Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+30
SeigSoloyvov
AlfaT8
DerWolf
Tsavo Lion
JohninMK
jhelb
George1
KoTeMoRe
mack8
Cucumber Khan
kvs
Mike E
andalusia
Viktor
flamming_python
Mindstorm
magnumcromagnon
collegeboy16
Pugnax
Eagelx
runaway
Werewolf
GarryB
Zivo
TR1
etaepsilonk
Regular
KomissarBojanchev
Flyingdutchman
BTRfan
34 posters

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29920
    Points : 30446
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  GarryB Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:47 am

    Yeah, the Soviet Navy was critical in the defeat of Germany...

    The Amusing thing is that a couple of Soviet subs hold records for number of people killed when they torpedoed about three transport ships moving soldiers and people during the Soviet advance...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5656
    Points : 5650
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion Mon Mar 02, 2020 2:38 am

    GarryB wrote:Yeah, the Soviet Navy was critical in the defeat of Germany...
    At least it helped to guard the Arctic convoys; its subs, planes & Naval Infantry [greatly feared by Germans] were still an asset that Stalin used at best in the Black sea and the Baltic until 1945. Riverine forces, of all these, were probably the most heavily involved into the fight due to the abundance of large rivers and tributaries from where they can operate from.
    Some armoured gunboats even fought in the battle of Berlin, making their way on the Spree. The actions of marine troops at Sevastopol, Leningrad or Stalingrad are also all to be remembered. ..
    During the war, the Soviet fleet received a certain number of units from the allies: The battleship Arkhangelsk (ex-Royal Sovereign, Resolution class) arrived in reinforcement in August / September 1944, as well as the cruiser Murmansk, ex -USS Milwaukee, Omaha class, in April 1944. The USSR also received a group of eight ex-British destroyers, the famous mass-pipe-pipeers of 1917-19, under the name of class Dostoinyi.
    4 Romanian destroyers were captured by the Russians and integrated in 1944 into the Black Sea fleet. These were the Letuchyi, Likhoi, Logkiy, Lovkiy, ex-Regele Ferdinand and Regina Maria, Marasti and Marasesti, as well as three Romanian submersibles (S3, 4 and TS4 ex-Requinul, Delfinul, Marsuinul.). It will integrate 4 other ex-Latvian and ex-Estonian submersibles (Ronis, Spidola, Kalev, lembit) into the fleet, and received 4 British submarines of the S and U classes, named V1 to V4.
    More modest units were also transferred, 28 class EK1 (former Tacoma class) escort in 1945, for the Pacific front; 34 minesweepers T111 (ex-US, class Admirable), of which 10 in 1943 and the others in 1945; 15 ex-British coastal minesweepers in 1944-45; 43 lightweight minesweepers (ex-YMS class, Americans) in September 1945, to which were added Vosper (British, 90 issued in 1944-45) and Higgins (Americans, 43 delivered between 1943 and 1945) Elco (Americans, 60 delivered in 1944-45, 202 other deliveries including 53 in sections and spare parts). The Americans also delivered 138 submarine chasers of the SC, OTC and RPC classes to the USSR from mid-1943...The greater part of the Russian fleet was a victim of land forces, itself serving as a fire support for the Black Sea’s strongholds such as Sebastopol, or the Baltic as Leningrad. The paradox of this war was, as it were for the campaign of France, the uselessness of a fleet in operations. The only units massively deployed and in direct contact with the enemy were thus hundreds of armored fluvial gunboats (On the Volga, the Amur and the Western Prut, the Dnieper and the Don.).
    There were, on the spot, few units of value, no cruisers, no battleships to oppose German liners and cruisers before the transfer of two ships under the leasing law (Bearing the names of the ports concerned by these operations). The latter, moreover, were elderly (the United States and Great Britain were reluctant to entrust the “reds”, allies of circumstance, valuable ships, fearing probably to have to find them in front of them later)..

