Not to mention all the manufacturing capacity and personnel the allied air war over Europe caused but yes the Soviet sacrifices were the biggest and not just because the commissars forced them. To many cases of courage above and beyond to be just forced to fight. Most Soviet soldiers really hated the Germans and sacrificed themselves to kick the Germans out. Lot of good historical information coming out these days. Ugly ugly war on the eastern front.
Picture of the day
- Thread starter jwhc
- Start date
- Location
- Vancouver Island
Maybe, maybe not...
"Meh..." I've read lots over the years (written by Americans) about how the 'Lend-lease' programme saved the Soviet's bacon; how they would've caved under the Nazi juggernaut and, to be sure, it was "a near run thing"; the Reds were on the brink of total collapse more than once during the opening stages. But the thing is, I never see any photographic evidence or much written into the historical record (by Soviets) about how the impact of the great programme was decisive. I've seen pics of the odd Valentine or deuce-and-a-half, but rarely say, any Shermans showing red stars playing a major role in the great armour battles in the east--it's all T-34s....
Post some pics of American tanks manned by Soviet crews at Kursk.
I'm sure it was a help, but sometimes wonder if its major impact was in the propaganda war--keeping up morale and showing the world that the US wasn't just stalling, trying to avoid the 'Second Front' Stalin was calling for. From the Russian perspective it must have appeared that no invasion of the west would occur as long as the final outcome in the east was in the balance. By the spring of 1944 it was clear who the biggest loser would be .
As far as psychos go, it was a toss--up, Hitler or Stalin?
Either one of them would have you 'purged' on a whim.
BTW-- I don't think the Soviets lacked for raw materials or factories--that (and manpower) were their greatest assets.
"Meh..." I've read lots over the years (written by Americans) about how the 'Lend-lease' programme saved the Soviet's bacon; how they would've caved under the Nazi juggernaut and, to be sure, it was "a near run thing"; the Reds were on the brink of total collapse more than once during the opening stages. But the thing is, I never see any photographic evidence or much written into the historical record (by Soviets) about how the impact of the great programme was decisive. I've seen pics of the odd Valentine or deuce-and-a-half, but rarely say, any Shermans showing red stars playing a major role in the great armour battles in the east--it's all T-34s....
Post some pics of American tanks manned by Soviet crews at Kursk.
I'm sure it was a help, but sometimes wonder if its major impact was in the propaganda war--keeping up morale and showing the world that the US wasn't just stalling, trying to avoid the 'Second Front' Stalin was calling for. From the Russian perspective it must have appeared that no invasion of the west would occur as long as the final outcome in the east was in the balance. By the spring of 1944 it was clear who the biggest loser would be .
As far as psychos go, it was a toss--up, Hitler or Stalin?
Either one of them would have you 'purged' on a whim.
BTW-- I don't think the Soviets lacked for raw materials or factories--that (and manpower) were their greatest assets.
Back in USSR time in school history they never mentioned lend lease at all... According to them the great ppl of USSR won the war, everything else was so insignificant scale that not worth mentioning. So maybe many Canadians lost their lives in vain delivering this aid? I don't think so. Facts tell the help was important and significant. Not to mention economic war and blockade that cut Nazi Germany from supply. Whose military and merchant navy did this? USSR?
Quote from another forum:
And also don't forget that quality of these cars, tanks, planes and machinery was way above what USSR was able to produce.
Here is this diagram. Percentage of lend lease to the same products made in USSR. From left to right: Tanks, SPGs, planes, cannons and mortars, ships, cars and trucks, small arms, car gasoline, airplane gasoline, railways, trains, explosives, aluminum, copper, car tires, sugar, cotton, machinery.
Here's the nice reading about lend lease in English
http://rbth.com/business/2015/05/08/allies_gave_soviets_130_billion_under_lend-lease_45879.html
Quote from another forum:
As for so on - I can tell that even leather, wool, boot, buttons were supplied too.
And also don't forget that quality of these cars, tanks, planes and machinery was way above what USSR was able to produce.
Here is this diagram. Percentage of lend lease to the same products made in USSR. From left to right: Tanks, SPGs, planes, cannons and mortars, ships, cars and trucks, small arms, car gasoline, airplane gasoline, railways, trains, explosives, aluminum, copper, car tires, sugar, cotton, machinery.
Here's the nice reading about lend lease in English
http://rbth.com/business/2015/05/08/allies_gave_soviets_130_billion_under_lend-lease_45879.html
- Location
- Vancouver Island
We shall never forget...
