Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Share

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  flamming_python on Fri Jan 24, 2014 12:18 pm

    Let's not forget that Lend Lease included not just vehicles & weapons, but also heaps and heaps of raw materials, good, processed goods and so on. It considerably eased the strain on Russian industry and agriculture.

    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  etaepsilonk on Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:27 pm

    To Mindstorm:
    Thank you for your insight. Of course, I agree with you, not any source should be taken as undeniable truth. If you have a better, more reliable source, feel free to post it.

    However, your excerpt from Zhukov's memories is not a contradiction (also, consider the fact, that those were written in soviet times, and subject to censoring, and there are quite a few clearly biased facts in your excerpt, such as with gasoline tanks).
    In the source that I posted it is admitted that military equipment (planes, tanks) didn't play a major role in eastern theatre (not without exceptions, however), but various food and industrial supplies, logistics and transport vehicles DID.
    And considering that easily the main Soviet industrial and agricultural basin (Ukraine) was captured in a few months, I don't find this information unbelievable.
    But, as I said before, if you have a source with more accurate numbers, I'd very like to see it.



    To GarryB:
    "Stalin was convinced the Germans didn't want a two front war and any evidence that the Germans might attack was just propaganda by the British trying to get the Soviets into the war with Germany on their side."

    Agree. Also, overestimation of military capabilities also played the part.






    "Concentrating all their U boats in the English Channel as well as air drops to take a modest size port on British territory."

    U-boats were needed elsewhere, and paratroopers would be massaccred if they confront enemy tanks...






    "Britain wasn't that well defended."

    With third biggest navy in the world, and a majority of expeditionary force in France evacuated? I beg to differ.





    "It was fishing boats and private yachts that got the BEF from dunkirk to the UK... with the Luftwaffe and the sub fleet supporting it I see no reason why an invasion of the UK would necessarily fail."

     Rolling Eyes Sorry, but I think you don't really understand how WEAK German navy actually was. If you haven't done so already I suggest you to read about Operation Weserubung, invasion of Norway. Among other things, you'd be surprised, that NOT bumping into Royal navy patrols was absolutely vital for success of this operation  Smile




    "Rubbish. Lend lease made things easier, but the Soviets had no choice but to fight because of the scorched earth policy of the Germans."

    Of course. But the question is, would they be able to fight successfully without lend-lease? Especially considering the fact that Ukraine, the soviet industrial powerhouse, was actually serving Germany's needs until early 1944.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:39 pm

    How is it even a question?

    The USSR took and survived the German assaults of 1941 and 1942 while Lend-Lease was but a trickle.

    The only question is, how much longer and costly would it have been without Lend-Lease?
    Another good question is, if instead of lend-lease, the Western Allies actually did any serious fighting before late 1943, how much more that would have helped the USSR.

    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  etaepsilonk on Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:15 pm

    TR1 wrote:How is it even a question?

    The USSR took and survived the German assaults of 1941 and 1942 while Lend-Lease was but a trickle.

    The only question is, how much longer and costly would it have been without Lend-Lease?
    Another good question is, if instead of lend-lease, the Western Allies actually did any serious fighting before late 1943, how much more that would have helped the USSR.

    Well, probably my question wasn't accurate enough, sorry then. I meant to ask not if USSR would win or loose ww2, I meant to ask, would they be able to fight as successfully, whether or not their military capabilities would be hindered significantly by lack of external aid.

    About the bolded part  Rolling Eyes  Sorry dude, but Americans and especially British, could say the same about the Pacific theatre...

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:47 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:
    TR1 wrote:How is it even a question?

    The USSR took and survived the German assaults of 1941 and 1942 while Lend-Lease was but a trickle.

    The only question is, how much longer and costly would it have been without Lend-Lease?
    Another good question is, if instead of lend-lease, the Western Allies actually did any serious fighting before late 1943, how much more that would have helped the USSR.

    Well, probably my question wasn't accurate enough, sorry then. I meant to ask not if USSR would win or loose ww2, I meant to ask, would they be able to fight as successfully, whether or not their military capabilities would be hindered significantly by lack of external aid.

    About the bolded part  Rolling Eyes  Sorry dude, but Americans and especially British, could say the same about the Pacific theatre...


    Are you actually implying the Soviets didn't engage in serious fighting against the Fascist Japanese early in the timeline of WW2? If that's not the case than by all means please clarify and elaborate on your official position/opinion. If the former is accurate than it should be noted that the Soviets handed one of the most decisive defeats to the Japanese in Mongolia, specifically the Battles of Khalkhin Gol which happened in the year 1939. There's still border disputes between the Russians and the Japanese even to this day, specifically to the north of Japan.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:58 pm

    I find it very hypocrite from most of this participating users under this threat always eager to talk about the Land lease if it had any effect on the outcome or not but no one except me is even daring to speak about the very well documented supplies by USA to the Nazis which absolutely outshadowed any resources that were granded in the last year to SU.

