USA WW2 Lend Lease

The Red Army had 270000 trucks at the start of the war.

It received during the war

150000 trucks from the home production

220000 trucks from the civilian sector

60000 captured trucks

312000 (or 362000) trucks from LL

Total received : 800000 or 750000,of which 31200(362000) from LL,something between 40/50 %.
 
Something that might have changed the outcome of the war, but it didn't. It might caused more casualties than needed, the purges of the officer corps prior the war in the East. Stalin went toward his own military officers and in many ways decapitated the Red Army. These officers were replaced by political amateurs and these amateurs caused the problems the Russians had when they fought in the Russo-Finnish winter war.

Zhukov was at this time in Siberia and avoided the purges. He was a commander of the Siberian forces and they faced two clashes with the Japanese and Zhukov and his forces defeated the Japs badly.
 
The UK received a great deal of food ,munitions,medical supplies,etc,from other sources also and produced a lot of these things herself .

"A US supplied British Commonwealth " gives a wrong picture :" A British Commonwealth that received supplies amongst other from the US " gives a correct picture .

What Britain produced herself and received from the Commonwealth and other countries was more important than that what it received from LL.

It was the same for the SU .

You will never admit that you are wrong. You do not debate, you try and dictate. The fact is, the British Commonwealth received lend lease from the US.
 
You have reading problems:mrgreen:

You find some obscure writing that often go against conventional history - wisdom and states it as irrefutable fact. This is your pattern. At least others I.E.: in this case "Monty" could see the other point of view even if he presently didn't agree. You form a viewpoint and say screw you to any and all input that doesn't fully agree with your obscure so-called truth. This is very poor conduct and by no means a correct way to conduct debate.
 
You will never admit that you are wrong. You do not debate, you try and dictate. The fact is, the British Commonwealth received lend lease from the US.

Umm not to put too fine a point on it but he isn't wrong.

He does say that Britain and the Commonwealth received Lend Lease aid but his point is that it also received aid from elsewhere for example Britain received a huge amount of material from India, Australia and New Zealand so while Lend Lease to the UK was important it was not the only thing that kept the UK in the war by a long shot.

You find some obscure writing that often go against conventional history - wisdom and states it as irrefutable fact. This is your pattern. At least others I.E.: in this case "Monty" could see the other point of view even if he presently didn't agree. You form a viewpoint and say screw you to any and all input that doesn't fully agree with your obscure so-called truth. This is very poor conduct and by no means a correct way to conduct debate.

You know I am not one to back away from playing devils advocate or querying facts and figures and rarely do I let a set of numbers go through unchallenged yet I don't if ever argue with Lljadw's numbers because for the most part they are right and from very good well researched sources, we do not often see eye to eye on interpretation of the figures but that is a different story.
 
Last edited:
You find some obscure writing that often go against conventional history - wisdom and states it as irrefutable fact. This is your pattern. At least others I.E.: in this case "Monty" could see the other point of view even if he presently didn't agree. You form a viewpoint and say screw you to any and all input that doesn't fully agree with your obscure so-called truth. This is very poor conduct and by no means a correct way to conduct debate.


The truth is that a lot of the conventional history has been proved to be wrong .

Let's take the purge of the Red Army : there was a purge,but it's influence was much less than has been claimed :the sensational Cold War claim "The stupid Stalin who gave the order to shoot the half and the best of the officers of the Red Army" is an invention of diligent journalists searching for padding.

There were only few purge victims,and most were not shot or sent to the Gulag.Their successors were not incompetent amateurs :Worochilov and Boedjenny occupied already high functions BEFORE the purges .And the claim that Toetchachevsky was a military genius is very questionable .

There were also other causes for the initial poor performance of the Red Army .
 
Last edited:
You have reading problems:mrgreen:

I don't have problems reading you sanctimonious twonk, as I said you never debate but try and dictate and as I mentioned before when I push the point you call me a bully. Very intelligent.

Umm not to put too fine a point on it but he isn't wrong.

He does say that Britain and the Commonwealth received Lend Lease aid but his point is that it also received aid from elsewhere for example Britain received a huge amount of material from India, Australia and New Zealand so while Lend Lease to the UK was important it was not the only thing that kept the UK in the war by a long shot.

He did not say that at all, he said emphatically that the British Commonwealth was not supplied by the US when in fact it was.

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 .

I am not arguing the other points that Britain was supplied by India, Australia and New Zealand.
 
Last edited:
If the UK and the Commonwealth was not supplied by the US, explain the convoys across the Atlantic.

The Convoys across the Atlantic had not as destination the Commonwealth .