    https://www.naval-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet-navy

    The NF subs sunk 51 enemy ships; all transferred Pac. Fleet subs sunk at least 8 enemy vessels:
    S-51 from Pacific Ocean through Panama Channel and Atlantic to reinforce the North’s Fleet. Received the Order of Red Flag
    3/Sept/43 sunk German submarine-chaser UJ-1202/Franz Dankworth (464 GRT) torpedo
    S-55 (lost Dec 1943 mine) from Pacific Ocean through Panama Channel and Atlantic to reinforce the North’s Fleet.
    29/Apr/43 sunk German merchant Sturzsee (708 GRT) torpedo. Cargo of iron ore.
    12/Oct/43 sunk German merchant Ammerland (5381 GRT) torpedo. Cargo of 865tons of forage, 538tons of oats, 600tons of hay, 361tons of food.
    8/Dec/43 should have been the sub. responsible for unexploded torpedo hit on Norwegian merchant Valerie (1016 GRT)
    S-56 from Pacific Ocean through Panama Channel and Atlantic to reinforce the North’s Fleet. Had 5 victories, was the third best submarine in Arctic and received both the Oder of the Red Banner and the Guards Badge
    17/May/43 sunk German tanker Eurostadt (1118 GRT) torpedo. Cargo of 1.280tons of fuel
    and damaged German merchant Wartheland (3678 GRT) with unexploded torpedo during the same attack. It’s considered the only multiple torpedoes-launched attack by a Soviet submarine that scored hit on 2 different targets.
    17/Jul/43 sunk German minesweeper M-346 (551 tons) torpedo
    19/Jul/43 sunk German patrol ship NKi 09 / Alane (466 GRT) torpedo
    28/Jan/44 sunk German merchant Heinrich Schulte (5056 GRT) torpedo. No cargo
    L-15 from Pacific Ocean through Panama Channel and Atlantic to reinforce the North’s Fleet.
    4/Oct/43 a mine from submarine could have sunk the German submarine hunter UJ-1214/Rau V (354 GRT), but that could also have been a German mine.
    http://wio.ru/fleet/subm-n-p.htm
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5656
    Points : 5650
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:24 am

    Could the USSR win the war if Japan attacked with Hitler
    Cherevko and Kirichenko note that in the fall of 1941, 12 rifle, 5 tank, and 1 motorized divisions were transferred to the west from the Far East, but “the reduction in troops in the Far East was made up for by a new draft. Therefore, the Japanese expected mass reduction of Soviet troops in the Far East in 1941 did not happen."

    https://regnum.ru/news/polit/2887867.html

    The USSR was also supplying Japan while she was busy fighting the Alles: https://russian7.ru/post/chto-v-razgar-velikoy-otechestvennoy-ru/?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5656
    Points : 5650
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion Thu Apr 30, 2020 9:05 pm

    https://www.rbth.com/defence/2015/05/18/christies_chassis_an_american_tank_for_the_soviets_46135.html

    https://www.rbth.com/history/329895-did-us-help-to-modernize-t34

    https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-T-34-was-built-in-the-United-States-during-WWII-as-a-help-to-the-Soviets-so-they-could-beat-the-Germans

    https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP81-01044R000100070001-4.pdf

    The USA shipped 2.3 million tons of steel to the USSR during the WWII years. That volume of steel was enough for the production of 70,000 T-34 tanks. Aluminum was received in the volume of 229,000 tons, which helped the Soviet aviation and tank industries to run for two years. https://www.pravdareport.com/history/2756-roosevelt/

    See pgs from 116-end:
    https://histrf.ru/uploads/media/default/0001/12/df78d3da0fe55d965333035cd9d4ee2770550653.pdf
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 10322
    Points : 10469
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  kvs Fri May 01, 2020 1:42 am

    That's nice but there was not much of anything shipped before 1943. Lend-lease ramped up in 1942. The key detail is that
    in 1942 the USSR gained the advantage on the eastern front and the Nazis started their retreat. So the "generosity" (paid for
    in gold) of the yanquis was clearly tied to the situation on the front. All the claims that lend-lease won the war for the Soviets
    is self-serving propaganda BS.

    Look up thread for the links on the lend-lease volumes from 1941 to 1945.

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5656
    Points : 5650
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri May 01, 2020 2:32 am

    The USSR paid only fraction of the $ for supplied materials & armaments. The Land-Lease helped them win in 1945 instead of much later, thus reducing mil. & civilian casualties. The defeat of Japan's Kwantung Army followed in China & Korea on August 16, 1945, one day after Emperor Hirohito announced the surrender of Japan in a radio announcement. Some Japanese divisions refused to surrender, and combat continued for the next few days.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwantung_Army#Surrender_of_the_Kwantung_Army

    If the war in Europe ended later, more Americans would die fighting Japan, even after the atomic bombings.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29920
    Points : 30446
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  GarryB Fri May 01, 2020 10:57 am

    Without lend lease Stalin might have accepted a deal with Hitler and supplied machines and oil and men to help fight Britain and the US... after all without lend lease the western allies did fuck all on the eastern front to help their "allies".