    The Land lease alone just due this fact, that Nazis were supported by USA, out of the equation. That we even have to speak about the propagandized Land Lease which in comperision to what the Nazis constantly have gotten were peanuts but noone is daring to speak about the big amount that has even given the German Army and Hitler himself who along with his NSDAP were supported by Rockefeller himself and his Chase Bank, the opportunity and enough resources to make such insane plans as General Plan Ost and Barbarrosa.

    What took a big effect on the war and the lentgh and death toll of civilians and soldiers on east front German and Soviets, was the nonstopping sources germany had to get their material and fueling the war.

    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  etaepsilonk on Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:06 pm

    To magnum:
    Yes, I'm actually implying, that Soviets didn't engage in any serious fighting, which began between USA,UK and Japan in December the 8th 1941, right until August the 9th, 1945, if that's what you're asking.

    To Werewolf:
    Do words "Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact" ring any bells to you?

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:11 pm

    Werewolf wrote:I find it very hypocrite from most of this participating users under this threat always eager to talk about the Land lease if it had any effect on the outcome or not but no one except me is even daring to speak about the very well documented supplies by USA to the Nazis which absolutely outshadowed any resources that were granded in the last year to SU.

    The Land lease alone just due this fact, that Nazis were supported by USA, out of the equation. That we even have to speak about the propagandized Land Lease which in comperision to what the Nazis constantly have gotten were peanuts but noone is daring to speak about the big amount that has even given the German Army and Hitler himself who along with his NSDAP were supported by Rockefeller himself and his Chase Bank, the opportunity and enough resources to make such insane plans as General Plan Ost and Barbarrosa.

    What took a big effect on the war and the lentgh and death toll of civilians and soldiers on east front German and Soviets, was the nonstopping sources germany had to get their material and fueling the war.

    Well to be more accurate it wasn't the USA but Wallstreet that supported Hitler, Mussolini and the rise of fascism, a great source of information about Wallstreet's logistical support for Fascism would be George Seldes book "Facts and Fascism". FDR was a staunch anti-fascist, and was friendly to the Soviet Union, the complete opposite of Wallstreet's position in geo-politics circa 1930's/40's.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:32 pm

    @etaepsilonk

    That Non aggression pact has nothing to do with anything i said whatsoever.
    USA was granting financing aid, oil and resources for military use to Nazi Germany until the very last day of the WW2 and some even until 1949, making deals in the open with the enemy the own country is fighting that is TREASON, by all meanings today and back than you can get lifetime jail or even death sentences for that kind of treason.

    It isn't that some single shop owner was supplying Nazi Germany with 1000 Gummybear bags each month, this companies gave oil,finance aid of political parties of hitler, resources for MILITARY use and so on, while own soldiers died on another continent.

    It was not the government, it was someone higher in the ranking system, it was the founders of the todays Federal Reserve Bank the true owners of foreign politics of the US, they stand above the law, since they are the ones who make the Law.

    Today the only bank that can print money as much as they want without any counter value and are untouchable by law of US or any other international law.

    So yes, this is the biggest deal about WW2 and why it took so long because it was fueled by founders of FED and already fueled the war since through the mid 30's with Rockefellers Chase Bank and Morgan J.P.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:50 pm

    Well let's be fair.

    The USSR shipped tons of supplies and strategic materials to Germany, and trained their officers, basically right until the war started.


    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5629
    Points : 6282
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Viktor on Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:54 am

    TR1 wrote:Well let's be fair.

    The USSR shipped tons of supplies and strategic materials to Germany, and trained their officers, basically right until the war started.


    Blitzkrieg was tactics which was perfected in Germany but German officers first hear and learned about it in Russia.

    Until than, armored units where used as infantry support units. I have seen pictures of Russian tank maneuvers counting 20 000 tanks near Leningrad 5-10 years before WW2.

    Russians where the first to use armored units as a sole units with the task of breaking lines in one point. Paratroopers are their second invention etc ...

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:50 am

    Let's not forget that Lend Lease included not just vehicles & weapons, but also heaps and heaps of raw materials, good, processed goods and so on. It considerably eased the strain on Russian industry and agriculture.

    Yes... I remember reading about media interviews where there were Soviet officials present and one of the translaters seemed to loose their temper... shouted something and was taken away by some Soviet Officials.

    It turned out later that the western media had asked about how lend lease had saved their asses, and the Russian translater said something along the lines of his mother starved to death in the siege of leningrad but these reporters want us to be grateful for spam. (Note the products sent were not always brand new or fresh... a lot of the early stuff was actually passed on by the british and got lend lease a bit of a bad name in some quarters. Spam was often nicknamed "The Second Front" and was made quite some time before with a lot of expired stock being delivered.

    I guess if you are hungry it is better than nothing, but suggesting it won the war...

    U-boats were needed elsewhere, and paratroopers would be massaccred if they confront enemy tanks...

    They could have used them for an invasion, and what enemy tanks?

    Uboats to clear the channel, Paratroopers to secure an airfield out in the middle of nowhere... land more forces and attack from air and land and sea against a port and start landing forces by sea... The Romans did it.

    With third biggest navy in the world, and a majority of expeditionary force in France evacuated? I beg to differ.

