The myths of WWII (Eastern Europe)

Actually the thread (and you started it) is about and I quote

so it covers the period from Sept 1939 upto August 1945 as it affected Eastern Europe.

 

Yes,but, who was claiming (on post 132) that Moscow was vital in 1941,because,without Moscow there would be no LL in 1941,and this would result in the fall of the SU?And,who was giving, to prove this, very vague figures about LL not from 1941,but for the whole war ?
And,since 30 posts,we are "discussing " this,although,discussing with some one who does not know that LL was reserved for countries at war with Germany,and that there was no war between Germany and the SU in march 1941,is not easy.

 

So 0.75 pair of LL boots per Russian soldier is decisive?

 

About the claim in post 156 that the US never released any information about LL, after some searching, I found a very detailed survey about LL:Lend Lease Shipments in WWII (31 /12/ 1946), but,of course, that's demanding some searching, while it is easier to tell conspiracy stories .

 

Lend Lease was en acted in march of 1941. thats fact look at the signing of the act. Actually the bill was introduced January 10, 1941 and it was officially passed on March 11, 1941. What does Russia entering the war on June 22nd have to do with anything other than that is when Production orders began? Lend Lease was already in affect by June 22nd. Second My point was that do you really think that Russia would of been able to produce the numbers it did without lend lease because if you believe that then you are crazy. Russian industry was mostly re-locating, re-equipping and it would be some time before russian production levels returned to even pre-war levels and even more time to exceed them. And yes those numbers were more than possible to get over to russia over the course of 1941 which is half a year btw. June is the 6th month of the year genius. Again throughout the war most of the shipping from the US came from the Far East. Look at the first link. And winning the war in 1941 did not have anything to do with Lend Lease. But had the Germans secured Moscow it would have limited Lend Lease which did indeed regardless of how you feel (this is backed by historians and military experts) filled the gap in russian production levels during this time. The russian army did recieve trucks, clothing, and muntions that helped them even in 1941. I did say some of those. Your the one who took what I said and turned it to favor you.

 

I believe this is a forum and to my belief forums are a place for people to introduce claims, evidence, and find common grounds. Not a trial where I have to prove my innocence and everything I post that is not your POV is fake. You are not an actual researcher, and I have serious thoughts that your knowledge extends about to the few books and online articles you have read. Tell me have you actually interviewed people in the war? Have you visited these battle sites? Have you even attended a World War II museum? Because anybody who has actual experiences in these events are normally open to the many possible scenarios that the war could have taken. Dont waste my time. Im not here to dispute people's sources or claims. I am here to talk to people who actually have ideas or theories that can be beneficial in research and understanding.

 

3 more points
1)about the claim that LL for Russia started in march :the first cargo shipped to the SU was in june
2)about the claim that the US government was suppressing all information about LL,I have founs another site with a lot of informations:
history.army.mil/books/WWII/persian/appendix
3)about the claim that without LL from the Far East,the SU would have collapsed in 1941,from the same source:
total tonnage of LL (for the whole war!):14,499, 861 tons (all routes)
1941:360,778
of which for the Pacific Route:193,299 tons =1.36 % of the whole LL in WWII
Now,if some one could explain why 1.36 % of the whole LL was vital for the SU in 1941,or why 193,299 tons(=the transport capacity of 40/50 ships) were vital for the SU,or,why,without these 50 ships,the SU would have collapsed?
I will waiting for an answer,but I suspect that I will have to wait till the calfs are dancing on the ice .

 

I have cut your post down to this particular section to attempt to explain why a small amount of supplies at a specific point in relation to all that was sent over a very long period can be vitally important and even critical.

As an explanation, you have lost nearly everything, one last push by the enemy will denude you of all your food and munitions, you get a small amount of munitions, not enough to attack with, not enough to be wasteful with or give you a nice comfy feeling, just enough though to hold on for a short while.
A simple case of enough getting through at the critical point to enable you to keep you fighting.

Stalin and Zhukov both admitted that without lend lease the Soviets could have lost. It was a very complex interaction with Soviet industry and the supply chain. Most Lend Lease also ignores the contribution of the British Commonwealth.

