why is Japan's industry so weak?

[Alex_brunius]

You didn´t read the whole stuff, did you?

First germany rebuild the railsystem, to the european gauge, thats time consuming. If the Red Army is not able to push the Wehrmacht back, every day the gauge is rebuild some miles more, so the supply strain lessens.

I read it 3 times and still can't find a single word mentioning anything about the railsystem. And there were alot deeper problems with German logistics then different gauge... Organization, Planning, Partisans. Not all these can be fixed by throwing more industry and time at the problem.

Remember that time is working against Germany here. Each extra time Germany gets to build 1 tank or 1 airplanes the allies can use to build 5 tanks and 10 airplanes. And in some sense they already built them if they are not doing lend lease all that effort puts preassure into North Africa, Italy and Normandy instead against Germany. It's not like it just disappears.

No lend lease:
100% of the shells fired in the battle of Moscow
100% telephones and cables in the battle of Mostow
100% radios, they had in the battle of Moscow when they defeated the Germans
100% of the air fuel they had in the battle of Moscow
100% trucks they had in the battle of Moscow
100% train waggons & locs they had supporting the battle of Moscow
100% of the boots the whole Red Army was not bare footed during the battle of Moscow ( please provide me a source of this ).
100% airplane engines that the Soviet used in the battle of Moscow. About 1000 airplanes available which was 2x what the Germans had. ( also please provide me a source that Soviet were not able to build their own airplane engines )

the SU didn´t build one engine herself.

Are you trying to look bad on purpose?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikulin_AM-38
"Number built 36,163"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimov_M-105
"About 129,000 M-105 and its variants were built."

Please explaine me how in hell could the Red Army go on the offensive without this stuff?

I never wrote the could go on the offensive. But they apparently could after the Germans tried to attack Moscow and they counter-attacked? Soviet can build or trade for pretty much all of that stuff themself, it just means they get a 2:1 or 3:1 advantage in tanks and planes over Germany instead of the 5:1 advantage they enjoyed historically, and that they need to wait a bit longer before being able to go on the offensive.

It's not like Soviet knew how to make complex tanks and attack aircraft, but had no idea how to make boots for it's soldiers. That's just laughable to claim.

One last question, without food for half of the Red Army during 1942 - 1945 what happens with a soldier without eating?

Japan and UK didn't have enough food either. Know what they did? They imported it from overseas and Soviet had plenty of allies with surplus food to sell.

 

[Mannstien]

Oops, thought this was about Japans industry

 

[Zaku]

I read it 3 times and still can't find a single word mentioning anything about the railsystem.

No lend lease:
100% of the shells fired in the battle of Moscow
100% telephones and cables in the battle of Mostow
100% radios, they had in the battle of Moscow when they defeated the Germans
100% of the air fuel they had in the battle of Moscow
100% trucks they had in the battle of Moscow
100% train waggons & locs they had supporting the battle of Moscow
100% of the boots the whole Red Army was not bare footed during the battle of Moscow ( please provide me a source of this ).
100% airplane engines that the Soviet used in the battle of Moscow. About 1000 airplanes available which was 2x what the Germans had. ( also please provide me a source that Soviet were not able to build their own airplane engines )


Are you trying to look bad on purpose?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikulin_AM-38
"Number built 36,163"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimov_M-105
"About 129,000 M-105 and its variants were built."

Yes, Soviet Union won the battle of Moscow by using their last reserves. Without the LL the Soviet army would have been in huge trouble after the Germans stopped their offensive.
I don't know(and to be honest nobody does) if the LL actually saved the USSR or not, but even with it the war was very tense in 1941-42. Without the lease it could have gone both ways imo.

 

[Alpha2518]

I read it 3 times and still can't find a single word mentioning anything about the railsystem. And there were alot deeper problems with German logistics then different gauge... Organization, Planning, Partisans. Not all these can be fixed by throwing more industry and time at the problem.