    The west provided lend lease because it was in their interests to do so and for no other reason.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5656
    Points : 5650
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri May 01, 2020 6:25 pm

    Without lend lease Stalin might have accepted a deal with Hitler and supplied machines and oil and men to help fight Britain and the US...
    no, there would be a stalemate or he could have lost power & war. Then Germany & Japan would take anything they wanted or in any case making the allies war effort a lot more strenuous.
    The Anglo-Saxon bankers weren't going to reach accommodation with Germans & Japanese.
    Was the Soviet fleet useless in World War II
    https://vz.ru/society/2020/5/17/1039405.print.html


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sun May 17, 2020 7:05 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 2069
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  AlfaT8 Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:24 pm

    i am finally meeting these Lend-Lease believers, apparently not only was LL the be all end all, but more Axis forces were lost in the Western/Med Front than the Eastern Front, which was news to me.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 10322
    Points : 10469
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  kvs Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:50 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:i am finally meeting these Lend-Lease believers, apparently not only was LL the be all end all, but more Axis forces were lost in the Western/Med Front than the Eastern Front, which was news to me.

    Nobody cares about the truth today. Everyone is obsessed with their feels and hide in their safe spaces.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29920
    Points : 30446
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  GarryB Sun Feb 14, 2021 3:54 am

    no, there would be a stalemate or he could have lost power & war.

    The British and Americans were just as hostile to the Soviets as the Germans were before WWII started... apart from a shared enemy in Germany the Soviets had very little in common with the Brits or the Yanks... which became pretty damn obvious when the war ended.

    The west needed the Soviets more than the Soviets needed the West... just based on what happened.

    Was the Soviet fleet useless in World War II

    The Soviet fleet was not critical to determining the outcome of the war... just like D day.
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 2069
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  AlfaT8 Sun Feb 14, 2021 3:36 pm

    Now they are going on about how the Pacific was the great battle and not Europe, Japan was the great enemy, Germany was second rate apparently.

    They were fighting the Japs while also Germany and supplying the Soviets at the same time, M3rCa *****.

    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 10322
    Points : 10469
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  kvs Sun Feb 14, 2021 6:00 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:Now they are going on about how the Pacific was the great battle and not Europe, Japan was the great enemy, Germany was second rate apparently.

    They were fighting the Japs while also Germany and supplying the Soviets at the same time, M3rCa *****.


    Safe space retardation. Escape into feel good fantasy.

    Actually this retardation highlights my point about the Pacific War being overrated. There is no way carrier battles and some
    fighting over small islands compares to the destruction of the one million strong Kwantung army by the USSR. The Soviet Union
    did a lot to defeat Japan. And it did it by not attacking Japanese civilians.

    It is quite absurd for the Japs to suck yanqui schlong and pretend that "the northern territories" somehow belong to them.
    The USSR beat you in a war you started. You don't get to make up the rules.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29920
    Points : 30446
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  GarryB Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:58 am

    The Americans were desperate to tie Stalin into promising to enter the Pacific war against Japan because they were afraid of being left to fight it on their own and perhaps fighting the Japs for another 5 years or more.

    It was US demands that led to the Soviets joining the conflict in the far east, though in all honesty Stalin probably wanted to settle old scores in regard to what happened in 1905 etc and to recover some of the territory lost in that conflict.
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 2069
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  AlfaT8 Fri Feb 19, 2021 4:07 am

    Apparently a million Kwantung army ain't sh%t, they were under-supplied and its the Navy that mattered, because Japan is an island, the cream of their crop and their supplies were fighting on the islands.

    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 10322
    Points : 10469
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  kvs Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:05 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:Apparently a million Kwantung army ain't sh%t, they were under-supplied and its the Navy that mattered, because Japan is an island, the cream of their crop and their supplies were fighting on the islands.


    That claim is pure BS.



    If the Kwantung army was nothing, then why all the effort from the Soviet side. That's right, Russians are loser trash, I forget.

