Looking back on it, should we have sent Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union? Wouldn't it have been better for the Nazi's to bleed the Soviets white while we come from behind and liberate everything west of the Urals?
Looking back on it, should we have sent Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union...
Grayson Roberts
Other urls found in this thread:
warwick.ac.uk
sci-hub.la
twitter.com
David Diaz
Naive mindset. The nazis were continuing to push through other parts of the world together with their allies. By the time they would have "bled the russians dry" they would also have a reinforced, finished atlantic wall, an Italian wall in Africa and a direct route to the japs to aid them aswell, who by then would be raping all of Asia.
Lend-Lease might have reinforced the commies, but it also saved countless western people.
Kayden Nguyen
>liberate
Christian Lewis
At the time, Germany was the greater threat to the west, so anyone who was an enemy of Germany was a friend to Britain and the US, so lend lease was perfectly justifiable in order to prevent Continental Europe from being dominated by Germany.
Churchill did write in his memoirs that he did hope the Germans and Soviets would just exhaust themselves fighting so the Soviets would be in no position to assert much control outside their borders after the war. When it turned out that the Soviets were stronger than ever before, he drew up Operation Unthinkable to mount an offensive against the Soviets, but it was immediately discarded.
By the time the Tehran and Yalta conferences convened, the Western allies pretty much accepted that the Soviets would have control of Eastern Europe as starting a new World War just days after Germany's surrender was idiocy at that point. Britain and France were flat broke, Germany and Italy completely collapsed, and the grand majority of American firepower was in the Pacific. Waging any war at that point would highly risk the Red Army moving as far as Paris.
While Churchill was outraged over the post-war arrangements, Roosevelt and Truman concluded that it's better to lose half of Europe to the Soviets than to lose the entire continent to Germany, but cut their losses at that, and that was worth sending aid to the Soviets just to deny Germany dominance over the continent.
Tyler Clark
Was lend-lease aid at all decisive in swinging the war in favor of the Soviets?
Jaxson Flores
no, the nazis were much more belligerent and psychopathic than the soviets, and they were asshole who went back on every promise they made. Even if you hate your neighbor, you should help him kill a rabid dog thats attacking him
Jose Price
yes
Ryder Brown
It allowed the soviets to focus on building tanks instead of trucks.
Christopher Davis
It helped a lot but I don't think 7% of Soviet war production could be called ''decisive''.
They would probably make do without it, however they would lose more men and they probably wouldn't recover as quickly/war would be prolonged.
Or you can trust this other guy who unironically quotes Khrushchev, man who had every reason to act like LL totally saved Soviets because it reflected badly on Stalin.
>Now we shall win the war!
Imagine being this retarded that you believe such a diplomatic statement, a courtesy, is evidence that LL was ''decisive'' and that Soviets would totally be annihilated if it wasn't for...7% of their war production.
>b-but muh locomotives n trucks n shieeet
Soviets had the technology to make everything Western Allies sent them (except maybe radars). Sure, some of the shit they made was of worse quality, but in the grand scale of things that wouldn't mean much.
>Zhukov's off-record statement
Jesus fucking Christ.
Please stop posting that bullshit.
Oliver Howard
yes, the Soviets did absolutely nothing to win the war.
Jonathan Ross
You are aware tanks cost a lot more (in terms of money, resources and labor) than trucks?
For example, Opel Blitz was 7000 RM, while fucking Panzer II was around 50,000 RM.
And Soviets never really lacked tanks (except at one point after crippling loses during Barbarossa, before factories were fully relocated and running).
The fact they would have to redirect some production to trucks and trains and what not would not really mean much in the grand scale of things. Their superiority would still be considerable.
Again, I do not mean to imply LL didn't help them, I'm just saying that it's hard to call it DECISIVE, when you consider all the other factors of Soviet victory in WW2.
Jeremiah Watson
Here's this for reading. warwick.ac.uk
William Reed
>the 4-7% meme again
Yes now let's zoom in on that and let's look at how much of that % actually consisted of supplies that Russia was short of
>Dependence of the Soviet economy on external machinery supplies in this period has been emphasized recently by Khanin. He has suggested that between 1941 and 1950, two fifths of gross investment in the stock of Soviet metal cutting machine tools was derived from imports comprising lend-leased supplies and postwar reparations.
