germans at Moscow in December then 100% should be about 260 tanks right?

But which is it?

That article is bullshit.

Lend lease deliveries in 1942 were useful for a period when production had essentially stopped but did not stop the Germans at the gates of Mosow... it didn't arrive in time for that... and they were shit vehicles to start with anyway.

It even says that in the article.

Lend-Lease aid did not “save” the Soviet Union from defeat during the Battle of Moscow.

British aid made a crucial difference.

The Soviet contribution to defeating the Germans is what made the crucial difference, lend lease made it easier and faster, but if the UK or US actually cared about making things easier for the Soviets they would have fought harder from the start of the war.

Germany was no superpower, yet Britain and France and the US claimed to be at the time... why did they leave all the fighting and the dying to the Soviets?

And that is the key.... they left the dying to the Soviets.

There is plenty of evidence that US and UK strategic bombing had close to no effect.

They certainly murdered a lot of innocent civilians and literally fucked up more Germans than they blame the Soviets for regarding war crimes after the war...

What made the Germans lose the war is that they run out of trained soldiers to fight it with.

Their mistake was making the Soviets their enemies when their real enemies were the colonial powers of Europe and the US.

The claim that the T-34 tank production was due to Lend-Lease takes the
cake for revisionist excrement.

They call it the Christie tank... it is no surprise at all...

The same way how Soviet aid helped Chinese in their war with Japan.

Except the Soviets helped the Chinese ultimately by sending in troops and killing the Japs and then leaving the place without occupation forces or such bullshit.

Americans are fascinating. They insist on taking the credit for defeating the nazis because of muh lend lease. To put it in terms Americans can understand, that's like the waterboy claiming the MVP title because he watered and toweled the winning team of some nigger ball championship

They call it the Christie tank... it is no surprise at all...

The design is not relevant, it is the production. The factories and the inputs to those factories churning out T-34s were not propped
up with Lend-Lease imports. The Christie suspension was being used in Soviet tanks before the war. It's not like the US literally
supplied suspensions for the T-34. Lend-Lease supplied other tanks and trucks, not assembly kits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34

Lots of harping about magical tests in the USA of a couple of samples showing all sorts of deficiencies with the insinuation that
the Sherman tanks were vastly superior. But no harping about Lend-Lease propping up T-34 production.

All I see is endless pissing on the Soviet war effort. The movement of factories to the Urals is treated as ho hum when it was an
epic grade achievement all by itself. The average arm chair lemming thinks that factories are like Winnebagos. We have similar
"analysis" of the Angara production where supposedly factories can be poofed into existence with the snap of the fingers.

which would have prolonged the war.

The western allies being pussies and not fighting Germans in France prolonged the war rather more.

1 assertion doesn't exclude the other.

they had a pre-war plan to set up production in the Urals & Siberia

No they didn't.

pl. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBgtzOF_pHQ

The fact that they never developed a long range bomber suggests your claims that teh Soviets were planning to move industry beyond the Urals before the war is bullshit.

no, u r full of BS up to ur ears! I never suggested their planning was related to any possible German plans to build the long range bomber! Even if such bombers were used, they wouldn't have made much difference, as by then the Soviet fighters would decimate them, just like the German fighters decimated the USAAF B-17s, & their production would be spread out &/ moved even farther East.

It was 120mm mortars and submachine guns and automatic rifles they took from the Soviets and used themselves, though they did use T-34s and KVs.

the Red Army also used captured German armored vehicles to mount guns on them:
Axis tanks and other AFVs were also re-marked and sometimes re-armed with Soviet weapons. One such example is the SU-76i assault gun based on captured Panzer III. Evidence also exists of German Panzer I-based command vehicles re-armed with Soviet 20mm ShVAK cannons. Why do that if they had enough of their own?

The Soviet contribution to defeating the Germans is what made the crucial difference, lend lease made it easier and faster, ..

both shortened the war; take 1 factor out & the war would drag on 5-6-7 years instead of 4, possibly with a different result in the end.