Remember that time is working against Germany here. Each extra time Germany gets to build 1 tank or 1 airplanes the allies can use to build 5 tanks and 10 airplanes. And in some sense they already built them if they are not doing lend lease all that effort puts preassure into North Africa, Italy and Normandy instead against Germany. It's not like it just disappears.

No lend lease:
100% of the shells fired in the battle of Moscow
100% telephones and cables in the battle of Mostow
100% radios, they had in the battle of Moscow when they defeated the Germans
100% of the air fuel they had in the battle of Moscow
100% trucks they had in the battle of Moscow
100% train waggons & locs they had supporting the battle of Moscow
100% of the boots the whole Red Army was not bare footed during the battle of Moscow ( please provide me a source of this ).
100% airplane engines that the Soviet used in the battle of Moscow. About 1000 airplanes available which was 2x what the Germans had. ( also please provide me a source that Soviet were not able to build their own airplane engines )


Are you trying to look bad on purpose?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikulin_AM-38
"Number built 36,163"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimov_M-105
"About 129,000 M-105 and its variants were built."


I never wrote the could go on the offensive. But they apparently could after the Germans tried to attack Moscow and they counter-attacked?

Actually your are in correct. Lend-Lease was very important during the battle of moscow. Especially in tanks before the Siberian Army arrived. Why? Because the Soviets lost most of their tanks and they had very little of their own that they could use against the Germans. Luckily valentines and matildas from Britian were available. And despite their inferiority to the homegrown soviet tanks they were better then nothing. So that crosses out 100% of shells in the battle of Moscow as those arn't soviet shells the tanks are firing.

The Soviets also lacked machine tools due to having just restarted machine tool production. So in order to get their own facotries up and running on schedule, they had to import machine tools from the Western Allies.

It is also worth nothing from here that the soviets could not feed themselves. Even if they could produce everything they needed materially speaking and what the allies gave them is insignifigant, the food given is not. It is very hard to fight when your troops are starving and you do not have food too spare. In fact I would say that without US food, which allowed russian soldiers to have three meals a day, that the Russian soldiers probably would've fared no better in nutrition then Japanese soldiers. And the Japanese soldiers were the worst fed in WW2.

And sure perhaps they did have their own telephones and radios, etc. But that's only in one battle. WW2 isn't a war where one battle would decide everything like in the old days. Sure the soviets win Moscow, but if they can't make anything themselves without outside help due to lack of locomotives to bring raw materials to factories, or lack of trucks to transport troops and artillery where they need to be, it doesn't matter if they used all 100% homegrown products for one battle. You still need your steel and pig iron and the chief regions of where you would normally get them are under German control, meaning if you want to seriously contend with Germany, you have to import.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Yes, Soviet Union won the battle of Moscow by using their last reserves.

Not even close.

For the Battle of Moscow they had less then a thousand T-34s, in 1942 they built 12 thousand more!!! ( before they really knew how serious USA was about lend lease or how much would actually get through, and when in the middle of moving their entire industry and much of their population out of range of the Germans ). In less then a month the tanks

To compare Germany built less then 4000 medium tanks combined during 1942. (33% of what Soviet built).

you have to import.

Ofcourse they have to import. They had secure sea-lanes and were in the allies so could trade with 80% of the world. Food is very cheap to trade for.

And the reason the Japanese troops starved was because they didn't have ships or control of the seas to bring food to their troops that were stuck on the other side of the worlds largest ocean...

Soviet had very short supply-lines due to being pushed back and no issues bringing food to their troops even with no LL.

 

[Loke]

Actually the total Russian tank production for 1942 was 24 000 tanks, but that could not have happened if they had not got LL help with the earlier mentioned and now outsourced production to the allies - rails, railroads, trains, trucks, wagons, goods wagons, explosives, aluminium, even more tanks production and so on.

During 1942 Germany built about 7000 tanks.

Info from - "Slaget om Kursk" - 2004 (ISBN 91-7001-091-9) Frankson and Zetterling on page 104, 105.

 

[Zaku]

Not even close.

