How much did the USA contribute to WW2?

>could the war have been won without them

In Europe, yes, Germany was unable to defeat the USSR from the start, US men and resources only quickened Germany's defeat.

The war might have dragged on to 1947 and you might be seeing the Red Army walking around Paris, but Germany would still lose.

Asia however is a bit trickier, with Japan's biggest task aside from the war with the US was subjugating China, which had mixed results. Japan probably could have found victory, but not near to the extent as their Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere envisioned, likely sticking to the SouthEast Asian Islands and the Chinese coastline, as delving further into inland China was a logistical nightmare for occupying forces.

That doesn't change the fact that it's percentage was minor at best, when compared to local production.I'm not saying it didn't help, but it's part is grossly overestimated.

Again, total production over the course of the war fails to tell the importance of the small percentage during a specific time period.

A larger percentage of production isn't as important as the timing in which that smaller percentage was utilized when without lend lease, according to Zhukov, the Soviets wouldn't have been able to endure and fight back.

So yes, the statistic that lend lease was only a small percentage of overall resources used is true. It's however entirely irrelevant to its overall importance in the war.

Not him, but given the timing of the overall majority of lend-lease, "that it propped them up in the critical phase" doesn't seem to hold out.

Lend Lease ramped up when the Soviets were starting to take to the offensive. You could make a pretty good argument that no Soviet counter-offensives could have been made in such a timetable sans LL, but to argue it was absolutely critical for them to function in those desperate days of the initial blitz? Doesn't seem to hold out.

>only 23% of what the US supplied to its allies during WWII accounted for 7–11% of the Soviets' resources during the war
Git gud

...

Most of the Lend-Lease only began to arrive in it's designed numbers after the Soviets have launched their offensives against the retreating German army.

NYET
RUSSIAN DID EVERYTHING
RUSSIAN KILL FASCISM
AMERICANS DDAY HIROSHIMA BABY KILLERS
RUSSIANS LIBERATORS

The early LL also includes critical amounts of British LL. The battle of Moscow was fought with British tanks, about 25% of their medium and heavy tanks were British, and much of the VVS was supplemented by British aircraft at a time when 80% of the VVS had been destroyed on the ground.

American LL also provided completely essential food. The USSR faced hunger issues starting to border on starvation by the end of the war. Take out these tons of rations provided and where do you think that leaves the Soviets? Not to mention of the 1 million trucks used in the war, 400,000 came directly from America, and of the 600,000 domestic ones about 300,000 of these were Studabakers whose production was made possible in the first place by the investments of American companies prior to WW2.

Yes, but only barely and after more years.

Stalin and Eisenhower have argued vividly about the Lend-Lease during Yalta, the paraplegic claimed 12% and Stalin claimed 7% and you're sorely misled if you believe that you can give all the credit to supplies, especially considering that a good portion of them were malfunctioning and unprepared for the Russian climate, with the exception of the clothes, food, medications and of course, the planes.

The war in Europe would have inevitably been won by the Allies without the US - it just might have taken longer and been more painful.

(Though maybe it would have ended more quickly, as Churchill would likely have had to been more forthcoming with the Soviets. Some argue that the Churchill/Truman relationship actually ended up screwing the Soviet's plans, and prolonging the war - all that dicking around in Africa.)

As for the Pacific end of that war, well, obviously, absolutely not, as the US was pretty much the only one fighting it.

...and if you ask your grandparents (or great grandparents, depending), particularly if they lived on the west coast at the time - that was the real war for the US. VJ day was a much larger celebration than VE day.

Still, the influence of the US shaping Europe and the world, after the war, can in no way be understated.

>As for the Pacific end of that war, well, obviously, absolutely not, as the US was pretty much the only one fighting it.
* Not to dismiss the Soviets as a threat in that war and a major factor of the Japanese surrender. Having killed more Japanese soldiers in one week than the US killed in an entire year, when they poured into Manchuria between the two bombs.

Maybe I didn't use clear enough wording but yes that's exactly what I was referring to when I said "and fight back. "

And the raw materials like iron, aluminum, nickel, oil, high octane aircraft fuel (100% of Soviet high octane fuel came from LL)

The vehicles provided were the most minor aspect of LL. The contributions of LL were important in the supplemental aspects like food, clothing, medicine, and fuel.