    The BEF got back to England without any heavy weapons and most without even small arms... if the Germans had concentrated on airfields and radar in their air attack the battle of britain would have been lost... attack and land at a port...

    Of course. But the question is, would they be able to fight successfully without lend-lease? Especially considering the fact that Ukraine, the soviet industrial powerhouse, was actually serving Germany's needs until early 1944.

    No lend lease would have caused more casualties, and taken longer, but what does the west care about Soviet casualties?

    Another good question is, if instead of lend-lease, the Western Allies actually did any serious fighting before late 1943, how much more that would have helped the USSR.

    Exactly.

    I meant to ask, would they be able to fight as successfully, whether or not their military capabilities would be hindered significantly by lack of external aid.

    Hard to say... they used Shermans because they were better than nothing, they used Hurricanes and Typhoons also because they were better than nothing. They threw away some types of weapons like the 45 cal SMG that were included with Shermans because they found except at close range the large calibre slow slugs sometimes bounced off clothing at very low temperatures.

    About the bolded part  Rolling Eyes  Sorry dude, but Americans and especially British, could say the same about the Pacific theatre...

    The Soviets never claimed to have defeated Japan...

    Yes, I'm actually implying, that Soviets didn't engage in any serious fighting, which began between USA,UK and Japan in December the 8th 1941, right until August the 9th, 1945, if that's what you're asking.

    Which would make them hypocrites... if they claimed to have won the war in the Pacific... which they don't.

    The combat in 1939 against Japan was what made Japan look to the Pacific for oil and resources. The 1941 rippentropp-molotov NON AGGRESSION pact is a non aggression pact... not something allies actually need if they are actually allies. It is something enemys would need to ensure they don't step on each others toes.
    When the Japanese learned of the rippentropp molotov pact they felt betrayed by Germany and in 1942 when Germany pleaded with the Japanese to open a second front Japan refused.

    The USSR shipped tons of supplies and strategic materials to Germany, and trained their officers, basically right until the war started.

    They had no reason not to.

    Russians where the first to use armored units as a sole units with the task of breaking lines in one point. Paratroopers are their second invention etc ...

    After WWI the two main losers of that conflict in terms of men and land were Germany and the Soviet Union. They actually did a lot of work together through the 1920s till early 1930 when in 1933 Hitler got into power and all cooperation stopped.

    In the 1920s the ideas of using tanks in mobile combat was a perfectly natural concept for the Germans and the Soviets because the eastern front of WWI was not static trench warfare... it was mobile.

    The Soviets invented paratroops as a viable force dropping forces of up to 10,000 men in a single drop in the early 1930s.

    The Germans and US and UK developed their own air borne forces after watching demonstrations of Soviet paratroops.


    Last edited by GarryB on Sat Feb 15, 2014 10:18 am; edited 1 time in total


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  etaepsilonk on Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:20 pm

    To garryB:

    "I guess if you are hungry it is better than nothing, but suggesting it won the war..."

    I think it's a matter of perspective. If by "winning a war" you mean conquering the entire soviet union, that wouldn't have happened for sure (However, Hitler didn't want to do that, according to some sources, he wanted to capture territory up to Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line, and build a huge Chinese wall-like defensive structure there).
    But if you mean taking away soviet war waging capabilities, then "lend-lease" helped a lot.

    There was allegedly a commision led by Lavrentiy Beria, which was supposed to negotiate for a peace treaty with Germans in exchange of "some soviet territory" in 1941 (I assume, along the lines of Brest-Litovsk treaty of 1918). So, with "lend-lease" soviets could feel more confident at least.








    "They could have used them for an invasion, and what enemy tanks?"

    No, they couldn't. If you saw some information about Operation Weserubung, you would clearly see that using submarines was not an option, that is the case even more for operations in English Channel, through which, I think, not a single German sub ever managed to even pass during entire WW2.

    About tanks, I think, that British could have gathered at least a few of them, and German paratroopers would have a very hard time surviving if they met one.

    Let's not forget, that German army, no matter how powerful on the continent, had extremely limited assets to transport their units by sea.





    "if the Germans had concentrated on airfields and radar in their air attack the battle of britain would have been lost... attack and land at a port..."

    I wouldn't be so sure about that. RAF was inflicting serious casualties on Luftwaffe, and had also shown a remarkable ability to regenerate itself (with other Allies help, of course).





    "No lend lease would have caused more casualties, and taken longer"

    You cannot say that without numbers or scientific comparisons. I provided the source (which poster "mindstorm" dissmissed as "western propaganda", while not providing anything more accurate).

    If you see at this source (again?), you can see, that, for example, aviation kerosene for soviet airforce was in very large part from "lend-lease" (because of soviets having difficulty with production technologies).

    Also a large part of aluminum was from "lend-lease". Can you build aircrafts, or radiators for cars without aluminum?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Removed posts about WWII

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 15, 2014 10:38 am

    If by "winning a war" you mean conquering the entire soviet union, that wouldn't have happened for sure (However, Hitler didn't want to do that, according to some sources, he wanted to capture territory up to Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line, and build a huge Chinese wall-like defensive structure there).