For the Battle of Moscow they had less then a thousand T-34s, in 1942 they built 12 thousand more!!! ( before they really knew how serious USA was about lend lease or how much would actually get through, and when in the middle of moving their entire industry and half their population out of range of the Germans ).

To compare Germany built less then 4000 medium tanks combined during 1942. (33% of what Soviet built).

You say they built 12K tanks, I could go and search for the number of tanks the russians lost in '42, or how much the LL materials helped in actually building and operating those tanks, but to be honest I don't want to. I do not wish to argue with you on this subject, because it's clear that neither of us can actually prove our points, and it could go forever as it has been in several threads over the years. After all we don't even have exact numbers on Soviet war material losses. All I said is that we actually don't know if the LL saved the USSR or not.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Actually the total Russian tank production for 1942 was 24 000 tanks, but that could not have happened if they had not got LL help with the earlier mentioned and now outsourced production to the allies - rails, railroads, trains, trucks, wagons, goods wagons, explosives, aluminium, even more tanks production and so on.

During 1942 Germany built about 7000 tanks.

Yes, true, Soviet also built around 2000 heavy tanks while Germany built less then 100.

My point was that even if they could only have built half of that without the lend-lease ( a very pessimistic estimate ) they still enjoy a 10:1 superiority in heavy tanks and a 3:2 superiority in medium tanks ( of more effective models with sloped armor ).

All I said is that we actually don't know if the LL saved the USSR or not, but we can't deny it's importance.

We can be pretty certain that LL did not save Soviet from collapse. During 1941 LL had zero impact on the outcome in any battle, and during 1942 it had limited impact. Only once we get into 1943 did the accumulated amounts of support received start to have an significant impact on the outcome of some battles and what Soviet can do and can't do.

Just because you can un-package a mortar, tank, truck, airplane or airplane engine out of a crate doesn't mean it's immediately useful to you. It's only useful once you had the chance to train and work them into your routines and know how to best use them, how to service them and so on. Certain things like food and boots can of-course be used immediately, but it's not like USA could predict exactly what Soviet needed most badly anyways, so chances alot of things received had little immediate use, at least initially.

Integrating foreign engines into airplanes for example is not simple task in any way.

Soviet existing equipment and production is already well integrated, well known and is 10 times more useful then foreign stuff right away. The LL also was a cooperation between the two, Soviet would give feedback akin: "hey this stuff you sent 100 units of turned out to be really helpful, please send more of this in the next shipment", to ensure they got more, and USA would send 1000 units instead of something else they replied did not need. The first batches will naturally be much less useful for this reason as well.



I'm not denying the LLs importance in speeding up the defeat of Germany one bit, but Germany's flaws were systemic and they would have over-extended somewhere else if not at Stalingrad in 42, and the winter 42/43 was severe all over the front. The logistic situation of the Germans don't improve one bit by Soviet getting less aid.

 

[Loke]

The problem is infra, if you cant move the stuff on rail to where its supposed to go you will lose.
The tanks doesnt drive themselves to the front all the way from the factory.
Theres no magic pipeline with fuel for the tanks to use.
Theres not many McDonalds for the troops to eat out in the field.
Ammunition needs to be distributed.
And so on... all this and more was from 1942 in the hands of the allies...

Again - It is not to exagerate when saying that the Russian ability to move its armies, personel, supply and conduct modern warfare was dependant of support from LL from USA/UK/Canada. If no LL the Russian army would just have been another infantry army walking to the battle without shoes during winter.

Logistics gentlemen, logistics.

Info from - "Slaget om Kursk" - 2004 (ISBN 91-7001-091-9) Frankson and Zetterling on page 104, 105.

 

[Zaku]

We can be pretty certain that LL did not save Soviet from collapse. During 1941 LL had zero impact on the outcome in any battle, and during 1942 it had limited impact. Only once we get into 1943 did the accumulated amounts of support received start to have an significant impact on the outcome of some battles and what Soviet can do and can't do.