>. The battle of Moscow was fought with British tanks, about 25% of their medium and heavy tanks were British, and much of the VVS was supplemented by British aircraft at a time when 80% of the VVS had been destroyed on the ground.

The Battle of Moscow was fought in wooded terrain in largely bad weather, in conditions in which armor's impact for everyone is minimized; the weapons that stalled Typhoon were infantrymen's small arms and artillery, not tanks.

>and much of the VVS was supplemented by British aircraft at a time when 80% of the VVS had been destroyed on the ground.

If 80% of the VVS had been destroyed, then you have some 2,000 planes left, given the 9,100 losses in Barbarossa. That makes it roughly 10 times the size of what the British had lent in those first 6 months.

>American LL also provided completely essential food. The USSR faced hunger issues starting to border on starvation by the end of the war.

Yes, because they pulled people off of farms and drafted them.

>Not to mention of the 1 million trucks used in the war, 400,000 came directly from America, and of the 600,000 domestic ones about 300,000 of these were Studabakers whose production was made possible in the first place by the investments of American companies prior to WW2.

Because Soviet military production is completely mechanical and can't be shifted from one point to another? It's why they kept manufacturing KV-1 tanks up until 1945? Oh wait no, that's not what happened.

Again, it helped. It helped a fucking lot. But the big impact of Lend Lease was from 43 onward. It enabled the counterattack. It wasn't that big of a deal for the Soviets when they were hanging on by their fingernails.

Actually, according to Dmitry Loza (and his book is great) a lot of American equipment, but most especially their tanks, handled cold weather conditions better than Soviet stuff.

They're the ones who've defeated the brunt of the German army, including the elite divisions and their allies.

>400,000 came directly from America
And one third of them weren't built for the low climates, even a good portion of them didn't come with spare parts.

>Take out these tons of rations provided and where do you think that leaves the Soviets

You speak as if it were given to them freely, they've paid for it, with gold and other precious minerals.Where does it leave them, it leaves them in a situation where they would have to fight, one way or the other, their biological survival was at stake.

The English would have fallen if the Americans didn't keep sending them supplies any way they can.

The Russians may have lost without the English to occupy the western front. Though, Stalen's strategy of making the Germans run out of ammo may have won them the war. Plus, winter will always, in every war scenario, turn the war in the Russians favor.

>malfunctioning
Citation needed. The trucks shipped to Russia were largely better than the trucks Russia produced on its own, the trucks they produced also being largely American liscenced designs. I've heard no issues in them deploying about 2,000 of the 4,000 Shermans they were sent either. The other 2,000 seem to have been used as training tanks or were never mobilized by wars end.

The RAF produced more and better planes than the Luftwaffe and the German Navy was a joke.
There is basically no way Britain could have lost the war.

The Battle of Moscow is a very wide area and includes both the defenses and counterattacks. The counterattacks were largely spearheaded by armored units. Typhoon was largely stalled by shitty German logistics more than anything else.

>drafted
More like conscripted, and also there's the fact Ukraine provided the USSR with most of its food and it was lost in 41 and not fully reclaimed until 44. Soviet food issues go well beyond simply pulling people off farms. Most of it was due to losing a majority of their farmland.

>can't be shifted
Well it was shifted. Almost entirely to the military. And a lot of factories that were producing cars and trucks before the war were retooled into tank factories. LL helped a ton and a half by providing these supplemental vehicles and supplies that were no longer being produced in the USSR

They've paid for all of it and yes, they were important, but not war-changing, as you Westerners like to claim.

Reverse LL accounted for barely 10% of the value that was sent to Russia. LL was mostly given, rarely sold, and never repaid.

Landing in France on D-day would have been a pain in the ass for the Brits just on their own. And the other fronts where the italians and Germans were difficult to win. Every little bit helped.

According to Russians at the time (and quite a few Russian historians today) it was pretty critical. I'll take Zhukov's word over yours, sorry.

I'd trust Stalin and Zhukov over you, honestly.

The English translation will certainly claim that.

> The trucks shipped to Russia were largely better than the trucks Russia produced on its own, the trucks they produced also being largely American licensed designs

That's not what Russians've claimed, and they're the ones who had to use them, not the Americans.

>LL was mostly given, rarely sold, and never repaid

In that case, give them back the gold with which they've paid it.

>According to Russians at the time (and quite a few Russian historians today) it was pretty critical

Most of their historians claim otherwise and for the record, Stalin was more initiated in these topics than Zhukov was.