As I already explained, the statement "A US supplied Britain/Commonwealth" is not correct,because it gives the impression that Britain/Commonwealth was supplied only by the US,which is not correct .

I like also to see proofs that the Commonwealth (= Dominions and Colonies ) were supplied by the USA.

Was Canada supplied by the US, was SA supplied by the US,was India supplied by the US? And ,how much ?
 
The Convoys across the Atlantic had not as destination the Commonwealth .

As I already explained, the statement "A US supplied Britain/Commonwealth" is not correct,because it gives the impression that Britain/Commonwealth was supplied only by the US,which is not correct .

I like also to see proofs that the Commonwealth (= Dominions and Colonies ) were supplied by the USA.

Was Canada supplied by the US, was SA supplied by the US,was India supplied by the US? And ,how much ?

Here is information on the New Zealand Lend Lease program...

Lend-Lease

Completion of United States Lend-Lease arrangements was to mark a new era in wartime supplies for New Zealand. As wartime pressures increased, it had become more and more difficult for the United Kingdom to fill New Zealand orders. Australian capacity to produce was expanding rapidly, but was, at this stage, unable to cope with any great proportion of New Zealand's requirements. There had been an increasing tendency to turn to the United States, but soon New Zealand, in common with other Commonwealth countries, was faced with a serious shortage of dollar exchange and was forced to restrict orders.
It was to cope with this situation that the United States Lend-Lease Act was passed in March 1941. New Zealand became eligible to trade under the Act in November 1941, and a New Zealand Supply Mission was set up in Washington to deal with Lend-Lease and cash requisitions. In June 1942 delays were reduced when a United States Joint Purchasing Board was established in New Zealand, strengthening United States administrative representation here and making it possible to fix, in New Zealand, the eligibility and priority of local requirements. Lend-Lease requests from New Zealand were screened by an ‘Allied Committee’ of representatives of the Lend-Lease Administration, the Joint Purchasing Board and the Commissioner of Supply.
In 1942 New Zealand imports under Lend-Lease were valued at £11 million out of a total of £54 million of imports for the year. As a result, the volume of imports, which had fallen each year since 1937, now showed a moderate increase, still, however, leaving arrivals at 26 per cent below the average of the three pre-war years. In 1943 Lend-Lease imports were £27 million and total imports £95 million. The volume of imports moved, in this year, to 28 per cent above the pre-war figure. Substantial arrivals of defence materials and equipment from the United Kingdom and increased imports from Canada also augmented the total, which was a record not to be equalled again until 1950.
Reciprocal Aid provided by New Zealand under the Lend-Lease arrangements totalled nearly £7 million in 1943, compared with £27 million of United States supplies received. There was to be a page 126 closer balance in 1944, with Lend-Lease Aid from the United States valued at £32 million and Reciprocal Aid provided by New Zealand at £24 million, and in the following two years Reciprocal Aid provided by New Zealand would exceed in value Lend-Lease Aid received from the United States.
Nearly 70 per cent of the Lend-Lease Aid received from the United States was in the form of direct war materials, but substantial quantities of commodities such as oil, petrol, tinplate and wire were also received, as well as producers' equipment. Nearly half of the Reciprocal Aid provided by New Zealand was foodstuffs.
One important contribution to production made by Lend-Lease Aid was the supply of considerable quantities of mechanical equipment for farms. For example, over seven thousand farm tractors were supplied in the years 1943 to 1945. Some idea of the significance of these 7000 tractors can be gathered from the fact that, in 1940, there were only about eleven thousand tractors on New Zealand farms. The rapid mechanisation of farming played an important part in extending allied food supplies. Only in this way could farming step up its production to meet wartime demands, in spite of shortages of labour.
WH2Eco033a.jpg



http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Econ-c6-17.html

Here is a graph from the same book covering the major suppliers to New Zealand during the war...

WH2Eco034a.jpg


He did not say that at all, he said emphatically that the British Commonwealth was not supplied by the US when in fact it was.



I am not arguing the other points that Britain was supplied by India, Australia and New Zealand.

One thing I have learned and learned to compensate for on international sites is that people whose native language is not English quite often write emphatically when then do not intend to state things that way.
In this case I interpret what he means to say is that the USA was not Britain's only supplier of material and in the scheme of things possibly was not even the major supplier to the UK.
To support that the book Britains War Machine: Weapons, Resources, and Experts in the Second World War By David Edgerton states that in 1938 imports from the USA comprised 23% of the total tonnage imported and it wasn't until 1944 that it reached 40% where as imports from the Commonwealth remained a constant 40% and the tonnage from North America reached 53% (thus 13% of the UKs imports must have been Canadian).
 
Last edited:
Here is information on the New Zealand Lend Lease program...