Just because you can un-package a mortar, tank, truck, airplane or airplane engine out of a crate doesn't mean it's immediately useful to you. It's only useful once you had the chance to train and work them into your routines and know how to best use them, how to service them and so on. Certain things like food and boots can of-course be used immediately, but it's not like USA could predict exactly what Soviet needed most badly anyways, so chances alot of things received had little immediate use.

Integrating foreign engines into airplanes for example is not simple task in any way.

I'm not denying the LLs importance in speeding up the defeat of Germany one bit, but Germany's flaws were systemic and they would have over-extended somewhere else if not at Stalingrad in 42.

Part of what you are saying is true, but this

We can be pretty certain that LL did not save Soviet from collapse.

is something you can't say for certainty. We don't have enough data to possibly know. Maybe it was the extra the Soviets needed, maybe not.

 

[Axe99]

On Soviet tank production, someone else around here far more knowledgable than me (I'm far from a Soviet tank expert, although I have a soft spot for the T-35 ) I think posted that Soviet tank production included tank repair if the vehicle went back to the factory, so should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Alpha2518]

Not even close.

For the Battle of Moscow they had less then a thousand T-34s, in 1942 they built 12 thousand more!!! ( before they really knew how serious USA was about lend lease or how much would actually get through, and when in the middle of moving their entire industry and much of their population out of range of the Germans ). In less then a month the tanks

To compare Germany built less then 4000 medium tanks combined during 1942. (33% of what Soviet built).


Ofcourse they have to import. They had secure sea-lanes and were in the allies so could trade with 80% of the world. Food is very cheap to trade for.

And the reason the Japanese troops starved was because they didn't have ships or control of the seas to bring food to their troops that were stuck on the other side of the worlds largest ocean...

Soviet had very short supply-lines due to being pushed back and no issues bringing food to their troops even with no LL.

Yes, 12,000 more T-34s made with American Steel. And I'm not talking about importing just food. But also aviation fuel because the ability to make high-octane gasoline was outside of their ability, machine tools to get their facotries up and running because their own machine tool factories were just getting started again which probably also included their own machine tool factories.

This is not zero impact in any battle. As I have said during the battle of Moscow, the British tanks the Soviets got were useful in slowing down the German Advance when they had very few tanks anywhere along the front untill the Siberian armies arrived. Perhaps Moscow would've been lost and then some if those British tanks (Which you conveniantly omit in your later post) were not there which woudl've been a logistical nightmere for the Soviets assuming they could not take Moscow back despite their best efforts. That's an extremely important contribution.

Also the USA didn't predict what the Soviets needed. We asked what they needed and the Soviets told us what they needed, and there you go. All the trucks you need, all the radio you need, all the winter clothes you need (to russian standards), all the food you need to the point where every soldier can eat three meals a day (Not possible without US LL). Sure some of it may have not been what they wanted like matildas and shermans, but they came in when needed and when Soviet Production was not at full steam (with US Steel).

 

[Alex_brunius]

If no LL the Russian army would just have been another infantry army walking to the battle without shoes during winter.

So you are actually seriously arguing that Soviet didn't know how to make winter boots for their soldiers??? :S Seriously?

If they didn't receive the boots you think that maybe instead of converting the peacetime boot factory to make something else it would have been kept or even expanded?

Yes, 12,000 more T-34s made with American Steel.

Can you please provide me a source that all of those 12,000 T-34s were made with American LL Steel? I have a very hard time believing you since the production of those tanks started even before the first LL shipments arrived!!!

Perhaps Moscow would've been lost and then some if those British tanks

No it wouldn't. Compared to the 9000+ tanks the Soviet used in the battle a few British ones were totally negligible ( or so my book on the Battle of Moscow claims at least ).

Even if the German foces had been significantly stronger at the gates of Moscow the Soviet were prepared to fight them on the streets just like at Stalingrad, and had dug trenches and prepared defenses and mines. It would not have been an easy battle, and the outcome never really was in any doubt once the German attack bogged down and lost it's steam in the mud.

Info from - "Slaget om Kursk" - 2004 (ISBN 91-7001-091-9) Frankson and Zetterling on page 104, 105.