    Hitlers plans were not all that constant, but from most of the propaganda he left no place for the Soviets. No matter where he put his border fence he would have done everything he could to ensure the destruction of the Soviet state. Obviously if he built his far east wall along the Urals he would likely expect Japan to move west to meet him and would do all he could to ensure that happened... it was not within his power... and not because of lend lease.

    By the time Lend Lease became useful the direction of the war was decided because the Soviets had learned to fight.

    There was allegedly a commision led by Lavrentiy Beria, which was supposed to negotiate for a peace treaty with Germans in exchange of "some soviet territory" in 1941 (I assume, along the lines of Brest-Litovsk treaty of 1918). So, with "lend-lease" soviets could feel more confident at least.

    How much confidence could there be... Lend Lease was not extended to the Soviets till August 1941 and the first supplies didn't arrive till December in very small amounts of mostly obsolete material largely from British stocks of unneeded equipment like General Lee tanks (nicknamed tomb for 7 brothers by the Soviets because it had a crew of 7) and Hurricane fighters.

    Hardly decisive tools to turn back the Nazi machine from Moscow.


    Let's not forget, that German army, no matter how powerful on the continent, had extremely limited assets to transport their units by sea.

    Did they swim to North Africa?

    If the Luftwaffe had concentrated on airfields and radar sites an invasion supported by air power would have been very interesting... remember Ireland was neutral and likely would have supported a Nazi invasion of Britain too.

    I wouldn't be so sure about that. RAF was inflicting serious casualties on Luftwaffe, and had also shown a remarkable ability to regenerate itself (with other Allies help, of course).

    The RAF was under enormous pressure... pressure that was largely relieved when the Germans switched from bombing airfields and radar sites to bombing cities... which of course is always ineffective in military terms and often counter productive.

    Also a large part of aluminum was from "lend-lease". Can you build aircrafts, or radiators for cars without aluminum?

    They used it because they got it. To say if they couldn't get it that they would have done nothing is stupid.

    Lend Lease supplied a lot of trucks and because of this many in the west claim the Soviets were dependent on western trucks... which of course assumes they could not build trucks themselves. they did not because they had them supplied, which is not to say they could not if they did not get them supplied.

    Lend lease was a country selling another country material.

    Perhaps it would have been appreciated more if there were no demands to return unused items and payment for items delivered.

    The Soviets don't need to thank the west for lend lease... they paid for it.

    Perhaps a much better gift might have been a second front in Europe in about 1942... sure it would have cost a lot more western allied lives... US and British deaths might have been in the 4-5 million mark range and the Soviet military deaths might have been about the same and then we could talk about a real shared effort.

    Not only would the war in Europe likely have been much shorter but the Soviets would probably have been able to assist in the Pacific theatre much earlier too.

    If.

    The biggest word in the English language.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    andalusia
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 84
    Points : 128
    Join date : 2013-10-01

    Lend-Lease

    Post  andalusia on Fri Jun 05, 2015 11:15 am

    I want to know how much did Lend-Lease help the USSR? Many Americans say the Soviet Union only defeated Nazi Germany because of the weather and Lend-Lease. Is that true? How much did Lend Lease help?

    https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/the-lend-lease-act-how-much-did-it-affect-the-eastern-front.162025/

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Jun 05, 2015 9:29 pm

    Not this again....

    Americans also say without nuclear genocide against japanese people they wouldn't "safe" more lifes...

    Lend-Lease plain and simple had no effect on the outcome of the war, Soviet Union won, they would have won the far even faster without any interference of these so called Allies. The entire war was a result of the British,France and US conspiracy of the Varseille "Peace" Treaty which today is called Varseille "War" Treaty. It laid ground for the 2nd World war, it deprived and mocked Germany with its context along the strategic planned occupation of german soil by Poland which after WW1 has occupied German and Soviet Soil with the good will of France and UK which in the end we know didn't do jack-shit when Germany and Soviet Union regained their territories in 39.

    Of course the americans never say a single word, because most do not know and most who know do not want it to hear, that the US was the main supplier of goods and military supplies along with financial help during 30's up till 1945. The plan was to use germany against Soviet Union so they would kill each other, because Operation Unthinkable was designed prior to 1943, the Operation Unthinkable was signed May 1945 and layed down infront of British High Command which have demeed this Operation as unfeasible at that time.

    All three World Wars are planned by the Anglo-saxons, the 1st WW was the reaction of the British Empire to Germany who gained such a high economical, political and military power that it did not want to see any rivals as its only Empire with power projection. They couldn't finish off Germany during WW1, the political will was not there to committe an entire population genocide which Churchill always wanted and advocated during and prior to WW2. The WW2 was again the direct result of Anglo-saxons and zionism to destroy two enemies with one move, to use once again Germany against Soviet Union (Russia) and start WW3 immidiatley after the winner off those both would emerge (Soviet Union). They never made Operation Unthinkable because Soviet Union was undefeatable and the initiation of a new era of Nuclear weaponary made it an entire impossibility. This current political climate shows so many parallels between the political climate prior to WW1 and WW2 that many fear and see that the WW3 is in the planning and once again Germans are propagated and indoctrinated to be Anti-Russian to be once again Anglo-saxons Meatshield against Russians.