We never learned much about the Lend-Lease in school (US) either, but my old man used to rant about how we loaned all that materiel to all those countries, none of whom had any intention of repaying us except poor little Finland, the only one that completely paid their debts.
Finland?? I thought they were fighting against the Russians....
And here I thought it was the Russians who manufactured all those T-34s that whupped the Nazis.
History--What is it good for?... d:^ |
We never learned much about the Lend-Lease in school (US) either, but my old man used to rant about how we loaned all that materiel to all those countries, none of whom had any intention of repaying us except poor little Finland, the only one that completely paid their debts.
Finland?? I thought they were fighting against the Russians....
And here I thought it was the Russians who manufactured all those T-34s that whupped the Nazis.
History--What is it good for?... d:^ |
- Location
- Algoma, ON
The USA never did declare war on Finland. But to my knowledge they didn't send any lend lease to them either. Maybe before the Finns declared war on the Soviets they might have, but certainly not after.
I read a book recently titled: Finland's War of Choice by Henrik Lunde, it was an exceptionally well written book and details Finland's involvement in the war and the reasons for it. There is a brief section talking about their relations with all the Western Nations during the war, and I'd sum them up as cordial at worst, fairly good with the Americans right up until near the end. The US tried numerous times as late as late 1944 if I remember correctly to get the Finns out of the war and had they taken the opportunity they likely never would have lost territory to the USSR.
It's a phenomenal read and I'd recommend it to anyone who might be interested it the Finnish Soviet relations at the time and the conflict between them.
I read a book recently titled: Finland's War of Choice by Henrik Lunde, it was an exceptionally well written book and details Finland's involvement in the war and the reasons for it. There is a brief section talking about their relations with all the Western Nations during the war, and I'd sum them up as cordial at worst, fairly good with the Americans right up until near the end. The US tried numerous times as late as late 1944 if I remember correctly to get the Finns out of the war and had they taken the opportunity they likely never would have lost territory to the USSR.
It's a phenomenal read and I'd recommend it to anyone who might be interested it the Finnish Soviet relations at the time and the conflict between them.
You're surprised the Soviets didn't laud the Lend-Lease program in print? Seriously? You think they gave the West any credit at all on the home front? Only where they felt it was necessary to sustain their own people's morale. They were preparing their people for the next war, against us. Would you tell your people how much help they'd got from people they were expected to fight next? We might be that stupid, they weren't. When British and Commonwealth PoWs were throwing food over the wire to Russian PoW's in adjoining camps, who the Germans were basically starving and working to death, they said the same thing: "It's too bad we will have to fight you some day."
I remember a comment by a British Commonwealth or American PoW who ended up in Soviet hands at the end of the war. He was loaded into a 6x6 Studebaker and some Russian proudly pointed out that "the capitalist countries" could never build such a fine truck! A few feet away was the maker's plate that told exactly where it came from. A couple of hundred thousand of those trucks made the Red Army mobile. An army with tanks and horsed wagons is not a mechanized army. Just ask the Germans.
5 or 6 million pairs of the best boots don't hurt an army on the march either.
- Location
- Vancouver Island
Not surprised
No, I'm not "surprised" that the Soviet govt never thanked us for all the stuff, I just can't recall seeing a pic of any Shermans in Russian combat units and I thought this being a 'picture thread', it might have one. If you saw the Russian film "White Tiger" there was at least one Matilda (British tank) shown in the opening sequence...I guess they were not in need of armour by that point in the war, or maybe we needed them all for our own upcoming invasion of France. Certainly the Reds were not the only ones planning their next war. I read that the terror bombings of Hamburg and Dresden were done to warn Moscow more than to dispirit the Germans.
But it was the necessary 'little things' that helped the most--as you mentioned--the shoe laces, tires, trucks, and food more than the "###y" things like aircraft and tanks. Of course aiding the Soviets to sap Nazi strength in the east worked to our advantage; every unit they lost then was one less we'd have to contend with later.
No, I'm not "surprised" that the Soviet govt never thanked us for all the stuff, I just can't recall seeing a pic of any Shermans in Russian combat units and I thought this being a 'picture thread', it might have one. If you saw the Russian film "White Tiger" there was at least one Matilda (British tank) shown in the opening sequence...I guess they were not in need of armour by that point in the war, or maybe we needed them all for our own upcoming invasion of France. Certainly the Reds were not the only ones planning their next war. I read that the terror bombings of Hamburg and Dresden were done to warn Moscow more than to dispirit the Germans.
