Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I don't wish to dishonor the effort and sacrifice that Lend Lease represented, but it is in everyone's best interests to understand Russia in and out of the Soviet era.
I put it to you that just receiving commitment from Churchill and FDR was a huge psychological victory for Stalin. The mountains of tinned spam, gasoline and octane booster, trucks, mobile workshops, etc. were vital in allowing the Generals and Planners to relax a little and make tanks and planes and burp guns.
But Lend Lease didn't save Moscow in December, 1941, nor Leningrad, nor Stalingrad ..... and if Russians were not able to achieve the level of sacrifice that those battles required, no amount of Lend Lease would have allowed the Soviet Union to prevail.
Or not. There was a lot of Lend Lease equipment in the Caucasus to slow down the German drive for the oil fields. In late '42 almost 20% of new tanks were LL.nor Stalingrad
Something I pick up on the inet
tonnaged shipped to the Soviets
Year Totals
Year -- Persian Gulf - Pacific - Atlantic - Black Sea - Arctic > total
1941 -- 360,778 - 13,502 - 193,299 - 153,977 > 721,556 > ~2.4%
1942 -- 2,453,097 - 705,259 - 734,020 - 949,711 - 64,107 > 4,906,194 > ~16.1%
1943 -- 4,794,545 - 1,606,979 - 2,388,577 - 681,043 - 117,946 > 9,589,090 > ~31.5%
1944 -- 6,217,622 - 1,788,864 - 2,848,181 - 1,452,775 - 127,802 > 12,435,245 > ~40.8%
1945 -- 3,673,819 - 44,513 - 2,079,320 - 726,725 - 680,723 > 2,804,556 > 9.2%
Soviet wartime production, 1.JmA - World War 2, russian production
lend/lease trucks, Lend Lease trucks in Russia
They greeted the Germans as liberators at first. I've read several accounts where Russian soldiers were surrendering en-masse during the early stages of the invasion, many wanting to join the Wehrmacht.I very much agree. I also feel if the Germans had come as saviors (or at least with the appearance of such) the Russians would have fallen quicker.
Its sad they dont recognize the contributions made by the western alliance to the final victory, but i can understand why. its mostly a matter of scale that blinds them.
For example, during the war, Australia suffered 32000 military casualties give or take. I think the British losses were about 750000 and US casualties about 350000. Very rough.
Soviets lost at least 13million in combat for people under their control. Total casualties for the Russians including german attrocities and exterminations and the like, amounted to nearly 30 million. thats a casualty rate about 25 to 30 times that suffered by the western allies. Stalins murderous attitude to his own people certainly was a factor in that death rate.
In terms of Lend Lease, there is wide diversity of opinion, but we probably contributed about 15% to Soviet war making capability, delivered and ready. The majority of that aid was NOT via the much written about Arctic route, though the Arctic route was the most important path in 1941-3. The most important route overall was via the caucasus, but it was later than Murmansk, and it only became operational as early as it did because the British agreed to the transfer of rolling stock from India, and in 1943 this caused the non-military deaths of nearly 2million people in India, due to the inability to shift grain about the subcontinent. Later US rolling stock was made available and this huge human cost diminished. Nobody ever talks about the costs to Indian society for winning the war though.
Cut em some slack guys. Their losses were far greater than ours, and they did a lot more fighting than we did. We preserved our ways of life because of Russian sacrifice, not the other way round. Not that they cared, or aimed for that, but thats what happened.
I absolutely agree!...To my opinion this voices getting louder and much more supported fron Russia a the last 5 years. Referring to the current political situation, this trend is dangerous.