    Another thing here to mention is British plan of 1943 is the Operation Ranking (top secret) was to force Nazi Germany to join the Allies to fight the Soviet Union, because by in early 1943 the Britsh feared that Soviet Union was to strong for the Germans alone so a joint front against USSR was considered.


    Coming to the Lend-Lease itself and its context with itself and within the WW2 situation and effect.

    If we look at the GDP of participating countries of WW2 we can see a big dendancy of who was the main and almost only benefiterur of WW2.

    Since Germany fought on many fronts and couldn't controll all Seas and supplies bu were effecient to control majority of waters remotley to strategic supply chains of their own and some beyond, while the British fleet could secure and maintain the Atlantic which left the US as their main partner and the US was gaining alot from that. The US has learned a lesson from the Great War that goods were payed in money and not on credit like it was a loss afterwards. The British remained creditworthy baisng on that being an Empire with huge geopolitical capital with overseas possesion and under Roosevelt he managed to propagated to the Congress easy terms of payment for the british first Lend-Lease. The supplied goods rose over years in huge leaps in 1939 0.5 bln USD, in 1940 it was already 1 bln USD, 1941 1.6 bln USD, 1942 it was 2.5 bln USD 4.5 bln in 1943 and with 5.2 bln in 1944. The Lend-Lease alone to the british was the major savior of US economy which was in high debts.

    The aspects of Lend-Lease were not Helping out, but nothing else but profit while potential enemies (Germany vs Soviet Union) destroy each other and keep their places below.

    In 1941 the aggreement between SU and US has been sealed for Lend-Lease. The first supplies in 1941 were insignifcant and Soviet Union had to pay in cash. Bernd Martin german Historian called the 1941 Lend-Lease supply to Soviet Union "fictious". In 1942 the Soviet Union turn the tide and the progress of the Wehrmacht before anything of the Lend-Lease was supplied of the same year. Also like notioned in the book "The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War, revised edition" by Jacques R. Pauwels:

    " ...Fourth, and probably most importantly, the much publicized Lend-Lease aid to the USSR was to a large extent neutralized by the by the unofficial, discreet, but very important assistance provided by American corporate sources to the German, enemies of the Soviets. In 1940 and 1941 the American industry profited primarly from buisness with Great Britian, but this did not prevent American oil firms and trust from concluding clandestine yet luctrative buisness deals with Nazi Germany as well. ...Huge amounts of oil were delivered to Nazi Germany via neutral states like Spain, something that was known in the White House. The American share of Germany's imports of vitally important oil increased rapidly; in case of motor oil, from 44 per cent in July 1941 to no less then 94 per cent in semptember 1941. In view of depletion of their stockpiles of petroleum products at that time, it is fair to say that the German panzers would probably never have made it all the way to the outskirts of Moscow without fuel supplied by American oil trusts. In fact, without US-supplied fuel, neither german attack on Soviet Union nor, for that matter, any f the other major Germany military operations of 1940 and 1941 could have been possible, according to the German historian Tobias Jarsek, an authority in the field of "fuel for the Führer"
    The Soviet Union also supplied the US with important raw materials, including chrome and manganese ore aswell as platinum; on the account of this, the US possibly even became a net beneficiary of wartime trade with the Soviets."


    Coming the the end of my first point (yes just the first point which is the major point because Buisness is the essence of Lend-Lease).

    Here a chart of GDP growth of WW2 countries. To see how the US rose to worlds biggest economy by supplying all major WW2 participants and being among the main sources of even enabaling WW2 to become to what it is.


    While almost every other country has had losses or a fluctuation in their GDP affected due the war, the US GDP had a constent growth and not only managed to safe USA from default but also gave them a surplus, this gain remained untill late 50's because they were the main creditor to countries that were destroyed from WW2 companies like Hulliburton which is one of the main peace time money maker of the US. The cleaner afterwards, except they don't clean they just make the contracts and treaties and let the destroyed countries make clean up their own country with their own money while hulliburton and US gain from it, money robbing of the finest.




    The Lend-Lease accounted for 4-5% of the Soviet military production, despite the production of the Soviet Union were affected and reduced by the war and territorial gain of Wehrmacht. The Lend-Lease from US to USSR itself had no outcome on the war the Soviet Union would have even won when the US only had supplied British and Nazi Germany, it would take more time, but the fact that the US made a buisness out of it and the unwillingness despite many voices in the Congress against American oil being delivered to Nazi Germany it was not prohibited but carried on and with higher volumes of deliveries over very short time.

    Some other points that by itself do not represent the Lend-Lese but are underlining the political decision and geopolitical strategy of anglo-saxon and zionism during that time.

    The British during WW2 in years 1943 and 44 have tried several times to feed Stalin with desinformation, because the Germans were losing and they feared the war would been lost to soon for Germany. At the preperations of the Casablanka meeting Roosevelt said to Churchill: "If the Allies would act forceful we could end the war in late 1942 or early 1943." After the fight of Stalingrad the US and UK feared the Soviet forces were to strong and could have ended the war to soon, so a strategic desinformation was spread that the German preparations and the Assault on Kursk were stopped. Stalin did not fall for this disinformation.

