Allied Lend-Lease to Russia, thoughts please?

[Jim O]

Once again, I am not arguing that Lend Lease was not important, just that it was not necessarily the deciding factor in the war.

The Soviet army peaked at roughly 11 million in 1944-1945. That left a huge population to manufacture war needs and to produce food. Had a percentage of that population been shifted from one to the other, they would have produced more food and fewer war supplies (the old guns and butter thing).

Germany had lost the war by the time Lend Lease even started (when USSR was not forced to capitulate before the first winter). Even if one argues that it was really another year until the war was surely lost for Germany, that is after Stalingrad, Lend Lease had barely kicked by the time that battle started and likely would have had no effect on the outcome of that battle. Germany really had no hope of winning after 2/1943, so shifting a percentage of Soviet production from guns to butter at that time would have merely delayed the inevitable (and maybe the east-west demarcation would have been at the Vistula or even further east).

[Gulf Coast]

Lend-Lease was the most visible sign of wartime cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union. About $11 billion in war material was sent to the Soviet Union under that program. Additional assistance came from U.S. Russian War Relief (a private, nonprofit organization) and the Red Cross. About seventy percent of the aid reached the Soviet Union via the Persian Gulf through Iran; the remainder went across the Pacific to Vladivostok and across the North Atlantic to Murmansk. Lend- Lease to the Soviet Union officially ended in September 1945. Joseph Stalin never revealed to his own people the full contributions of Lend-Lease to their country's survival, but he referred to the program at the 1945 Yalta Conference saying, "Lend-Lease is one of Franklin Roosevelt's most remarkable and vital achievements in the formation of the anti-Hitler alliance."

Just for general information

[TRDG]

Good stuff Gulf Coast, Guns and (or) butter, from jims reply, they got both , but which was of more use to the Russians, IF you had to narrow it down to one or the other being shipped...? I'm still not sure yet, sorry to say.

Cheers, more later

Tom

[TRDG]

I wanted to save this pic for another thread, but I could'nt find another "good" 76mm Sherman on the Eastern front, sad to say.

It may be hard to see there, behind the captured, now Russian Hummels, but in the back of them, there sits a Lend Lease 76mm Sherman!!

Cheers, you may see this pic again on another subject, real soon.

TRDG

Tom

[dsfraser]

Originally Posted by Pirate-Drakk

Likewise, don't call the USA troops "Americans" because Canadians are Americans just like the Mexicans. Would you include the Mexicans in D-Day with the Americans? Furthermore, everyone who lives in South America are technically "American's". Even Texans are Americans!

Americans is like Russians, get it? Yes, it's technically wrong, but it is common usage.

Let's just pretend we all know who we are talking about. For all practical purposes, during WWII the Soviets and Russians were the same regardless of who/what/where you have before or after WWII.

Rah, Rah, Rah!!

Absolutely right, to a point. "America" certainly includes Canada and Mexico, as well as the USA. But it also includes Argentina and Guatemala, and all points between. They are SOUTH America. WE are NORTH America. We are ALL Americans, and the fact that US media and US writers proclaim "American" to be purely related to the USA is offensive to the rest of two continents.

This is a pet peeve of mine. I never refer to "American". I refer to the "USA" because it is more accurate, and the use of the term "American" to describe the activities of the USA is pure arrogance, even though it has become popular usage.

Cheers
Scott Fraser
Canada

[dsfraser]

Hey Tom.

It strikes me that we have had this conversation before on AVMAS's forum, but I will repeat it here.

Lend-Lease was very important to the USSR. The military equipment sent was trivial. 17,000 aircraft, compared to 250,000 or more from Soviet production, etc.

The troopers of the Red Army loved the Sherman. They rode in Cadillacs, while their comrades rode in Chevys. It was a fundamental difference in design — the USA sought to make life easier for crews, the USSR merely sought to give them a weapon that would work. And it did, very well, thank you.

Tanks and aircraft deliveries were trivial in th eoverall context. More important were trucks, which allowed the Soviets to concentrate their production assets on building tanks. Much more important were foodstuffs, raw materials, and technology — items usually overlooked in descriptions of Lend-Lease. The USSR would not have had radar, reliable radios, or aluminum aircraft without US help. Much machinery was sent, lathes and milling machines that made it possible for the USSR to build the tanks they did to defeat the Germans. Rubber and rare metals for alloys to make their armour stronger, their tanks better. All these contributed to victory, much more than a few thousand tanks and aircraft. US technology made a difference, MUCH more than US equipment.

As to the outcome? After Moscow, the Germans were toast. They had no hope of prevailing in an attritional war with the USSR. They did not have the resources, and after Blitzkrieg failed, it was only a matter of time before the Red Army stood on the steps of the Reichstag.

Cheers
Scott Fraser
Canada

[TRDG]

LOL, yes we did just that!! My main thought here was the 76mm Sherman compared to the 75mm Sherman, that to me a a difference here, as I did'nt know the numbers before. Yes, a combined effort here is the key, say you take away the trucks, and put Sheramn 75mm tanks in their place, plenty of tanks, but the supplies to keep em' going........??

It did seem lile some of the Russian tanker crews liked their comfortable Shermans, but many thought they were also under gunned and under armoured, then there is the narrow track issue and terrain turning and throwing tracks I think as well.

Cheers, to me it comes down to it was better than nothing at all, in many respects.

Tom

[dsfraser]

Originally Posted by TRDG

When I use the term "Russian" in my posts, that means any fighting forces, regardless of where they were born, raised or fought, on the Eastern front, against the Germans, that's just the way I write it is all.
Tom

May I suggest you use the term "Soviet"? It is more accurate and inclusive.

The USSR was much more than "Russia". If you have ever seen banknotes from the USSR, the denomination is printed in all of the 25 official languages.

For example, Estonians fought with the Red Army, had their own tank battallion, and lived as part of the USSR for fifty years. They are not Russians, they are not even Slavs, and will not take kindly to any suggestion that they are.

Just a suggestion.

Cheers
Scott Fraser
Canada

[dsfraser]

Originally Posted by cyberia

OK gentlemen, let's cease fire.

First off, this section is weapons specific, and that is where the discussion here must stay.

In fairness, Lend-Lease is much more than Shermans, and in truth the military equipment sent was inconsequential to the Soviet war effort. Yes, a lot of tanks and trucks and airplanes were sent, and this fact is basic curriculum in US schools, but the really significant items did not have wheels. This is not in the basic curriculum, and the opportunity to elaborate on this, IMHO, justifies bending the rules.

Regards
Scott Fraser
greyhaired newbie here

[Kurttis Thomas]

I would have sent the Shermans to Germany as a present instead of using them that way I could have my men kill the Germans in the Shermans.