I really like how you quote a book about the Battle of Kursk in 1943, when the topic we argue about is the Battle of Moscow in 1941. It's also counterproductive as I already agreed with all you guys at least 5 times previously in this thread YES the LL did help the Soviets conduct a more effective offensive and did significantly improve their logistics by 1943 and when they were half way to Germany and at Kursk!

Why are you trying to argue with me on points I agree with you on?

 

[Zaku]

On Soviet tank production, someone else around here far more knowledgable than me (I'm far from a Soviet tank expert, although I have a soft spot for the T-35 ) I think posted that Soviet tank production included tank repair if the vehicle went back to the factory, so should be taken with a grain of salt.

Yeah, even minor damage was considered as a 'lost' vehicle, and after repair they issued it as a new tank.
This is the reason for stupid ratios like 1:7 in tank kills in favor for the germans in the eastern front. This is also why I said that we don't actually have a true number on russian war material production/losses. Not to mention they often bloated the numbers for propaganda reasons.

 

[Loke]

So you are actually seriously arguing that Soviet didn't know how to make winter boots for their soldiers??? :S Seriously?

Did I argue that? No I did not.
Earlier in this thread Amalric enlightened us that one part of the LL was 15 417 000 pair of boots, who recieved these I wonder, soldiers or the elderly?

 

[Loke]

Alex - Because thats the book I have beside me in the sofa while watching The 100... Its also quite a informative one that covers the eastern front from -41 to Citadel and especially the Kursk battle. It has modern historians that to my knowledge are not biased by nationalism(they are Swedes), they had acess to wararchives in Freiburg and Washington and Dupuyinstitute with its research on Russian sources.

How come you dont link/quote to where your info come from?

 

[Invader_Canuck]

It is not actually laughable, however it is also not the topic of this discussion.

To give you the short version the USSR used vital amounts during 41 and especially 42. Why vital? because at this critical moment in time the USSR was about to collapse economically and militarily. There for ANY aid it got was more then it could produce itself. As 42 progressed some factories got shipped east and by 43 the union started being capable of sustaining itself. That said until the end of the war it relied on US jeeps and motorized vehicles, though producing its own (superior) tanks.

This does not mean they had no production of their own, and it does not mean the lend-lease received was more (in tonnage) then what the USSR produced itself, it simply means that they got the lend-lease when they needed it most. Which in turn means it was, for less then a year, actually relying on it. But if you truly wish the actually numbers then pm me and I will look up both page number, ISBN etc so you can see for yourself where I got this from.

You realize that the USA for all intents and purposes didn't send any lend lease to the USSR in 1941 right, in fact it may have actually sent ZERO in 1941? You also realize that it barely even got started by the mid-point of 1942.

People who don't really understand when Lend Lease was delivered to the USSR from the USA look at the protocol periods, and believe that the USA was in fact sending the USSR lend lease before the war even began. The Protocol periods begin with official lend lease to Britain. The USSR is lumped in. However, Congress did not approve of ANY lend lease to the USSR until I believe Oct 30 1941. The actual shipments of Lend Lease began leaving ports from the USA in 1942. When that material began to arrive at the business end of the Soviet War machine is problematic, it's hard to guess when raw materials sent to the USSR were resulting in things like bullets in rifles in actual combat. My own sources are all over the place. Some sources suggest Lend Lease to the USSR began on March 11 1941. Some suggest they began the day the war began and are part of a "pre-protocol" period. The official soviet protocol period according to the US state department say they began on Oct 1. When Congress didn't approve till Oct 30. Then we can look at the shipments and see that nothing, or next to nothing even shipped out for the USSR until 1942.

The British actually sent the first meaningful lend lease material, they were dumping obsolete tanks off on the Soviets in late 1941. I've written extensively on these very forums about those tanks, the numbers that various sources suggest took part in combat, the problems logistically with said tanks, and the recommendations on how said tanks should be used by high ranking Soviet commanders.