Their mistake was making the Soviets their enemies when their real enemies were the colonial powers of Europe and the US.

Germany was caught in a vise: behind the scenes, the US & UK demanded she fight the USSR or face sanctions/blockades, while the latter had huge land areas & resources the Germans needed. So Hitler hoped to take Moscow & then settle his differences with brits on his own terms. To prevent that, the UK & US started to help the USSR against the monster they created.
If the Land-Lease aid was not that important, the USSR would've taken a lot less of it than it did.

The same way how Soviet aid helped Chinese in their war with Japan.

Except the Soviets helped the Chinese ultimately by sending in troops and killing the Japs and then leaving the place without occupation forces or such bullshit.

w/o that aid, they would've needed to fight a lot longer, as Japan could've pacified China & invaded the Soviet Far East/Siberia, or at least threatened it, forcing the USSR to keep more troops there, which would've made the Eastern Front harder to hold against the German onslaught.
So, the Chinese were in effect indirectly fighting the Germans too, with Americans Flying Tigers also helping them.

The Role of Lend-Lease: Reporting "Vesti on Saturday" - Russia 24

The design is not relevant, it is the production. The factories and the inputs to those factories churning out T-34s were not propped
up with Lend-Lease imports. The Christie suspension was being used in Soviet tanks before the war. It's not like the US literally
supplied suspensions for the T-34. Lend-Lease supplied other tanks and trucks, not assembly kits.

Some more important facts... the Russians bought Christies tank but discarded everything except the suspension, which interested them.

The American government never bought any Christie designs and weren't interested.

The Christie suspension was used in the BT series of tanks, but it did not scale up well and needed serious modifications and improvements to work on the later heavier models... BT-7M etc.

Further modification was needed for T-34 use, such that it really was only based on Christies design by then.

Perhaps the British can call the Abrams tank a British design considering it used British armour design, of course they will need to fight it out with the Germans again, because while the first M1 had a 105mm rifled British tank gun the M1A1 used the west german 120mm smoothbore... so is it German now?

no, u r full of BS up to ur ears! I never suggested their planning was related to any possible German plans to build the long range bomber!

The fact that it was called a Urals bomber suggests plans started after the German invasion and after the Soviets started to move their factories to the east... which means it is nothing... they were in no position to design and produce such an aircraft in the time available even with an extended war time frame.

Axis tanks and other AFVs were also re-marked and sometimes re-armed with Soviet weapons. One such example is the SU-76i assault gun based on captured Panzer III. Evidence also exists of German Panzer I-based command vehicles re-armed with Soviet 20mm ShVAK cannons . Why do that if they had enough of their own?

More importantly why waste time with obsolete badly designed lend lease tanks when they could adapt more modern and capable captured German models.

Germany was caught in a vise: behind the scenes, the US & UK demanded she fight the USSR

Germany wouldn't be listening to the UK or US, Germany was at war with the UK already... and what sanctions or blockade could they impose that they had not already imposed?

If the Land-Lease aid was not that important, the USSR would've taken a lot less of it than it did.

The USSR would not have needed it if the western allies had launched D Day in 1942.

as Japan could've pacified China & invaded the Soviet Far East/Siberia, or at least threatened it,

Duh.... they did and they did... have you not read about conflict between the Soviets and Japan in a tiny Mongolian place called Gakholin Kol or some such thing. It was Zhukovs first chance to shine.

Land Lease did help USSR a lot.

All those 10s of 1000s of trucks, 1000s of aircraft, oil, food, ammo etc. freed a lot of Soviet manpower from producing it.

So they could fight a war the western allies were not really interested in fighting.

The Soviets would probably push up to the old Soviet-German border and then both sides would agree to peace due to inacceptable losses

I doubt that... German losses were mounting too... they were not retreating for fun.... they had no choice... and it wasn't because the Soviets got some Churchils and some Shermans...

