USA WW2 Lend Lease - Page 5




 
--
 
July 18th, 2015  
lljadw
 
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 %.
July 18th, 2015  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
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.
July 18th, 2015  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
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.
--
July 18th, 2015  
lljadw
 
You have reading problems
July 18th, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
You have reading problems
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.
July 19th, 2015  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
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.
July 19th, 2015  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
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 .
July 19th, 2015  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
You have reading problems
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
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.
July 19th, 2015  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk
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 ?
July 19th, 2015  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
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...

Quote:
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.



http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/schol...con-c6-17.html

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



Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
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).
 


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?