USA WW2 Lend Lease - Page 3




 
--
 
July 16th, 2015  
lljadw
 
The SU received 2.6 million ton of LL oil,but produced some 100 million ton of oil .

And,what is even more important,is the role of oil for the SU:in 1940,oil was some 18.7 % of the Soviet energy mix and in 1945 15 %:much less than wood and coal .

People should remember that 75 years ago,the economy was depending on coal,not on oil .Also for the US .

Primary energy consumption in the US in 1940 (in quadrillion Btu)

Coal : 15.972

Natural gas :3.871

Petroleum :10.110

Hydroelectric : 1.442

Wood : 1.261

Petroleum was good for some 30 %

European Energy Consumption in 1938 ( in terms of millions of metric tons of hard coal)

Coal and lignite :90 %

Hydroelectric : 3 %

Liquid petroleum fuels : 7 %


And for the infamous 15 million of boots ,the figures I have seen (on the AHF) are giving for the SU in june 1941 a stock of several of hundreds of millions of boots .
July 16th, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
Strawman :I did not say that he was insignificant,he was a high ranked officer (his importance has been much exaggerated),but that does not mean that he had informations about the Soviet war production,besides there were a lot of Soviet high ranked officers .
Georgy Zhukov was the most pivotal and important officer in the Red Army during WW2. He had access to most data and was given (within limits) a relatively free hand to lead the Red Army as he saw fit. Stalin confided and listened to him closely. A privilege very few in the USSR enjoyed at the time. He took part in all-most major key decisions at Stavka. He led or made the major decisions or oversaw the defense of Leningrad, the battle of Moscow, he coordinated the battles of Stalingrad and Kursk. Zhukov coordinated the actions of the 1st Ukrainian and 2nd Ukrainian Fronts in the bloody war to and over the Dnieper. On the 1 March 1944 Zhukov was appointed the commander of the 1st Ukrainian Front until early May. During the Soviet offensive Operation Bagration Zhukov coordinated the 1st Belorussian and 2nd Belorussian 2nd Fronts, later the 1st Ukrainian Front as well. Finally Zhukov took Berlin. His importance in the Red Army's victory cannot be underestimated. To think he wasn’t privy to the lend lease which was supplying his soldier would be naive.
July 16th, 2015  
lljadw
 
He was not the most pivotal Soviet general in WWII,the most pivotal was the chief of staff:Chapochnikof.

Zhukow was not more important than Koniev or Rokossovsky.
--
July 17th, 2015  
brinktk
 
 
Maybe I'm wrong, and please correct me if I am...but it seems lljadw is contrary for the sake of being contrary. You're not interested in debate but proclamations and appeals to authority. As if your sources and data are the only ones that are correct an noone else can possibly refute any of them...

Please tell me I'm wrong.
July 17th, 2015  
lljadw
 
You are

I am only replying to the old arguments from the Cold War,such as :

without LL,the SU would have lost

Zhukov was a military genius ,because Zhukov said it after the war

Speer was a genius:he said it after the war


etc,etc,




about Zhukov : an enumeration of his appointments does not prove his importance : he was a field commander,but the decisions were made in Moscow,by the Stavka .


About the LL food : one of the few works about the significance of LL food for the SU is :The Bread of Affliction by Wiliam Moskoff and on P 122,one can read the following :each Soviet soldier received just under 10 ounces of food a day of US Lend-Lease food .
July 17th, 2015  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
Maybe I'm wrong, and please correct me if I am...but it seems lljadw is contrary for the sake of being contrary. You're not interested in debate but proclamations and appeals to authority. As if your sources and data are the only ones that are correct an noone else can possibly refute any of them...

Please tell me I'm wrong.
This is one of the problems Spike (and others including myself) had with him. This is one of the reasons I cannot be bothered to even try to debate with him.
July 17th, 2015  
lljadw
 
About the mythical importance of LL :


LL deliveries in 1941:

Tanks : US :35/UK :446

Aircraft: US : 29/UK: 671

Trucks: US : 1506/UK: 867


Soviet production in 1941:

Tanks :6680

Aircraft:15735

Trucks:139879


1942:

LL:

Tanks :3000

Aircraft:2500

Trucks: 79000


Soviet production:

Tanks : 24719

Aircraft:25436

Trucks: 32489

Source : AHF: Thread :"Effect of LL in the Soviet war effort underestimated ?"
July 17th, 2015  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
This is one of the problems Spike (and others including myself) had with him. This is one of the reasons I cannot be bothered to even try to debate with him.
That's saying someone whose motto is : I stick to what I have learnt in the past and I am not open to new opinions .
July 17th, 2015  
lljadw
 
???
July 17th, 2015  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
Just to get some good old controversy back into the forum I propose a new topic. Did Hitlerís rather rash decision to declare war on the USA in Dec of 1941 cost him the war? I say yes because there was no way he was going to defeat the USSR, Britain and the USA simultaneously.



. Eventually as a result of the lend lease trucks they became more mobile than their German opponents.

A US supplied British common wealth continued to be a major thorn in Hitlerís side.
1) I say : no : because there was no way he was going to defeat the USSR,Britain and the USA separately

2)The war in the East was not won by mobility

3)The British Commonwealth was not supplied by the US .
 


Similar Topics
My problem: "In my town they believe about USA and Nazi Germany"
WW2 if the USA hadn't entered the war
What 5 - 10% Lend Lease Meant to USSR in WWII
Could USA defeat USSR before the WW2 begun??
Can USA really win a big war?