WH2Eco033a.jpg



http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Econ-c6-17.html

Here is a graph from the same book covering the major suppliers to New Zealand during the war...

WH2Eco034a.jpg




One thing I have learned and learned to compensate for on international sites is that people whose native language is not English quite often write emphatically when then do not intend to state things that way.
In this case I interpret what he means to say is that the USA was not Britain's only supplier of material and in the scheme of things possibly was not even the major supplier to the UK.
To support that the book Britains War Machine: Weapons, Resources, and Experts in the Second World War By David Edgerton states that in 1938 imports from the USA comprised 23% of the total tonnage imported and it wasn't until 1944 that it reached 40% where as imports from the Commonwealth remained a constant 40% and the tonnage from North America reached 53% (thus 13% of the UKs imports must have been Canadian).

As a matter of interest Harley Davidson WLA motor cycles were issued to both Australia and New Zealand.

http://www.theliberator.be/liberator8.htm

I don't know (or care) what he intended to say, he is very wrong yet still insists he's right. And that gets right up my nose.
 
The truth is that a lot of the conventional history has been proved to be wrong .

Let's take the purge of the Red Army : there was a purge,but it's influence was much less than has been claimed :the sensational Cold War claim "The stupid Stalin who gave the order to shoot the half and the best of the officers of the Red Army" is an invention of diligent journalists searching for padding.

There were only few purge victims,and most were not shot or sent to the Gulag.Their successors were not incompetent amateurs :Worochilov and Boedjenny occupied already high functions BEFORE the purges .And the claim that Toetchachevsky was a military genius is very questionable .

There were also other causes for the initial poor performance of the Red Army .

Several historians have a different opinion about the consequences of purges toward the higher ranked officers in the Red Army, Air Force and the Navy.
 
The Red Army had 270000 trucks at the start of the war.

It received during the war

150000 trucks from the home production

220000 trucks from the civilian sector

60000 captured trucks

312000 (or 362000) trucks from LL

Total received : 800000 or 750000,of which 31200(362000) from LL,something between 40/50 %.

You are basically stating the importance of lend lease Trucks to the USSR during WW2 yourself. 40/50% is almost 1/2 the trucks used by the Red Army. This alone would go a long way towards making the RED army mobiles. Take the average of your 2 figures which is ~ 340 thousand trucks. The vast amounts of troops and supplies 340,000 trucks could move. Perhaps towing artillery as well. This is an incredible amount of trucks. And consider the quality of the American built trucks as well.
 
Last edited:
Well I am guessing this thread is dead?

This is a trend I see here a lot, threads start as calling themselves controversial yet the second anyone steps away from the "accepted" line they get hounded into silence which is a real shame as it has killed any form of discussion and is well on the way to killing the forums as a whole.

You are basically stating the importance of lend lease Trucks to the USSR during WW2 yourself. 40/50% is almost 1/2 the trucks used by the Red Army. This alone would go a long way towards making the RED army mobiles. Take the average of your 2 figures which is ~ 340 thousand trucks. The vast amounts of troops and supplies 340,000 trucks could move. Perhaps towing artillery as well. This is an incredible amount of trucks. And consider the quality of the American built trucks as well.

Ok I am prepared to agree that in a few areas Lend Lease improved the Russians mobility, Trucks, Trains etc. but it still did not change the outcome of the war given that the war was lost for Germany well before Lend Lease kicked in to significant levels.
 
Last edited:
We can conclude the Lend-Lease contributed to the outcome of the war, but it must be seen in a context of other measures during the war, the bombing of German cities and industries, forcing the Germans to keep a military presence in the west and the south.

the Lend-Lease contributed to extend the Russians logistical tails during their operations against and maybe contributed to shorten the war, and that saved lives.
 
Well I am guessing this thread is dead?
Ok I am prepared to agree that in a few areas Lend Lease improved the Russians mobility, Trucks, Trains etc. but it still did not change the outcome of the war given that the war was lost for Germany well before Lend Lease kicked in to significant levels.


Lets get this clear I never backed down on my earlier stances about lend-lease and or why - when the Germany lost the war.

I assume your theory (and it is a theory) is based on the theory that Germany could only win the short - quick war? So when it became a protracted conflict (even if Germany was still defeating the Soviets, continuing to take 100,000's of thousands of POW's and move further into the Soviet hinterlands, with a rapidly growing industrial base) they were destined to lose due to the economic and logistical reasons.

I believe that Germany was very elastic and as such didn't lose the war until after the Stalingrad defeat. This is proven out by Germany new tanks that countered the T-34's. This is also played out the fact that German industry spread out, to reduce the carnage done by the allied bombing. Also the strong industries of Skoda works and the like were supporting the German war effort.