I wish you all fun on your discussions on a very complicated and confusing subject that has a quite noticeable lack of proper information.

 

There are always those who find it impossible to credit the Soviets with any success.
Over the years the LL totals have been used to downplay the Soviet effort and bolster the German 'we wuz outnumbered' excuse.
Individual totals are used entirely without context in the hope the numbers can blind people to reality.

The best example is the Locomotive claims.

Claim:
90% of Soviet Locos were provided by LL.

Reality:

90% of the WARTIME PRODUCTION of Locos were provided by LL.

The Soviets had a pre-war stock of 30,000 Locomotives.

2,200 (7%) were sent via LL but they were not sent until mid 1944 and did not start arriving until late 1944.
Thus though 90% of wartime produced Locos were sent via LL in reality the number sent were minor and they had little impact on the war.
If you simply took the 90% claim at face value (and most did) you got a totaly distorted view of the situation.


The UK recieved far more LL supplies than the Soviets but you never get the same venom directed at her as you do at the Soviets.
I presume it is a Cold War hangover.

 

It could also be that the Soviet Union decided to say that the rest of the allied effort was negligible, that Lend Lease had no bearing at all on their conduct and victory. Which they often did.
The UK never denied needing Lend Lease or the 50 old 4 stackers in the Destroyers for Bases deal. It was only in 2006 that the UK finished paying off its debt to the US for the aid.
The Lend Lease supply lists for the Soviet Union are also mainly based on what was received from the US not what was from the British Commonwealth. The British total on Lend Lease also includes substantial amounts that were sent to Britain for onward transportation to other allies (including the Soviet Union) and countries such as Turkey.

The Railway issue is usually used because the US provided over 2000 Steam and Diesel engines, alot of rolling stock and rails etc, the Soviet Union is usually quoted as having built only 92 during the war. The Germans at the start of Barbarossa captured over 1000 Soviet Engines then you have attrition through wear and tear and enemy action with the increased demands on the rail system.

You could pick many items off the lists like Aluminium, over 50% of it came from the US, without aluminium the nice little engine for the T34 could not be made as it was an aluminium block, aircraft required huge amounts of it. So you could say without the Lend Lease whenever it came you could have to halve aircraft and the main tank production, while at the same time not receiving all the tanks etc from Britain, Canada and the US.

Personally I have always thought that it required a combined effort to defeat the Axis and get a little wearied by all the claims and beating chests 'that we did more than you'.

 

1) to put the 193,299 tons of US LL from the Far East in 1941 (because,this is what we are discussing,not LL during WWII)in context:The Red ARmy front strength (the reserve army not included) had after 22 june an average strength of 3.5 million men .Now,what did these men need per day ?(ammunition for artillery,tanks,aircraft,fuel,etc NOT included):10 kilo per man per day=35000 ton per day for the front army=1million ton per month=6 million tons for the period 22 june-31 december.The LL only was 3 % of this figure .
2)These are the monthly deliveries for the Far East LL in 1941:
june:2988 tons
july:27567
august:93113
september:27629
october:17161
november:13559
december:11282
3) some remarks on these figures:december was irrelevant,because these shippings would arrive at destination only in 1942
n 31 august operation Barbarossa had failed,and the German chances to win in 1941 were insignifiant .Also on 31 august,the Russians were numerically stronger than on 22 june.Was this because of the 124000 ton of LL supplies ?
n 22 june,the Red Army had 200000 trucks and 500000 horses,on 1 december 235000 trucks and 1287000 horses,and,this , notwithstanding high losses.Was this because the LL supplies ?
n 22 june,the Red Army had some 25000 tanks and produced till 31 december 3000 more,during this period,the US delivered some 150 tanks .
4)why were the US LL deliveries that low in 1941? well,the US were still a country in peace,the armaments industry was still embryonic,the US army and LL deliveries to Britain had priority .
5)I know that the LL contribution of the British Commonwealth mainly has been ignored,but,that would be an other thread:this one has been narrowed to the importance in 1941 of the US LL coming from the Far East .
The only thing I can say is that for 1941 the Far East was 53;6 % of the total,the Arctic Convoys 42,7,for 1942:29,9 %and 38,7 %;for 1943:49,8 and 14,2;for 1944:45,8 and 23,4;for 1945:56,6 and 19,8
A total for the whole war :
Far East:47,1
Arctic Convoys:22,7
But, I am not convinced that there were no US deliveries in the Arctic Convoys.