>Nonetheless, it seems that Allied aid to the USSR made possible the division of labour which won the war. Without it, everyone on the side of the Allies would have had a worse war. The Russians would have had to fight on their own resources, which were inadequate in quantity if not in quality as well [...]
Just read the PDF user posted here , it's very insightful and provides plentiful info and sources
Lincoln Jones
>the 4-7% meme again
What meme?
That's the most recent figure. Let's be fair and say it was around 10%. Or 15%. Irrelevant.
You still can't say it was DECISIVE.
Very helpful no doubt, but not DECISIVE. What was DECISIVE was the Soviets fighting and dying and beating Germans. What was DECISIVE was Soviet industry alone shitting out incredible amount of hardware.
In reality, greatest aid from LL was food.
Furthermore, people completely ignore LL wasn't charity, they paid for all of that, in gold.
Would you say French 75s and what not was decisive in American battles on WF in WW1?
No, what was decisive was the Americans fighting and dying and doing it properly.
If French didn't give them weapons, someone else would, or they would pump out some shit themselves. Perhaps it would be worse in terms of casulaties, perhaps they would lack something, but in the grand scale of things it doesn't change anything.
Just that is my point, LL was a great help, but it wasn't sine qua non, without which Soviet effort would completely collapse.
On the other hand, let's be honest, without Soviet effort, Americans and British wouldn't be able to touch German occupied Europe, ignoring the strategic bombing campaign.
Without so much German resources tied in the East, attacking the continent would be an incredibly risky proposition.
So let's not pretend that sending some weapons and resources is of same relative value as gargantuan Soviet efforts in the victory on EF.
Kevin Roberts
Yes, if the US hadn't supplied with Lend-Lease, the Sovs and Nazis would have been deadlocked and perhaps fought until one or both Hitler and Stalin were dead, or longer. Then, they would have been forced to locate massive military concentrations along the eventual armistice line, for decades. Neither would have dared undertaking distractive military operations elsewhere, as their opposite might choose that time to strike.
Stalemate was the better choice over Lend-Lease.
Brody Hughes
t.
Parker Jackson
The only crucial asset from lend lease was food.
Jason Powell
no. Soviet victory was guaranteed from the beginning regardless of American intervention. it was a nice gesture though
Justin Torres
>we
Landon Young
>What was DECISIVE was Soviet industry alone shitting out incredible amount of hardware
Wonder who helped with that?
>In all, during the war years, the USA supplied the USSR with 38,100 metal cutting lathes, and Great Britain sent the USSR 6,500 machine
tools and 104 metal presses. During the period 1941-45, 115,400 metal cutting lathes were produced in the Soviet Union, that is, 2.6 times more than were provided by Lend-Lease. In actuality, however, if you take the value of the index, then the role of Western machine tools turns out decisive - they were far more complex and valuable than the Soviet. During 1941-45 alone, industrial machines and equipment valued at 607 million dollars were supplied by the US to the USSR through Lend Lease. At the present time, it is not possible to appraise the corresponding Soviet production in dollars, but one can presume that it must have been less than the value of Lend-Lease supplies, taking into consideration the higher quality and complexity of Western machine
tools and other equipment. Some portion of the equipment, in particular, factories for the production of rolled aluminium, arrived during the concluding stage of the war and played their role not only in military efforts, but also in the restoration of the Soviet economy. Without the delivery of Western equipment, Soviet industry not only could not have increased the output of weaponry and combat equipment, but itself could not have put right the output of weapons and equipment, for which the special types of rolled steel and ferro-alloys provided by the US were used.
>As a whole, one can reach the conclusion that, without the Western supplies, the Soviet Union not only could not have won the Great
Patriotic War, but even could not have resisted German aggression, since it was not able to produce sufficient quantities of weapons and
combat equipment and provide them with fuel and ammunition.
sci-hub.la
Oliver Ward
of course, american alone win war