The US Army evaluated the Christie tank, decided not to buy it, and forbade its export.
The Christie tank was exported to the Soviet Union, and United Kingdom as agricultural machinery, i.e. tractors, by its designer.
These prototypes were adapted to create the BT and Cruiser series of tanks.

The T-34 was supposed to be replaced in 1941 with the T-34M which was a torsion bar version of the T-34 with the hexagonal turret.
The Christie suspension had outlived its usefulness by then. But.
Guess what else happened in 1941?

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:As for the Soviets, without all the trucks provided by land lease large scale strategic offensives like Dniepr offensive, Bagration, Vistula-Oder would be impossible, there would be smaller offensives resulting gin a destruction of individual divisions and corps-sized units, not smashes through entire army groups. It was trucks, food and ammo that really helped the USSR not Shermans.

Russian roads were so dire a lot of the logistics were done by train freight. If you want to add the trucks you might as well add railroad cars and locomotives.
With regards to food, supposedly Soviet food production beyond the Urals increased a lot, so I am not sure how much that helped to be honest.
I also doubt imported ammo was that relevant. Probably high octane fuel was more important. But not for the tanks.

Germany wouldn't be listening to the UK or US, Germany was at war with the UK already...

By then, their original pre-1939 plan succeeded in having Germany & USSR fight to the death.

The USSR would not have needed it if the western allies had launched D Day in 1942.

they would be beaten then; that's why they invaded N. Africa & Italy 1st, where the Axis were the weakest.

Duh.... they did and they did... have you not read about conflict between the Soviets and Japan in a tiny Mongolian place called Gakholin Kol or some such thing. It was Zhukovs first chance to shine.

Allied forces of Mongolia and Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist China aided the Soviet operation.
Still, the possibility of IJA crossing the border was high, otherwise the Red Army wouldn't kept 15 divisions there, out of the original 18. Only total of 9 divisions from Siberia, Transbaikal & the FE were sent West to fight the Germans & their allies.

If you want to add the trucks you might as well add railroad cars and locomotives.

exactly; as mentioned before,
Large numbers of Studebaker US6 trucks were supplied to the Soviet Union via the Persian Corridor in Iran under the USA's Lend-Lease program. The truck fulfilled many important roles in service with Soviet military forces during the war, such as towing artillery pieces and anti-tank guns and transporting troops over long distances. It was renowned for its overall ruggedness and reliability, including its ability to run on poor-quality fuel. The Soviet Red Army also found them to be a suitable platform for conversion into Katyusha rocket launchers, although this was not their main purpose. The truck became affectionately known as the Studer by Soviet troops and was even recognized of its importance (to the Soviet war effort) by Joseph Stalin, who sent a personal letter of appreciation to Studebaker, in which he thanked them for the superb quality of the US6 for Soviet service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker_US6_2%C2%BD-ton_6%C3%976_truck#Service

In 1942 Wallies did not even have a long range fighter to escort bombers over Germany which means that Luftwaffe does not need to divert resources to protect against bombings.

IL-4 attacks on germany started in 1941 and they could reach. Not a lot of them and not huge payloads...

Which means no air supremacy over France... D Day is impossible without that.

They had no interest in defeating the Germans till the Germans had killed lots of Soviets and Vice Versa, lend lease was part of the game to keep both sides at fighting strength and keen for the fight.

As for the Soviets, without all the trucks provided by land lease large scale strategic offensives like Dniepr offensive, Bagration,

The war had already been decided by then, without the trucks supplied by Lend Lease the Soviets would have just had to make their own.

It was trucks, food and ammo that really helped the USSR not Shermans.

Most of the ammo was for the Shermans and Churchils, trucks were useful, but I remember reading a transcript of one Russian talking to another about the food... he said his mother starved to death in Leningrad but he was supposed to thank American for the second front.... the second front is what they called the expired cans of spam from WWI stocks the Americans generously sent to them...

Probably high octane fuel was more important. But not for the tanks.

High octane fuel was useful, and the trucks did help the march into Europe, but the tanks and planes were rather less use than the materials to make their own.