    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 2069
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  AlfaT8 Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:24 am

    I forgot to mention, apparently Lend Lease did win the War, because it helped "Ensure" Soviet victory.
    After the Battle of Moscow.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2543
    Points : 2527
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:26 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:Apparently a million Kwantung army ain't sh%t, they were under-supplied and its the Navy that mattered, because Japan is an island, the cream of their crop and their supplies were fighting on the islands.


    Yes Japan was all about its navy first, this is common knowledge, after all, if you are a sea locked country and you do not have a good navy you cannot keep vital supply lines open

    but it's not that the Kwantung army was shit, their best units and equipment were taken away to fight in the pacific what was left of the army by the time the USSR attacked them was poorly trained men with shitty gear.

    Additionally, the USSR did not fight the entire one million they fought a small portion of that and the rest surrendered when Japan surrendered.

    Not saying this to insult the russians but those are the facts
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29920
    Points : 30446
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  GarryB Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:55 am

    I am sure the soviets would happily return all that lend lease material in return for having all their soldiers killed back and all their property restored to them intact as it was before the war started.

    The Soviets paid for lend lease... everything that was not returned was accounted for and paid for by the Soviets...

    Suggesting lend lease won the war is like saying that the company that made woolen underwear for British Pilots won the battle of britain... I think if you check the people making the lend lease crap got paid for making it... and it was not like they were bothering to fight the Germans at the time.

    If the west wants credit for winning the second world war they should have launched D Day in 1942 when it actually might have made a real difference.

    Instead they let the Soviets gut the strength of the german army and air force and then scuttled in in D Day to make sure they didn't miss out on any of the spoils.

    but it's not that the Kwantung army was shit, their best units and equipment were taken away to fight in the pacific what was left of the army by the time the USSR attacked them was poorly trained men with shitty gear.

    The troops they sent to the islands were the poorly trained and poorly supported troops, the occupation force in China and Manchuria were better trained and equipped than most of their soldiers.

    kvs and slasher like this post

    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2543
    Points : 2527
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Sat Feb 20, 2021 11:05 pm

    No, the occupation force wasn't, numerous Imperial Japanese officers stated the best men and gear was taken away to fight the Americans. Additional other units were siphoned off to take part in Operation Ichi-Go.

    officers such as the overall commander Otozō Yamada.

    Also if you wanna be specific by 1945 the army was at 720k men, not 1M.

    Go pull your revisionist history BS somewhere else, cause I know the history. Really annoying when fanboys wanna rewrite history so they circle jerk the side they like.

    Now in terms of the lease, the allies sent the USSR a shit ton of stuff if you actually do your proper research to look up the volume of stuff the soviets got and not listen to the biased people on this forum. It did HELP them win, but it wasn't the main reason either.

    Also, Russia did not pay for all the gear they got sent an estimated 11B dollars worth of stuff and they paid back around 700M in total. Now some stuff in the agreement they weren't obligated to pay back like ships but they still never even paid back half of the amount they agreed.

    Because no one was going to war over that money it was just written off.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 10322
    Points : 10469
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  kvs Sun Feb 21, 2021 12:53 am

    Given all the revisionist BS being spouted about Lend-Lease being the most important thing ever, it has to be repeated
    yet again that it only kicked in after 1942.   But the Nazis started losing on the eastern front after the pivotal events
    of 1942 and first couple of months of 1943.   So Lend-lease was a slight lube for the Nazi's just desserts starting form 1943.  

    Allied shipments to the Soviet Union
    Year   ---   Amount(tons)      %
    1941 ---        360,778        2.1
    1942  ---     2,453,097        14      
    1943  ---     4,794,545        27.4
    1944  ---     6,217,622        35.5   <----
    1945  ---     3,673,819        21
    Total  ---   17,499,861       100

    There was a ramp in deliveries all the way to 1944-45.   The first half of 1942 did not see much and the figure for 1943
    is weighted to the second half of the year.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Eastern_Front_of_World_War_II

    Americans are total scum.  Lend-lease was not some charity and it supposedly served to help defeat Hitler.   But they
    claim that this assistance accounts for the success of the USSR against Hitler.   Eat shit you retards, equipment does
    not win wars, people do.   And the USSR was cranking out T-34s and howitzers all on its own.  