Even after Stalingrad the victory at Kharkov showed the Germans still had punch left. At this point a possible diplomatic solution with the USSR was still possible for Germany. However this was quite unthinkable for Hitler. Don't forget the Soviets had yet to perform successfully in the summer. However as Manstein and others were to learn Hitler preferred a more static defense. This took the strategic initiative out of the German war plan.

The decision to fight a protracted house to house battle for months on end at Stalingrad for no reason other than to win a symbolic victory was likely Germany's undoing in my opinion. And any discussion about why and when Germany lost the war is an opinion and only an opinion. Had they reached the Volga and just held a point on it to prevent Soviet shipping they could have damaged the Soviets without all the bloodshed- destruction of German forces and focused on a Caucus victory things might have turned out differently?

I can only agree with the timing of the German defeat at Moscow being the downfall of the Reich because it was in sync with Hitler's declaration of war on the US. Thus setting against Britain, the USSR and USA. He could not hope to defeat all 3 simultaneously. Bringing me back to my original statement. I do not agree that the Moscow defeat alone was Germany's undoing.
 
Last edited:
Tell me if you have enough gas in your car to go 500 miles but the place you are driving to is 1000 miles away and your car is wearing down during the trip with no way to repair or refuel it would it be right of me to assume you could get there because at the 250 mile mark you were still passing cars?

There is no doubt that the high water mark of the German army in Russia was Stalingrad but it was sucking in all its reserves to achieve it, lets look at a hypothetical shall we.
Had Germany not launched case blue but instead fallen back to prepared defensive lines I still do not think Germany could have stopped the Soviet army once it got moving all it could have done was delayed the Russians and caused a ton more casualties with the hope of a negotiated peace once both sides were bled dry.

Basically the Germans had lost the war by winter 1941 how much damage they did after that, who they declared war on, how long they stayed in the field or how often Hitler blew his nose makes no difference as the outcome of the war in the east and as such the European war in its entirety was decided by November 1941 and well before December 7.
 
We can conclude the Lend-Lease contributed to the outcome of the war, but it must be seen in a context of other measures during the war, the bombing of German cities and industries, forcing the Germans to keep a military presence in the west and the south.

the Lend-Lease contributed to extend the Russians logistical tails during their operations against and maybe contributed to shorten the war, and that saved lives.

This is basically in agreement with my earlier post stating that Nazi Germany was defeated by a multinational combination of the Allied and Soviet war machines and economy's (of which the strongest economy was that of the US). Yes the majority of the bloodletting was done on Soviet - eastern European soils. However to say that the simultaneous Allied air, sea and land campaigns along with lend lease didn't contribute directly to the German defeat is not to look at the total viewpoint.

One could theorize that the German defeat occurred anywhere between the moment Germany attacked the USSR while leaving Britain undefeated in the west or not until after the defeat at Kursk where they lost the ability to conduct offensive warfare in the east. I have read Glantz as well, but the opinions of historians vary.

Fact is Nazi Germany was one of the biggest treats to western civilization to rear it's ugly head and it took a combination of efforts to defeat Them.
 
This is basically in agreement with my earlier post stating that Nazi Germany was defeated by a multinational combination of the Allied and Soviet war machines and economy's (of which the strongest economy was that of the US).


However to say that the simultaneous Allied air, sea and land campaigns along with lend lease didn't contribute directly to the German defeat is not to look at the total viewpoint.



Fact is Nazi Germany was one of the biggest treats to western civilization to rear it's ugly head and it took a combination of efforts to defeat Them.


1)Yes,but with the caveat that the fact that the US had the strongest economy ,was almost annulled by the fact that tthe US were more remote from the front than the others: most US soldiers nver left Conus.

2)The Allied land,sea and air campaigns were much more important than LL to the SU and more important than LL to Britain

3) No : it did not take a combination of efforts to defeat Germany : Germany would be defeated by Britain and the SU, by the SU,by the SU and the US,by the US (although one can argue that without Britain a US intervention in Europe would be impossible).
 

.[/B] Had they reached the Volga and just held a point on it to prevent Soviet shipping they could have damaged the Soviets without all the bloodshed- destruction of German forces and focused on a Caucus victory things might have turned out differently?


Bringing me back to my original statement. I do not agree that the Moscow defeat alone was Germany's undoing.


1) NO

2) The Germans had lost the war in the east in august 1941,the fall of Moscow would have no impact .

The Germans had lost the chance to win the war against Britain at the end of june 1940 when Britain decided to continue the war :all Britain had to do was to continue the fighting till the intervention of the US and than it would be over for Germany .
 
Back
Top