 

About the aluminium:it is not because that more than 50 % of the aluminium was LL aluminium,that more than 50 % of the tanks were made with LL aluminium,or that without the LL aluminium,the Russians would have less than 50 % of their tanks .It is not that simple .

 

I dont know anybody who ever dis credited the soviet's part in defeating the axis. They bore the blunt of the German army and required Germany to expend the majority of its manpower and resources. With that said you can not over credit the USSR as the Soviets required lots of help from materials through LL to the allies opening a western front, to the allies risking their air forces bombing German infra-structure. You seem to dis credit the allies and give all credit to the soviets simply because they shed the most blood. The allies most likely would of lost without russia as the US would have had trouble establishing a bridgehead in europe. However, the soviets also would of most likely lost if russia would of not recieved the aid it did and the Germans would not of been strangled by the naval and air forces of the allies. It is common knowledge and most historians and military experts agree that the German military dis integrated from the inside out and then collapsed from outside pressure. Lastly the outcome of the war was really indecisive untill the US entered the War. The US was the trump card and whomever they joined was sure to win the war. The US brought manpower, production, and technology that was sure to give its side an advantage. Here is somebody form another forum so we know we are not alone "Here's some statistics on Lend-Lease to the USSR. Over 400,000 trucks, more than half of which were medium and heavy trucks. 60% of the Soviet wheeled vehicles in 1945 were Lend-Lease trucks. 22,800 armored vehicles (tanks, half tracks, etc.), including more than 12,000 tanks. 40% of these arrived in 1941 when the USSR most needed them. 11,000 freight cars and 540,000 tons of rail -14,798 aircraft -4,111 20mm and 40mm AA guns -434,000 trucks -28,000 jeeps -5,500 artillery tractors -330,000 field telephones -2,670,000 tons of petroleum products including 476,000 tons of aviation fuel -5,500,000 pairs of boots -25,000,000 yards of uniform cloth -1,045 locomotives -8,260 wagons -1,200,000 tons of steel -26,000 machine-tools Soviet explosive production - 600,000 tons explosives via LL - 317,000 tons Soviet toluene (key ingredient in TNT) production - 116,000 tons Toluene via LL - 103,000 tons I would say that increasing Soviet explosives production by roughly 40% is significant. I would say that is pretty obvious that the USSR could not have sustained their military effort in 1941 and 1942 without Lend-Lease. I'm pretty sure that 8,000 armored vehicles arriving in 1941 made a huge difference at a critical moment. So, gBWR, the fact is that American, and British, aid to the USSR is one of the most significant factors in the USSR not being defeated by the end of 1942. If Germany had been able to defeat Russia and cause them to sue for peace Europe would be a completely different place dominated by Nazi's and Fascists since it would have been nearly impossible for the US and UK to invade France and fight a ground war against Germany when the entire resources of Europe could be brought to bear against the invasion. In rough terms Europe was about equal to the US economically and militarily. The reason that the western allies could defeat Germany in WW1 without the Russians is that they were already on the continent. Had France collapsed before the entry of the US Germany would have won WW1. The fact that the US fielded a 12 million man military, the second largest of the war right behind the USSR, fought major naval and ground campaigns in Asia, Africa and Europe, the Pacific and Atlantic and still sent more than $50 billion in war material, over and above spending $340 billion on its own military, to the UK and USSR is incredible. One out of every eight dollars the US spent on munitions and war materials was given freely to American allies, primarily Russia, Britain and China. America was truly the main factor to winning WW2 and Lend-Lease was one of the greatest things ever done for civilization and the defeat of the Nazi's. Without it the history of the world would be dramatically different and not for the better."

 

Stalin himself aknowledged that LL was critical. And im sorry if you think russia could have defeated germany alone because of their numbers. because numbers obviously decide wars. Churchill never said the war was won when the USSR was invaded. He did proclaim victory after pearl harbor however.