By then, their original pre-1939 plan succeeded in having Germany & USSR fight to the death.

Are you thick?

What are you talking about? A pre 1939 plan with who?

Germany is hardly going to agree to such a plan and even if they did step one in 1939 invade Poland and make the UK declare war on Germany.

If the plan was for Germany to fight the Soviet Union why would the UK declare war when Germany essentially moved one step closer to Soviet territory?

And why would Germany agree to fight to the death with the Soviet Union?

they would be beaten then; that's why they invaded N. Africa & Italy 1st, where the Axis were the weakest.

They could have invaded Spain and worked their way into France nice and slow.

Germany never had enormous forces in France, so there was little reason to expect a huge force could be assembled to stop an invasion force... what is the point of having a navy like that if you can't even cross a bit of ocean lots of people have swum?

Large numbers of Studebaker US6 trucks were supplied to the Soviet Union via the Persian Corridor in Iran under the USA's Lend-Lease program.

Yup, the Soviets bought a lot of US trucks... SO WHAT.

IL-4 attacks on germany started in 1941 and they could reach. Not a lot of them and not huge payloads...

those raids were as symbolic as the Doolittle raid on Tokyo. They also had Pe-8s but they weren't used to bomb Germany.

The war had already been decided by then, without the trucks supplied by Lend Lease the Soviets would have just had to make their own.

at the expense of other production, thus prolonging the war.

What are you talking about? A pre 1939 plan with who?
Germany is hardly going to agree to such a plan and even if they did step one in 1939 invade Poland and make the UK declare war on Germany. If the plan was for Germany to fight the Soviet Union why would the UK declare war when Germany essentially moved one step closer to Soviet territory?

by then the non-aggression pact was signed between USSR & Germany, the latter was planning to attack it later & the UK/US allowed Germans to take Czechoslovakia with her arms factories & the Eastern border; Hess' mission was to stop the UK-German war.

And why would Germany agree to fight to the death with the Soviet Union?

The Germans weren't asked to approve any plan; Hitler was rabid anti-Bolshevick & the UK used him, at the same time trying to keep him in check.

They could have invaded Spain and worked their way into France nice and slow.
Germany never had enormous forces in France,

Spain is a lot bigger country, separated by mountains from France (which also had many on the German side), & had many experienced mil. from their civil war & fighting on the Eastern Front- the Blue Division could be redeployed to defend her.

Yup, the Soviets bought a lot of US trucks... SO WHAT.

just like Ford trucks helped Germany to take over Europe, Studebaker trucks helped the USSR to invade & defeat Germany.
Fare & square!

those raids were as symbolic as the Doolittle raid on Tokyo.

As symbolic as western raids that didn't hit any useful military targets and just mostly killed civilians.

at the expense of other production, thus prolonging the war.

Not necessarily.

by then the non-aggression pact was signed between USSR & Germany, the latter was planning to attack it later & the UK/US allowed Germans to take Czechoslovakia with her arms factories & the Eastern border; Hess' mission was to stop the UK-German war.

So the Battle of Britain didn't happen?

Why didn't they allow the Germans to take Poland as well and they would have no need to invade the rest of western europe?

the UK used him, at the same time trying to keep him in check.

Appeasement was actually a plan.... right... so Chamberlain was a genius then...

Spain is a lot bigger country,

They could easily have amassed a huge force and attacked in multiple places along the French coast with air support and any areas they succeeded with their super Hurricane fighters and amazing Churchill tanks they kept and all their lend lease stuff it should have been easy... organise French resistance support...

just like Ford trucks helped Germany to take over Europe, Studebaker trucks helped the USSR to invade & defeat Germany.
Fare & square!

So you admit the Americans helped the Germans too so why the **** should the Russians thank the Americans when they were profiteering and selling to both sides....

Clearly they shouldn't.

at the expense of other production, thus prolonging the war.