The simple fact is, the USA sent virtually nothing in 1941 (it might actually be nothing, the figures are difficult to sort out). In 1942 the actual shipments start arriving but lend lease in 1942 was still a trickle. Lend Lease only really kicked into high gear in the spring/summer of 1943 just in time for Kursk.

From a strategic point of view, the USSR had already ended the German chance to win the war in 1942. Germany was never closer in November and December 1941 to winning the war. They were at their absolute zenith in terms of power relative to the USSR following the USSRs disastrous summer campaign. Lend Lease played essentially no role in 1941, yes there was some, mostly from the British, but we're talking about drops of water, in buckets full of water.

What happened? The USSR stopped the Germans at Leningrad, threw them back from Moscow and the following summer would stop them in the south. Germany was never stronger compared to Russia, and was never closer to their objectives, and they failed.

Tell me what role Lend Lease played in that?

Lend Lease to the USSR didn't change the outcome of the war, it accelerated the outcome.

 

[Invader_Canuck]

I guess I have little to add to what everyone has stated. Let me rephrase my own post then so maybe you understand it a little better:

in 1941 and even in 42 the USSR had the utter bulk(meaning not everything) of its industry on RAILS, I am very sure using a industrial machine half disassembled inside a rail wagon does NOT work.

As such the USSR production within the time frame of 41 and 42 was abysmal (by USSR standard). There for the meager little aid that they did get from the USA was most needed. It does not mean that in terms of production they relied on the USA because the USSR couldn't produce anything themselves, it simply means they had a bad year, after which they recovered and started a production line that could be match by very few nations (essentially the USA only).

They continued to receive lend lease after 42, but these quantities where not very significant compared to the USSR's own production.

People seem to forget that the USSR was about to collapse and get annexed in 41 and 42, and you seem to forget that its industry was NOT operational during these critical 2 years. At such a low in the war any tank from anyone would have been a huge gift. So long as it helped them survive just long enough to get their own production back up.

So yes the USSR produced far more then it got in lend-lease (over the course of the entire war), I am not debating that issue, I am merely stating that what they got in 41 and 42 was at such a critical moment that it actually mattered. Many soviet tank divisions where half Russian half English in tanks (obviously crew being all Russian), yes even the UK gave a lend-lease to Russia, mostly in old obsolete tanks. Obviously the matter of half British tank divisions counts for the early day's in 41 - 42, after that their own tanks(which where superior anyway) where rolling off the assembly lines in huge numbers.

The USSR was not going to collapse, or get annexed in 1941 or 1942. The entire premise is a fallacy, and it is ludicrous to even suggest it as a possibility. This is a somewhat complex problem, so I will attempt to explain it.

We are talking about expectation, versus reality. The idea that the USSR was going to collapse and be annexed is based on the German expectation. The problem is, the German expectation was not grounded in reality. Their reality, was "We will invade, beat them up, take a couple of places on the map and they will collapse". They never pondered the possibility of "what if they don't just collapse". As we know, the USSR didn't collapse. Nor was it ever even realistically considered.

Your argument seems to, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems to suggest that Lend Lease somehow saved the USSR from this so called imminent collapse. This is, not grounded in reality.

Here is reality. The USSR lost around 5 million men irrecoverably in the first three months of the war. The German military reached their 2 objectives, Leningrad and Moscow, and they shattered the Soviet military in the process. What Lend Lease had the USSR recieved by this point? Nothing. The British went on to send something like 500 obsolete tanks before the battle for Moscow, of which a dozen or so actually took part. That is the most meaningful Lend Lease contribution to the actual turning point of the war. You see, Germany invaded, caught the USSR mostly by suprise and eviscerated the Soviet armies. Marched to Moscow and Leningrad and looked to be on the verge of accomplishing their strategic goals.

A quick aside. Even if Germany takes Moscow and Leningrad, nothing changes. The USSR still continues to fight. This is where we can reference expectation versus reality. Reality is, even if Moscow is lost the USSR continues to fight and Germany is only marginally closer to accomplishing what most modern military historians now consider to be an impossible endeavor. So we are going to carry on this fun little fantasy. That being, IF the USSR could have lost the war to Germany, December 1941 was the CLOSEST to that point of defeat it would ever be. Germany at its strongest, Russia at its weakest. Germany at the gates of Moscow. No outside help that would make a strategic difference was coming in 1941.