Stalin claimed 7% and I repeat, you're sorely misled if you believe that you can claim their victory against the Germans as yours.

I'd trust the actual numbers and their dates of arrival over meme citations, honestly

>US ships billions of dollars worth of material
>Soviets ship millions of dollars worth of gold
>yeah LL was repaid
'no'

People forget that the Axis powers didn't lose by a small margin. They lost by a huge margin. The US staying neutral would not have put the odds in their favour.

Even if the Germans had reached Moscow in 1941 it would have taken many many more divisions than they had to actually take it.

>first hand accounts and testimony are memes

While we're at it, I guess citations are more important than actual shipment numbers and overall percentage.

They are memes, but they're politically motivated and taken out of context.

Lend-Lease has it's uses, but was insignificant in comparison to domestic production, which turned the tide.

>taken out of context
Pray tell how Zhukov saying
"Yes we needed Lend Lease it helped us continue tank production early in the war when we needed tanks" is taken out of context.

There's a big distance between Moscow and Berlin though.

Because they had to move their industry to the Caucus, to protect it from German bombardment, not because they've desperately needed it.

>they only needed it because they didn't need it

>Zhukov openly admitted the Soviet Union wouldnt have lasted in the early phases of the war
Landlease wasn't even there during the early phases of the war.

And to actually quote Zhukov
>К oбщeмy чиcлy вoopyжeния, кoтopым coвeтcкий нapoд ocнacтил cвoю apмию зa гoды вoйны, пocтaвки пo лeнд-лизy cocтaвили в cpeднeм 4 пpoцeнтa. Cлeдoвaтeльнo, o peшaющeй poли пocтaвoк гoвopить нe пpихoдитcя. Чтo кacaeтcя тaнкoв и caмoлётoв, кoтopыe aнглийcкoe и aмepикaнcкoe пpaвитeльcтвa нaм пocтaвляли, cкaжeм пpямo, oни нe пoльзoвaлиcь пoпyляpнocтью y нaших тaнкиcтoв и лётчикoв[30].

Idiotic deduction,I've meant to say that it was a temporary solution, not a deeply-needed remedy.

Well I feel like it was a crucial help that allowed the Soviets to both continue producing tanks while moving machinery east. You keep trying to explain what Zhukov meant but what he said was as plain as day. He said they needed it, make as many excuses as you want but unless you can explain why he uses the word necessary I'm going to continue to believe lend lease was necessary.

No, the English translation made it seem like that, what he said on his native Russian language was marginally different.

>many excuses as you want but unless

These are not excuses, but explanations, just because you find them unfitting according your point of view of the events that've transpired on the Eastern Front is your problem alone.

Why do you think I can speak Russian.

Too difficult to use google translate?

Why are you advocating one of the shittiest translators out there or think it gives a more accurate translation than the person who spoke Russian and English and did the original translation?

Nah. The USSR would have collapsed without lend-lease keeping soldiers clothed and fed. It wouldn't have been muh glorious lebensraum but Germany would probably assume at least a marginal victory and build on that.

This is what ameriburgers actually believe

How would you propose feeding millions of Soviet soldiers without the Ukraine?

>shittiest translators
It's not shitty though. Stiff language but it carries the point pretty well.

In the same book Zhukov took a few other shots at land lease like calling american tanks "easily flammable torches".

>weapons
Dumb vatnik. We've already gone over this multiple times. Tanks and planes were a small portion of the things supplied through LL. The US and Britain were shipping food, clothing, and raw materials by the train load.

Because it's more than obvious that the original statement was intentionally distorted.

Compare the size of the original statement and it's English translation, even someone who is completely uninitiated in the topic can see that something is "off" .

Germany wouldn't have assumed a marginal victory because they've failed to take Moscow and Leningrad.

>The USSR would have collapsed without lend-lease keeping soldiers clothed and fed

You're judging Russians from a Western point of view.The biological survival of their entire nation was at stake, they'd certainly do unsavory things to survive, including resorting to cannibalism, looting of dead bodies, deconstruction of cities for materials etc.

Southern Russia is very fertile, so was Belarus.

I repeat, that doesn't change that the entire Lend-Lease was accounted for only 7-12% of all the resources which the Russians have used in the last World War.

>I-it didn't matter! The USSR just asked for LL because they felt like it! It's not like they actually NEEDED to feed their soldiers or anything!