Not necessarily.

metals, plastics, coal, resin, wood, glass, etc. r used to make many different things, & if some of those things r supplied ready to go to war, w/o them they must be produced; if they r not, it's harder to beat the enemy. Also, meat production needs fertilizers to grow cattle feed + trucks & tractors that must be produced & maintained; the plants that make & repair them need to make tanks & trucks for the war. Thus, foodstuffs supplied to them not only fed the troops, but also freed those plants for the war production.

Why didn't they allow the Germans to take Poland as well and they would have no need to invade the rest of western europe?

they thought Hitler was tamed but later discovered that he wasn't. Many top brass in Poland were actually pro-Nazi & wanted to join him fighting the USSR, but lions & chitas don't hunt together & don't share their kills.

Appeasement was actually a plan.... right... so Chamberlain was a genius then...

he played his role well in removing the last obstacle between Germany & USSR so they would be at war from which the UK & US planned to benefit.

They could easily have amassed a huge force

I bet the Spaniards under Franco or whoever would start a guerilla war, as they fought the Brits, French & Americans & lost their Empire to them. The US had airfields in England from which to attack Germans on the continent.

So you admit the Americans helped the Germans too so why the **** should the Russians thank the Americans when they were profiteering and selling to both sides....

FYI, by 1941, if not before, Germans weren't getting any Ford trucks. Russia used the $ from the sale of Alaska to build the Transsib & other railroads on which she heavily relied in 1941-45. 1 of the reasons for epic Stalingrad Battle was the possible loss of the nearby railroad & the Volga river used to bring Land-Lease supplies coming via Iran.
OTH, w/o Russia refusal to aid England during the American War of Independence & her support of the Union in the Civil War, there would be no USA today.
The bottom line: Ms of lives were saved by shortening the war by 1-2 years at least.

The Nazis had plans to make modern long range bombers. It is just that they were a failure. For example the He 177.

Ernst Udet decided all bombers had to be able to do dive bombing. So they decided to put the engines into dual engine pods.
So instead of having a four engine bomber with separate engines, they put the engines in bundles of two with a common shaft and propeller.
These overheated and the planes regularly caught fire.

The German bombsights for high altitude bombing weren't any worse than the ones the Americans and the British used.
https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2020/05/08/lotfernrohr-7/

Mexico would be 2x bigger too, & the "Commonwealth of N. America" will be like Brazil in S. America.

metals, plastics, coal, resin, wood, glass, etc. r used to make many different things

Yes, they are, but they didn't have plastics then.

But all the other stuff most countries bought and used to make things... it is called international trade.

Thus, foodstuffs supplied to them not only fed the troops, but also freed those plants for the war production.

So the people who made the food that Orville and Wilbour Wright were eating... they are the real inventers of heavier than air flight... right?

Many top brass in Poland were actually pro-Nazi & wanted to join him fighting the USSR, but lions & chitas don't hunt together & don't share their kills.

It is on record that Stalin approached the Poles for an alliance against the Germans and the Poles told them to go away. Stalin approached the British and the British told them to talk to the poles.

Germany said they were going to invade Poland but were not interested in the part of Poland that was stolen from Russia in the 1920 war the had, so if the Soviet Union signed a non aggression pact they could have their land back from Poland when Germany invades.

Pretty much a no brainer really.

he played his role well in removing the last obstacle between Germany & USSR so they would be at war from which the UK & US planned to benefit.

What evidence?

I bet the Spaniards under Franco or whoever would start a guerilla war, as they fought the Brits, French & Americans & lost their Empire to them. The US had airfields in England from which to attack Germans on the continent.

They could offer large parts of France to Spain in return for staying neutral and allowing the western allies invade occupied France from their territory.

1 of the reasons for epic Stalingrad Battle was the possible loss of the nearby railroad & the Volga river used to bring Land-Lease supplies coming via Iran.

Stalingrad wasn't an epic battle, it was a well laid trap... the Soviets had reserves on the other side of the river that could have been sent across to fight the Germans at any stage... they were held back because they were the encircling force waiting for Germany to overcommit itself and wear itself out inside the city... when the reserve forces would surround them and then crush them.