    Several of such desinformations took place to delay Soviet advance so the war good be kept going which was not only a massive and lucrative gain for the US, but also the entire geopolitical strategy and preparations for different Operations the US and UK worked upon for different outcomes of WW2. Operation Unthinkable, Operation Ranking, Operation Quebec and others.

    Not only Military misinformation was part of the strategy to keep the war going, but also actions like Allied bombers of British and US were bombing civilian City Dresden which hold Zero military or strategic value, they did this as a demosntration of Allied airforce to Stalin and in late 1944 British bombers have destroyed 3 bridges at Elbe to slow down the Soviet advance.

    In 1941 the Soviet Union has offered to western Allies a few airfields on Crimea, so the US and UK could fly and bomb Nazi Germanies Oil fields and refineries and depots in Romania in the city Ploiesti, which was the main supply of oil for Nazi Warmachine in Europe, which could have turned the tied and ended the war in 1942. The Allies have refused the offer. 5 Days prior that this Germanies biggest so called "gas station" in Romania have been conquered by Soviet forces in 24.08.1944, have been destroyed by Allied bombers.

    Eisenhower wrote in his memories that the eastrn front was essecentially non existent by 1944.

    To underline the subcontext that is unheared by almost all, the context of Lend-Lease is not the gratefullness of the American government to win the war or to Help the Soviets to survive the so mighty Germany, but the context is part of geopolitics of anglo-saxons and zionists to destroy two potential enemies of Anglo-saxons and to gain access to the worlds richest country of resources.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Mike E on Fri Jun 05, 2015 10:13 pm

    If WW3 happens I can tell you it is not going to be like the rest... No nuclear weapons will be launched, no forces will be deployed, it will be a war of internal espionage and corruption. 

    The US is already lobbying an uprising against Putin and his party (good luck when the Russian population loves him), and there is no doubt they will try to implement it....and fail in the process. 

    In reality all Russia needs to do in order to counter, is slowly take down US infrastructure (this might include my workplace or household but screw it anyway). Plant weapons at oil refineries, rig large office places etc etc. Our country is already screwed economically, a few well place explosives and it will tumble. I am not advocating for this, but it is how WW3 will most likely go down. 

    If it does really go to conventional warfare, I have a feeling things will be a bit more "isolated". 

    South Korea, Japan, and North Korea are all bombs waiting to go off. It wouldn't be a surprise to see internal troubles, uprisings, and possibly even intervention from China. 

    India and Pakistan are still very hostile, and if one of them thinks they'll have an advantage over the other, they will probably take it. 

    Then we have the issues in the Middle East, where Turkey and Iran could easily make land-grabs. 

    Basically what I am saying is that it will not be an "Axis v. Allies" war, but one where every region is at war against their own enemies. 

    Never mind that civilian population would undoubtedly rebel.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Mike E on Fri Jun 05, 2015 10:15 pm

    As for lend-lense... It had little effect on the war and barely did anything for the USSR in the first place. The benefit of the USSR keeping the Nazi's busy in Eastern Europe helped the "allies" far more than lend-lease helped the USSR. Plus people seem to forget the Chinese conflicts as well.

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2507
    Points : 2640
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  kvs on Sat Jun 06, 2015 4:58 am

    The US spent three times as much with lend-lease on the UK as it did on the USSR.   There was a lot of equipment shipped
    but it was not there in high volumes in 1942.   I don't recall much discussion about British and American tanks during the
    battle of Kursk.    The winter 1942-43 was pivotal for the Eastern Front.   After 1942 the Nazis were basically in retreat.
    The lend-lease shipments helped, but they cannot be claimed to have been critical.  The Eastern Front war would have
    lasted 10% longer without lend-lease.   In no way, did lend-lease result in any turning point effect where without it the
    Soviets would have lost.  

    http://www.o5m6.de/Routes.html

    You can see that the shipment tonnage increased only from the second half of 1943 onward.   Shipments during 1942 were
    rather anemic.   So the USSR faced its major challenges with a fraction of the lend-lease that is usually cited by various
    NATO revisionists who want to belittle the contribution of the USSR to defeating Hilter (and the Japanese).

    Always go for the detailed numbers broken down by time and put them in context of major events.

    Cucumber Khan
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 84
    Points : 85
    Join date : 2015-04-12

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Cucumber Khan on Sat Jun 06, 2015 9:03 am

    Werewolf wrote:

    In 1941 the Soviet Union has offered to western Allies a few airfields on Crimea, so the US and UK could fly and bomb Nazi Germanies Oil fields and refineries and depots in Romania in the city Ploiesti, which was the main supply of oil for Nazi Warmachine in Europe, which could have turned the tied and ended the war in 1942. The Allies have refused the offer. 5 Days prior that this Germanies biggest so called "gas station" in Romania have been conquered by Soviet forces in 24.08.1944, have been destroyed by Allied bombers.