But it was the necessary 'little things' that helped the most--as you mentioned--the shoe laces, tires, trucks, and food more than the "###y" things like aircraft and tanks. Of course aiding the Soviets to sap Nazi strength in the east worked to our advantage; every unit they lost then was one less we'd have to contend with later.
The USA supplied over 100,000 Studebaker 6x6 trucks (and parts) to the Soviets, which enabled them to supply their troops during the offensives of '43 to '45. Without them, the Red Army was reliant on horses and locally-produced vehicles, neither of which was anywhere near enough to supply the Red Army.
The Yanks also supplied planes, food, ammo, etc, etc, basically everything a modern army needed to fight a war (except personal weapons). Without those supplies from the US, the Red Army would not have been able to defeat Germany. They may have sued for peace as the Imperial Russians did in WW1. It's not that well known (and definitely NOT in the former Soviet Union), but Molotov (Soviet Foreign Minister) DID fly into German-occupied territory sometime in '42 to propose and discuss peace terms (which he couldn't have done without Uncle Joe Stalin's OK).
Yes, the Soviets did do the brunt of the ground combat destroying the German Army, but that wouldn't have happened without the Lend-Lease supplies (especially of transport vehicles), the USAAF/RAF/RCAF strategic bombing campaign that was destroying Germany's ability to produce the tools and supplies needed to win the war, and the actions of the Western Allies in North Africa, Italy, and Northwest Europe.
The Yanks also supplied planes, food, ammo, etc, etc, basically everything a modern army needed to fight a war (except personal weapons). Without those supplies from the US, the Red Army would not have been able to defeat Germany. They may have sued for peace as the Imperial Russians did in WW1. It's not that well known (and definitely NOT in the former Soviet Union), but Molotov (Soviet Foreign Minister) DID fly into German-occupied territory sometime in '42 to propose and discuss peace terms (which he couldn't have done without Uncle Joe Stalin's OK).
Yes, the Soviets did do the brunt of the ground combat destroying the German Army, but that wouldn't have happened without the Lend-Lease supplies (especially of transport vehicles), the USAAF/RAF/RCAF strategic bombing campaign that was destroying Germany's ability to produce the tools and supplies needed to win the war, and the actions of the Western Allies in North Africa, Italy, and Northwest Europe.
There were 3 main supply routes to Russia during the war.
The Murmansk convoys;
The Persian Corridor;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Corridor
http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_09.htm
Northwest Staging Route; The reason the Alaska Highway was built in such a hurry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Staging_Route
The Murmansk convoys;
The Persian Corridor;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Corridor
http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_09.htm
Northwest Staging Route; The reason the Alaska Highway was built in such a hurry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Staging_Route
Rod B
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
These are the same people who early in the war signed a non aggression pact with Hitler.
Both McArthur & Churchill knew that Stalin & the communists were a more dangerous enemy than Germany
Both McArthur & Churchill knew that Stalin & the communists were a more dangerous enemy than Germany
I wish I could remember the name of the book I read in high school about the strategies involved in forcing the Axis armies to invade the Soviet Union. It mentioned the widely held belief that Hitler had a hate on for the Communists and especially Stalin. As history shows, both were untrustworthy psychopaths as so many prominent leaders are. The Axis powers needed the resources the Soviet territories had to offer plain and simple. Without them world or even European domination was impossible because the Allies were effectively cutting off their other supplies and the Japanese/Italians were going after similar supplies in other parts of the world.
The Soviet Front was decided to be the most active and expensive part of WWII for a very good reason. It was the pivot point to wearing down the Axis armies to the point they were no longer viable as effective fighting entities. That doesn't mean they weren't still dangerous.
The Soviet troops were uneducated but intelligent, resilient and tough. They lived and fought through conditions that no other armies could endure. No other armed forces in the world were numerous or motivated enough to do the job they were called on to do.
North American and other allied contributions to WWII were in many ways limited to strategic materials in massive quantities. They just didn't have the manpower to spare as many of those nations, such as Britain and Australia were already defending their own territories. Some had already fallen.
The Soviets gave what they had to give and they gave in massive, often excessive quantities with little or no concern of the consequences. Amazingly, while this was going on and during the most active time of the defense, Stalin decided to purge his officer/bureaucratic corps of threats to his position. That is a great indicator of how many lives he could easily dispose of without concerns of losing the conflict. It was said in the book that Stalin actually extended the duration of the war so he could more effectively purge those that opposed him and the regime he lead.
The book also maintained that the allied leadership strategy supported lengthening the war for at least a year to eat up the Soviet Army troop base and use up the lend lease equipment they were convinced they would have to fight against very shortly after the War with the Axis nations was ended.