>We've already gone over this multiple times.
>Tanks and planes were a small portion of the things supplied through LL.
Yeah, sure, whatever. Too bad you are referencing Zhukov regarding tanks here and in general on his opinions regarding land-lease.
And I can't find a single fucking original language source that has him saying anything anything about how significant land lease was.
Mostly he's neutral to shitty about it.

There, have another one earlier from the same memoir, regarding industry.

Don't wank him as source to support the significance of Land lease. Politicians make shitty sources and he was always a good politician.

>Dumb vatnik
Hello makaka amerikanskaya.
You have no idea what my opinions about land lease or anything regarding WW2 actually are to claim that I'm vatnik.

>they'd certainly do unsavory things to survive, including resorting to cannibalism, looting of dead bodies, deconstruction of cities for materials etc.
They were already doing that in peacetime though.

>Southern Russia is very fertile, so was Belarus.

Not either of you, but Belarus was overrun as well, and it wouldn't be re-taken until after they got the Ukraine back.

Refer to .
>o peшaющeй poли пocтaвoк гoвopить нe пpихoдитcя
Zhukov clearly says lend lease wasn't shit. I'll trust him over you any day.

TL;DR the war probably would have stalemated somewhere in between Moscow and Berlin

>google translate isn't that bad guys
No but really the fuck is it doing?

The problem isn't google, It's Veeky Forums.
I don't fucking know what it does but it turns russian letters in similar looking english ones so when google tries to translate it comes out as complete garbage.

True, actual translation works somewhat better.

>Lend-Lease was accounted for only 7-12% of all the resources which the Russians have used in World War
Completely discounts that over half of all Soviet ordnance and fuel in the war was either made in the U.S. or made with U.S. materials. Who gives a fuck about trucks and rifles if you have no fuel or ammo.

>I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin’s views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were “discussing freely” among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany’s pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don’t think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so.
Nikita Khrushchev

What is the source of this?

The problem with those older production numbers is that complete information about LL only began to be declassified in the 1990's, and much of it still remains so.

>Much Soviet archival material on Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union remains “secret” in the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and Russian State Archive of the Economy, or at least has not been declassified.
-Alexander Hill, 2006, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies

For example, the wartime service diary of N.I. Biriukov, Military Commissar of the Main Auto-Armor Board of the Red Army, was only published in 2005. It's the first time anything has been published re: early Moscow protocol shipments of mostly British aid, especially the dissemination of British LL tanks (previously considered trivial), and the deficit in Soviet tank production it helped alleviate (and early enough in 1941 to impact defensive operations around Moscow).

>Early shipments of Matilda, Valentine, and Tetrarch tanks represented only 6.5% of total Soviet tank strength, but over 25% of medium and heavy tanks in service with the Red Army. First seeing action with the 138 Independent Tank Battalion in the Volga Reservoir on 20 November 1941, Lend-Lease tanks constituted between 30 to 40% of heavy and medium tank strength before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941.
Alexander Hill (2006) British “Lend-Lease” Tanks and the Battle for Moscow, November–December 1941— The Journal of Slavic Military Studies

Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev Volume 1: Commissar, 1918–1945

mega.nz/#!sJRBGTKR!Z8NLkPcYoMek_nb3EsJmxgo3VuAbhT_uqKBvxHdzZMA

Comparisons of gross production are useless anyway. If you want to see the bulk of Lend-Lease you have to look at the raw materials, compared individually to Soviet production;

Explosives - 53% of domestic [Soviet] production
Copper - 76%
Aluminum - 106%
Tin - 223%
Cobalt - 138%
Wool - 102%
Sugar - 66%
Canned meat - 480%

It's worth mentioning that LL materiel was specifically requested by the Soviets, as in these were areas they understood to be weak.

Also rarely mentioned is the Soviet return Lend-Lease to the allies, though comparatively small; 300,000 tonnes of chromium, 32,000 tonnes of manganese ore, wood, gold and platinum.

"Memoirs" which for obvious reasons, were three editions were only translated to English, with the exception of fourth, which didn't mention that statement about the Lend-Lease at all, I wonder why. Also during his rule, he depended on American help to overcome his rivals, who saw him for the blunder he was, so he'll naturally be more inclined to speak more "positively" of the Lend-Lease.

>Comparisons of gross production are useless anyway

If we went by that logic, then we can also safely assume that the British and American contributions to the war effort were negligible at best, considering that it was the Russians who've defeated the bulk of the German army, not them.