    What "western allies"? The US didn't join the war until december 1941. And Britain did not have the kind of bomber strength in 1941 to destroy Ploesti. The Allies failed in 1943-44 to knock out Ploesti, and then they were much stronger. Not to mention that most of the Crimea was occupied by the germans and rumanians already in 1941, with Sevastopol holding out until mid-42. So there was no airfields to offer anyway.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:46 pm

    Lend lease did not really start being useful till well after the Germans were stopped at Moscow.

    It was useful to the Soviets, but suggesting it won the war on the eastern front would be like the couple of billion Japan contributed to Desert Storm is the reason the allies won against Saddam in 1991...

    The main effect of Lend Lease was to enable the rapid recovery and growth of the Soviet military... Operation Bagration is not well known in the west but it likely had more effect on the results of WWII than D-Day.

    The raw materials and trucks were probably the most useful items delivered, with most of the aircraft and tanks delivered being largely obsolete... certainly better than nothing... but sometimes not much better.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Jun 06, 2015 4:02 pm

    Cucumber Khan wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:

    In 1941 the Soviet Union has offered to western Allies a few airfields on Crimea, so the US and UK could fly and bomb Nazi Germanies Oil fields and refineries and depots in Romania in the city Ploiesti, which was the main supply of oil for Nazi Warmachine in Europe, which could have turned the tied and ended the war in 1942. The Allies have refused the offer. 5 Days prior that this Germanies biggest so called "gas station" in Romania have been conquered by Soviet forces in 24.08.1944, have been destroyed by Allied bombers.

    What "western allies"? The US didn't join the war until december 1941. And Britain did not have the kind of bomber strength in 1941 to destroy Ploesti. The Allies failed in 1943-44 to knock out Ploesti, and then they were much stronger. Not to mention that most of the Crimea was occupied by the germans and rumanians already in 1941, with Sevastopol holding out until mid-42. So there was no airfields to offer anyway.

    The airfields have been offered in 1941 before Crimea was occupied, that was the reason why those airfields were offered. If the UK and US would have aggreed to it and would have fly bomb sorties from Crimea to Romania Ploesti oil fields, they would have stopped Germany before they could even reach to crimea, they refused, they supplied Nazi Germany with fuel which was the main reason why this war was even possible and 5 days before Soviets reached Ploesti it was bombed by british bombers. Bombing campaigns before that have been carried out with little effect since majority and the capacity of oil fields and rafineries was still immense, this ended in 1944 with Red army defeating 6th Tank division of Wehrmacht and capturing 24th august 1944 Pleosti.

    Cucumber Khan
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 84
    Points : 85
    Join date : 2015-04-12

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Cucumber Khan on Sat Jun 06, 2015 5:01 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Cucumber Khan wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:

    In 1941 the Soviet Union has offered to western Allies a few airfields on Crimea, so the US and UK could fly and bomb Nazi Germanies Oil fields and refineries and depots in Romania in the city Ploiesti, which was the main supply of oil for Nazi Warmachine in Europe, which could have turned the tied and ended the war in 1942. The Allies have refused the offer. 5 Days prior that this Germanies biggest so called "gas station" in Romania have been conquered by Soviet forces in 24.08.1944, have been destroyed by Allied bombers.

    What "western allies"? The US didn't join the war until december 1941. And Britain did not have the kind of bomber strength in 1941 to destroy Ploesti. The Allies failed in 1943-44 to knock out Ploesti, and then they were much stronger. Not to mention that most of the Crimea was occupied by the germans and rumanians already in 1941, with Sevastopol holding out until mid-42. So there was no airfields to offer anyway.

    The airfields have been offered in 1941 before Crimea was occupied, that was the reason why those airfields were offered. If the UK and US would have aggreed to it and would have fly bomb sorties from Crimea to Romania Ploesti oil fields, they would have stopped Germany before they could even reach to crimea, they refused, they supplied Nazi Germany with fuel which was the main reason why this war was even possible and 5 days before Soviets reached Ploesti it was bombed by british bombers. Bombing campaigns before that have been carried out with little effect since majority and the capacity of oil fields and rafineries was still immense, this ended in 1944 with Red army defeating 6th Tank division of Wehrmacht and capturing 24th august 1944 Pleosti.

    Again, the US was not involved in the war, so they were irrelevant. As for british bombers, how would a they have been able to deploy and supply such a force before the Crimea would have been occupied? Unescorted british bombers would have been shot out of the sky in daylight, and at night they were at this point barely able to hit cities. Remember that the soviet bomber offensive against Ploesti failed, and the handful of british bombers that could have been deployed in the Crimea would not have made any difference. The combined anglo-american air campaign in 1943-44 failed, after all.

    And please, tell me exactly were you found information about this offer. Exactly when was this offer made, and how? By whom? Stalin, Molotov? To whom? Churchill?