Lots of smoke and mirrors as well as wheels within wheels to blur reality in the way history books are written.
The Soviet Front was decided to be the most active and expensive part of WWII for a very good reason. It was the pivot point to wearing down the Axis armies to the point they were no longer viable as effective fighting entities. That doesn't mean they weren't still dangerous.
The Soviet troops were uneducated but intelligent, resilient and tough. They lived and fought through conditions that no other armies could endure. No other armed forces in the world were numerous or motivated enough to do the job they were called on to do.
North American and other allied contributions to WWII were in many ways limited to strategic materials in massive quantities. They just didn't have the manpower to spare as many of those nations, such as Britain and Australia were already defending their own territories. Some had already fallen.
The Soviets gave what they had to give and they gave in massive, often excessive quantities with little or no concern of the consequences. Amazingly, while this was going on and during the most active time of the defense, Stalin decided to purge his officer/bureaucratic corps of threats to his position. That is a great indicator of how many lives he could easily dispose of without concerns of losing the conflict. It was said in the book that Stalin actually extended the duration of the war so he could more effectively purge those that opposed him and the regime he lead.
The book also maintained that the allied leadership strategy supported lengthening the war for at least a year to eat up the Soviet Army troop base and use up the lend lease equipment they were convinced they would have to fight against very shortly after the War with the Axis nations was ended.
Lots of smoke and mirrors as well as wheels within wheels to blur reality in the way history books are written.
Last edited:
"Lots of smoke and mirrors as well as wheels within wheels to blur reality in the way history books are written."
A great read is "A Bodyguard of Lies" by Anthony Cave Brown. Some of the deliberate disinformation used by the Allies got recorded as historical fact. A great read.
A great read is "A Bodyguard of Lies" by Anthony Cave Brown. Some of the deliberate disinformation used by the Allies got recorded as historical fact. A great read.
Also technically a "child soldier " at the time of his enlistment (he was 15 and he and his sister falsified documents about his age - I doubt the recruiter cared or looked closely at the documents ).
In WWI, as many as 250,000 underage soldiers fought in the British army (not including those who fought among the colonial forces). It wasn't until late in thewar that there was much effort put into curtailing the practice of underage recruitment, and some of the child soldiers already in the trenches were sent home - but only if their parents could provide documented proof of their age, whic was challenging in an age when birth certificates were rare.
Audie Murphy, the most decorated soldier (of the US or overall, not sure) of WW2, not WW1.
Cottage Hill Bill
CGN Regular
- Location
- Pensacola, FL USA
I recommend "Absolute War" as a good source of numbers for the Russian contribution. The author points out that lend-lease only provided 5-10% of the total material the Russians used, but the timing was critical. The most important items were trucks and other items to help solve logistical problems and arrived just when the Russian war machine was at the breaking point. By '42 the Russian army had suffered 250% casualties based on the immediate pre-war strength. Max Hastings also points out in his book Armageddon that the democratic armies would not have tolerated the kinds of casualty rates the Soviets suffered without mutiny. Stalin didn't care about casualties, just results.
Speaking of war aid to the Soviets, here are some potentially Canadian-made Valentine tanks in Soviet use... 1,420 were produced in Canada of which most were sent to the Soviet-Union, with 2,394 sent from Britain. So about 1/3 of all Soviet Valentines were Canadian.
Entering Lithuanian capital Wilnius in July 1944 with the 3rd Belorussian Front
Entering Roumanian Botoshani in April 1944 with the 6th Tank Army
Vilnius, Lithuania. The building behind the tank now is the presidential residence.
This one is sitting in the CWM in Ottawa:
Valentine Tank Mk VIIA, no. 838 at the Canadian War Museum. Built in Montreal, Canada, and sent to the Soviet Union under Lend Lease. Fell through ice near Telepino, Soviet Ukraine (Telepyne, Ukraine) on 1944-01-25, recovered in 1990, and presented to Canada by Ukraine in 1992.
Entering Lithuanian capital Wilnius in July 1944 with the 3rd Belorussian Front
Entering Roumanian Botoshani in April 1944 with the 6th Tank Army
Vilnius, Lithuania. The building behind the tank now is the presidential residence.
This one is sitting in the CWM in Ottawa:
Valentine Tank Mk VIIA, no. 838 at the Canadian War Museum. Built in Montreal, Canada, and sent to the Soviet Union under Lend Lease. Fell through ice near Telepino, Soviet Ukraine (Telepyne, Ukraine) on 1944-01-25, recovered in 1990, and presented to Canada by Ukraine in 1992.