What happened? The Soviets between June and December raised the equivalent manpower of 800 rifle divisions. Many of these divisions (no, sorry Siberians didn't save Moscow), took part in Moscow. Again what happened? The Soviets attacked with mass and determination in the dead of winter and drove the Germans back. They took the entire operational impetus around Moscow AND Leningrad away from Germany. The following summer some German general staff officers said that Germany had already lost the ability to win the war by military means, again that is summer 1942 some in the general staff were voicing this issue. What is the state of Lend Lease? It's trickling in in 1942. It's something, but it isn't much.

The greatest threat to the survival of the USSR ended in December 1941, before outside help was flowing in. The German general staff in fact knew that they had lost the ability to take Moscow and that is why in 1942 you see a total shift in the operational axis of the German military. Moscow is considered lost, so they shift towards the Caucasus mountains.

What does this shift represent in real terms. It represents that Germany no longer believes it can win a quick decisive war, the perception we talked about earlier in this post. The perception that if we beat them up and take a couple of cities they will collapse. That is what Case Blue represents. It represents a shift from a decisive victory to preparing for a long, drawn out, economic and attrition based campaign in which cutting off oil from Baku could be telling.

That is why Germany lost the ability to win the war in 1941 at the Gates of Moscow. Lend Lease didn't rescue the USSR. Lend Lease didn't enable the USSR to win. It helped them win faster.

 

[Invader_Canuck]

You guys can all down vote my posts all you want. They are accurate, truthful and based on reality. December 1941 was the closest Germany was ever going to be to winning based on their expectations. They failed. Why would ANYONE believe that if Germany at its peak compared to the USSR couldn't win in 1941, it would win in 1942 or 1943 while the scales of power were turning inevitably towards the USSR? From December 1941, Germany is ONLY getting weaker and the USSR is ONLY getting stronger. Germany was never going to be closer to victory.

If the USSR didn't collapse in 1941 before lend lease played a role, it was not going to collapse a year later with the USSR that much stronger and Germany that much weaker. Lend lease or otherwise.

The problem here, is that people can't divorce narrative from reality. It's important to the national pride of a lot of people if we inflate our role in defeating Germany.

My grandfather on my mothers side fought in WW2 for Canada. My grandfather and like 6 of his brothers fought for the USA in WW2, some in Europe and some in the Pacific. I'm very proud of what they did, what they risked, and what they accomplished. I don't however think we need to continue to portray some sort of false narrative that the USA saved the world from the clutches of defeat at the last minute. That is, what the lend lease debate is about. It is an argument that is steeped in nationalism, and cold war propaganda.

Most of that cold war propaganda was written by German commanders that had real biases and hatred for the USSR, and had vested interests in selling their version of the war. A lot of it is also just not knowing what happened because they only had 1 side of the story.

However, there was a very real, and very pervasive effort in the late 40's 50's 60's 70's and early 80's to outright dismiss the Soviet contribution, and to paint a picture that our efforts were what allowed the USSR to survive, Lend Lease is an example. As I perused this thread, and I saw people quoting numbers I couldn't help but shake my head. Lot of the numbers represent manipulation. Others are put without context. The Trucks and Locomotives are especially egregious. The USSR produced hundreds of thousands of trucks. They also had 10's of thousands of locomotives. The old 2000 locomotive figure sounds impressive, until you consider that, off the top of my head, the USSR had 28000 locomotives in its fleet. Giving numbers without context is what arguing about Lend Lease is all about. It's a continuation of American exceptionalism, that is actually still alive and well among some circles of people in the USA to this day. Ironicially, over 62% of all lend lease arrived in 1944 and 1945. Context.

We should be proud of what we did. We shouldn't try to steal valor to puff ourselves up.

 

[Loke]

Invader Canuck, thats alot of text, sources?