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Jun 06, 2015 5:36 pm

    Cucumber Khan wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    Cucumber Khan wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:

    In 1941 the Soviet Union has offered to western Allies a few airfields on Crimea, so the US and UK could fly and bomb Nazi Germanies Oil fields and refineries and depots in Romania in the city Ploiesti, which was the main supply of oil for Nazi Warmachine in Europe, which could have turned the tied and ended the war in 1942. The Allies have refused the offer. 5 Days prior that this Germanies biggest so called "gas station" in Romania have been conquered by Soviet forces in 24.08.1944, have been destroyed by Allied bombers.

    What "western allies"? The US didn't join the war until december 1941. And Britain did not have the kind of bomber strength in 1941 to destroy Ploesti. The Allies failed in 1943-44 to knock out Ploesti, and then they were much stronger. Not to mention that most of the Crimea was occupied by the germans and rumanians already in 1941, with Sevastopol holding out until mid-42. So there was no airfields to offer anyway.

    The airfields have been offered in 1941 before Crimea was occupied, that was the reason why those airfields were offered. If the UK and US would have aggreed to it and would have fly bomb sorties from Crimea to Romania Ploesti oil fields, they would have stopped Germany before they could even reach to crimea, they refused, they supplied Nazi Germany with fuel which was the main reason why this war was even possible and 5 days before Soviets reached Ploesti it was bombed by british bombers. Bombing campaigns before that have been carried out with little effect since majority and the capacity of oil fields and rafineries was still immense, this ended in 1944 with Red army defeating 6th Tank division of Wehrmacht and capturing 24th august 1944 Pleosti.

    Again, the US was not involved in the war, so they were irrelevant. As for british bombers, how would a they have been able to deploy and supply such a force before the Crimea would have been occupied? Unescorted british bombers would have been shot out of the sky in daylight, and at night they were at this point barely able to hit cities. Remember that the soviet bomber offensive against Ploesti failed, and the handful of british bombers that could have been deployed in the Crimea would not have made any difference. The combined anglo-american air campaign in 1943-44 failed, after all.

    And please, tell me exactly were you found information about this offer. Exactly when was this offer made, and how? By whom? Stalin, Molotov? To whom? Churchill?

    The first bombings were in 1941 by Soviets, they had to get there, despite that Soviet Union virtually had no bombers made it all a problem. 1942 British has bombed Ploesti already, but with little effect.

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftangriffe_auf_Ploie%C8%99ti

    Cucumber Khan
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 84
    Points : 85
    Join date : 2015-04-12

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Cucumber Khan on Sat Jun 06, 2015 9:17 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Cucumber Khan wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    Cucumber Khan wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:

    In 1941 the Soviet Union has offered to western Allies a few airfields on Crimea, so the US and UK could fly and bomb Nazi Germanies Oil fields and refineries and depots in Romania in the city Ploiesti, which was the main supply of oil for Nazi Warmachine in Europe, which could have turned the tied and ended the war in 1942. The Allies have refused the offer. 5 Days prior that this Germanies biggest so called "gas station" in Romania have been conquered by Soviet forces in 24.08.1944, have been destroyed by Allied bombers.

    What "western allies"? The US didn't join the war until december 1941. And Britain did not have the kind of bomber strength in 1941 to destroy Ploesti. The Allies failed in 1943-44 to knock out Ploesti, and then they were much stronger. Not to mention that most of the Crimea was occupied by the germans and rumanians already in 1941, with Sevastopol holding out until mid-42. So there was no airfields to offer anyway.

    The airfields have been offered in 1941 before Crimea was occupied, that was the reason why those airfields were offered. If the UK and US would have aggreed to it and would have fly bomb sorties from Crimea to Romania Ploesti oil fields, they would have stopped Germany before they could even reach to crimea, they refused, they supplied Nazi Germany with fuel which was the main reason why this war was even possible and 5 days before Soviets reached Ploesti it was bombed by british bombers. Bombing campaigns before that have been carried out with little effect since majority and the capacity of oil fields and rafineries was still immense, this ended in 1944 with Red army defeating 6th Tank division of Wehrmacht and capturing 24th august 1944 Pleosti.

    Again, the US was not involved in the war, so they were irrelevant. As for british bombers, how would a they have been able to deploy and supply such a force before the Crimea would have been occupied? Unescorted british bombers would have been shot out of the sky in daylight, and at night they were at this point barely able to hit cities. Remember that the soviet bomber offensive against Ploesti failed, and the handful of british bombers that could have been deployed in the Crimea would not have made any difference. The combined anglo-american air campaign in 1943-44 failed, after all.

    And please, tell me exactly were you found information about this offer. Exactly when was this offer made, and how? By whom? Stalin, Molotov? To whom? Churchill?

    The first bombings were in 1941 by Soviets, they had to get there, despite that Soviet Union virtually had no bombers made it all a problem. 1942 British has bombed Ploesti already, but with little effect.

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftangriffe_auf_Ploie%C8%99ti

    The Soviet Union had plenty of bombers. The problem was that the Luftwaffe fighters was so damn efficient that the VVS had to switch to night bombing, and it took time for them to adjust, just as the RAF had been forced to do earlier. Most VVS bombers were two-engined designs in 1941, but then , so was the RAF bombers.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:10 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:10 am