Those were all killed by the 2 british units.

>Also during his rule, he depended on American help to overcome his rivals, who saw him for the blunder he was, so he'll naturally be more inclined to speak more "positively" of the Lend-Lease.

If you'd actually read the thing you'd see he also felt the allies didn't pursue a European front earlier than mid 1944 to intentionally bleed the Soviets. It's hardly a fluff piece.

Unfortunately, as you have shown in various other LL threads, you'd rather cherry pick discredited Russian "scholarship" from the 60's, avoid posting any sources, and ignored modern peer-reviewed academia like that destruct them.

Bitchy Slav mad that his "superpower" needs help. You are not an unbiased source going by your constant slavfag tripfagging.

Signed: not an american, not european, not a slav

WW2 was won by slavnigger blood and Murican gold

>Let's feed the soldiers with land we don't have
>Farmed by manpower that is out fighting
>Delivered by trucks yet to be made
Genius plan, Dmitri

Him carefully choosing which"memories" to reveal is rather unimportant, given the end result.

>you'd rather cherry pick discredited Russian "scholarship" from the 60's, avoid posting any sources

Discredited by whom, exactly? Western historians?For the record, I'll start posting sources for my claims once your kind does the same, unless you believe that your claims are far more astute than mine because they're not "Soviet-influenced".

>and ignored modern peer-reviewed academia like

Peer-reviewed by his native colleagues and other Western historians who'll stick to their narrative, regardless on it's validity.

It needed help at the very beginning, I don't deny it, but it's purpose and role is disgustingly overestimated, especially considering that the bulk of it only began to arrive after the Soviets have turned the tide, not when they've needed it the most.

> You are not an unbiased source going by your constant Slavfag tripfagging

Post-18th century Western point of view of Slavic history is legendary for it's lack of objectivity and refusal to access it's information with those that can be found in native sources( which incidentally contain far more information than theirs so).My behavior is but a mere response to it, you're sorely misled if you believe that you can manipulate with the histories who've been keeping native records since the adoption of Church literacy.

Make a collage of Stalingrad, Moscow, Leningrad, Kursk, Berlin and Operation Bagration, subhuman.

7-12% or overall production, Jackson.

Dude has a copy of 'Military Economy of the USSR during the Patriotic War' published in 1947, and 'The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union: A Short History' published in 1984 that he treats like bibles and pulls all his outdated numbers from. He refuses to name them since they've been discredited by modern Russian historians and everyone else whose managed access to the Soviet archives.He thinks anything published by David Glantz or in Glantz's academic journal (Slavic Military Studies) is just western smear propaganda by default.

>Western point of view of Slavic history is legendary for it's lack of objectivity

Gee, I wonder why Soviet source material is often considered less than credible.

Truly a mystery.

A riddle for the ages.

Because their narrative strongly opposed yours and began to seriously influence the flow of information.You don't like competition and the fact that you've outlived them is the only thing that gives credence to your claims that their material is "less than credible".

>He thinks anything published by David Glantz or in Glantz's academic journal (Slavic Military Studies) is just western smear propaganda by default.

What I "think" is that your Cold War containment policy-influenced historiography is deplorable garbage and should be taken with a grain of salt, considering that it's main purpose was defamation and vilification.Matter of fact, it's dogma later became a completely acceptable norm for "Slavic studies" in the West.On the point of Glantz, he frequently struggles between being objective and being "American", which speaks volumes of your academia if he's considered the "chief editor" for "Slavic military studies".

> since they've been discredited by modern Russian historians and everyone else whose managed access to the Soviet archives

I'd like to see you name at least five Russian historians who've denounced them.One more thing, don't presume to know what I think.

A lot.

Without the lend lease and actual involvement in ww2, the axis would have likely won.

He's right

>Without the lend lease and actual involvement in ww2, the axis would have likely won.
Possible, maybe. Likely, not really. True, Soviets lost a lot of their invasion force and most of their hardware in the initial attack, but keep in mind the Axis was still up against the whole British Empire and most of the "free" French colonies. Maybe if they actually pulled off that eastern pincer movement.

>implying that the original is on the left

The Russians would have won it all. Eventually. It would have taken much longer. The Americans sped it up as a support force, basically.

The Americans beat Japan single handed, which is even more impressive considering they had to build a logistics and supply train all the way around the fucking globe.