 

I agree it is not that simple, but using it as a case in point with 50% less material you have to cut production of things that use that material. Whatever is cut will have an effect, major uses were engines and aircraft. Likewise for anything else, food, copper, rubber etc etc etc.
Many people try to make it all simple but many more try to deny Lend lease had any effect and some even say that the Soviets could have won with no assistance from the rest of the allies after 1941.

This I tried to explain not in relation to what was delivered to the Soviet Union but why a small amount delivered at the right time can be more important than when taken as a percentage of the whole amount delivered over 4 years.

You have no munitions, you get 10 ton delivered you can now last for a few more days, over the next 4 years you get 2 million tons delivered but in that period you manage to have a tactical reserve all the time. That teeny ten tons is so insignificant when taken as part of the whole, it may be tiny in comparison to what was produced around that time period. But in the scheme of things at the time it was probably more important.

 

Don't we all.

I have yet to see a single comment here that claims the Soviets did it on their own.
Rather the thread is stuffed with this kind of banality:

That really is the problem rather than Soviet attempts to downplay anything.

Who are 'these people?
Did they post in this thread?
If not (and I am sure they did not) then you are arguing with yourself.

For want of a shoe, the horse was lost. For want of a horse, the rider was lost. For want of a rider, the battle was lost. For want of a battle, the kingdom was lost..................


This is silly.
The same can be said for any small bit of equipment.

One track pin can seriously effect the working of a tank.
Can we say then the German worker who made connecting pins for the Tiger tank track was the most important person in Tiger tank actions in WW2?
I mean without his track pins they would never be able to leave the factory.........................

 

As always,Jager is parotting (without ever having read them) absurdly wrong figures from a mysterious unknown site .
This site said that 22800 US tanks and armored vehicles (of which 12000 tanks) were sent to the SU,of which 40% in 1941.
40 %in 6 months ?No alarmbell is tinkling ?
This would mean 4800 tanks and 4320 vehicles in 6 months,and 7200 tanks and 6480 armored vehicles for the rest of the war and this while the LL tonnage for 1941 was 2.5% of the total.
Than,these figures are wrong:no 12000 tanks were sent,but 7200 and 3800 British(thus the reliability of this unknown source is minus 0),and,of course,the total of 22000 is wrong and also the number sent in 1941.The real number of US tanks sent in 1941 is 182,and for 1942 3023.
Btw,why was this source not giving detailed numbers for tanks and armored vehicles separately ?
If Jager had read the figures of this source and checked them, he would know there were impossible, because ...the US tank production in 1941 was ........4052,thus, how could the US send 4800 tanks, and,while the US army and Britain still had priority ?

 

Lend-Lease statistics

 

Meanwhile ,I have found that the author of LL statistics has "adapted" his figures from WWIITotal:LL tanks and aircrafts for Russia,where I read the following:
LLtanks
The Red Army used extensive quantities of LL tanks and other armored vehicles from the USA,GB and Canada .A total of 22800 armored vehicles were supplied to the Red Army during the war,of which 1981 were lost at sea .........The first shipments of tanks were dispatched in 1941,amounting to 487 Matildas,Valentines and Tetrachs from the UK, and 182 M3A1Stuart light tanks and M3 Lee medium tanks from the USA.
1)as every body can see, it is not mentioned that the 22800 armored vehicles were supplied by the US only
2)there is no mention of 12000 tanks
3)there is no mention that 40 % of these 22800 were supplied in 1941
4)it is mentioned that 1981 were lost at sea ,which was concealed in LL statistics .
5)it is mentioned that in 1941 182 US tanks were sent to the SU,also concealed in LL statistics .
I am doubting between 2 possibilities
a) the author of LL statistics is an imposter
b) he is a Dumpfkopf (=stupid one)

 

Read it again LJAD it said armored vehicles not tanks. Once again you are assuming. Really please spend more time trying to dis credits other people work unless you are actually a researcher and have research to show. Otherwise your simply displaying someone elses research that can be as susceptable as anyone elses. Or in simple people terms. concentrate on your claims to support your view instead of trying to trash other peoples.