    Maybe if Americans sent in a few million soldiers to fight on the eastern front, they could claim a bit more credit.

    magnumcromagnon likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29920
    Points : 30446
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  GarryB Sun Feb 21, 2021 4:34 am

    No, the occupation force wasn't, numerous Imperial Japanese officers stated the best men and gear was taken away to fight the Americans.

    As an excuse for not stopping the Soviets...

    The Germans blamed the cold and hitler for their loss on the eastern front...

    Go pull your revisionist history BS somewhere else, cause I know the history.

    I am sure the American military is interested in the actual truth... NOT... and I understand why you are not interested either... it damages your world view.

    Really annoying when fanboys wanna rewrite history so they circle jerk the side they like.

    Sad when you grow up and realise the good guys you see in American movies were often no better and sometimes worse than the bad guys they show their heros fighting against.

    Now in terms of the lease, the allies sent the USSR a shit ton of stuff if you actually do your proper research to look up the volume of stuff the soviets got and not listen to the biased people on this forum. It did HELP them win, but it wasn't the main reason either.

    They didn't decide to send anything till november 41, and not much had arrived when the Soviets were pushing the German forces back from Moscow in December of that year.

    Also, Russia did not pay for all the gear they got sent an estimated 11B dollars worth of stuff and they paid back around 700M in total. Now some stuff in the agreement they weren't obligated to pay back like ships but they still never even paid back half of the amount they agreed.

    They paid for everything they did not return.

    Because no one was going to war over that money it was just written off.

    Bullshit... it was not written off, they paid it off after the cold war ended.

    Maybe if Americans sent in a few million soldiers to fight on the eastern front, they could claim a bit more credit.

    D Day mid 1942 and they can say they did something, but they would rather the Soviets fight the German soldiers in the east while UK and US bombers murdered German women and children and the elderly in german cities.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2543
    Points : 2527
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:21 am

    1. Yeah no get that trash logic outta here, if you wanna call it an excuse due to your anti-American views go do that with someone who will tolerate your lying and BS.

    Show me proof the officers in charge of the army lied, there is none btw.

    2. I know the truth, you are the one who interested in a truth that isn't pro-russian is all. You are extremely biased and that shows in your logic and words. I give the USSR credit for WW2 where and when it's due, but I ain't interested in historical revisionist BS that you're trying to preach.

    3. Go cry about Hollywood somewhere else, russians do the same in their movies and I've watched a lot of russian war movies.

    4. The soviets got food, ammo, and other things that helped them push the nazi's back, again NOT the main reason but the supplies helped and by 1941 a lot of gear was delivered to the USSR which they used against the Germans. Trying to suggest the USSR didn't get a crap tone of hardware to use against the Nazi's from the allies just shows how little you really know.

    In total this is what they got from the allies, I am not even counting the ships and a few other things

    400,000 jeeps & trucks
    14,000 airplanes
    8,000 tractors
    13,000 tanks
    1.5 million blankets
    15 million pairs of army boots
    107,000 tons of cotton
    2.7 million tons of petrol products
    4.5 million tons of food


    5. No they didn't, they never paid half of what they were supposed to pay. Again a lie on your part.

    6. Okay show me proof then and real proof not "anon source claims this".

    7. Soviet warcrime against german civilians is well documented, they did more then the allies did in that department, your a disgusting human if your trying to brush that under the rug.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5656
    Points : 5650
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:34 pm

    Putin: the Land-Lease covered 80% of USSR war needs.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29920
    Points : 30446
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  GarryB Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:44 am

    Show me proof the officers in charge of the army lied, there is none btw.

    They were trying to explain why they lost... of course they are going to blame their tools...

    I give the USSR credit for WW2 where and when it's due, but I ain't interested in historical revisionist BS that you're trying to preach.

    You are trying to tell me Lend Lease won the war against the Germans and you say I am revisionist...

    3. Go cry about Hollywood somewhere else, russians do the same in their movies and I've watched a lot of russian war movies.

    The Soviet people are smart enough to know movies are not documentaries... the people of the west believe the propaganda that is shoved down every orifice...

    They know their politicians lie, but Putin eats babies and poisons the underwear of people who don't matter in Russia...

    [quoet]. The soviets got food, ammo, and other things that helped them push the nazi's back, again NOT the main reason but the supplies helped and by 1941 a lot of gear was delivered to the USSR which they used against the Germans.[/quote]

    Yeah, those pussies were going to surrender... like France and Belgium, but they got some food and ammo from Merica and decided to fight instead... it turned the whole war around for them... they were going to give up and essentially be genocided out of the history books but then a few tins of spam and some useless tanks and obsolete planes and they were back into it... Rolling Eyes

    Trying to suggest the USSR didn't get a crap tone of hardware to use against the Nazi's from the allies just shows how little you really know.

    By the time it had arrived the war had already been decided.

    In total this is what they got from the allies, I am not even counting the ships and a few other things

    The tanks and most of the planes were obsolete and third rate and much of what was sent didn't even arrive.

    To understand my low opinion of lend lease perhaps a quote from June 1941 by Harry Truman, in the New York Times who said: "If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible …”

    But you think Russia should thank America?


    5. No they didn't, they never paid half of what they were supposed to pay. Again a lie on your part.

    Really... perhaps you might want to read this... important bit at the bottom, but the rest is worth reading.

    Would quote a young Vietnamese man going by the name of Duc Quyen:

    First of all, the US received much needed goods and equipment from the USSR (and other countries) in what was termed “reverse lend-lease.” Even before the Second World War had ended, other nations began sending Washington essential raw materials valued at nearly 20% of the materials and weapons the US had shipped overseas. Specifically, the USSR provided 32,000 tons of manganese and 300,000 tons of chrome ore, which were highly prized by the military industry. Suffice it to say that when German industry was deprived of the manganese from the rich deposits in Nikopol as a result of the Soviet Nikopol–Krivoi Rog Offensive in February 1944, the 150-mm frontal armor on the German “Royal Tiger” tanks turned to be much more vulnerable to Soviet artillery shells than the 100-mm armor plate previously found on the ordinary Tiger tanks.

    In addition, the USSR paid for the Allied shipments with gold. In fact, one British cruiser, the HMS Edinburgh, was carrying 5.5 tons of that precious metal when it was sunk by German submarines in May 1942.

    The Soviet Union also returned much of the weaponry and military equipment after the war, as stipulated under the Lend-Lease agreement. In exchange they were issued an invoice for $1,300 million. Given the fact that Lend-Lease debts to most nations had been written off, this seemed like highway robbery, and Stalin demanded that the “Allied debt” be recalculated.

    Subsequently the Americans were forced to admit their error, but they inflated the
    interest owed in the grand total, and the final amount, including that interest, came to $722 million, a figure that was accepted by the USSR and the US under a settlement agreement signed in Washington in 1972. Of this amount, $48 million was paid to the US in three equal installments in 1973, but subsequent payments were cut off when the US introduced discriminatory practices in their trade with the USSR (in particular, the notorious Jackson-Vanik Amendment).

    The parties did not return to the discussion of Lend-Lease debt until June 1990, during a new round of negotiations between Presidents George Bush Sr. and Mikhail Gorbachev, during which a new deadline was set for the final repayment – which would be in 2030 – and the total outstanding debt was acknowledged to be $674 million.

    After the collapse of the Soviet Union, its debts were categorized as either sovereign debt (the Paris Club) or debts to private banks (London Club). The Lend-Lease debt was a liability owed to the US government and is part of the Paris Club debt, which Russia repaid in full in August 2006.

    By comparison, Great Britain - the US's closest ally - paid off its Lend-Lease debt 4 months later, on the 29th of December 2006.

    6. Okay show me proof then and real proof not "anon source claims this".

    Look up Paris Club for yourself.

    7. Soviet warcrime against german civilians is well documented, they did more then the allies did in that department, your a disgusting human if your trying to brush that under the rug.

    German war crimes against Soviet Citizens started in 1941... Soviet troops didn't reach German territory till 1945... the Germans fought right to the end... perhaps if they had surrendered enmass there might have been reason to show mercy... more Soviet troops were lost from the border of Poland to the taking Berlin than were lost by Britain and the US during the entire war... I think they got off rather better than they deserved... they claimed they could do as they pleased because the Soviet Union had not signed this or that convention on war... well that works both ways... if they didn't sign it then they didn't sign it.

    Putin: the Land-Lease covered 80% of USSR war needs.

    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.

    magnumcromagnon likes this post


    Sponsored content

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:52 am