Soviet Perspective: Lend-Lease was insignificant
What is the Soviet Perspective on Lend-Lease the Western Allied economic support to the Soviet Union? For this we look at the official Soviet History of the Second World War namely the History of Great Patriotic War.
Cover Images:
Lend-Lease M4A2 (76) W Sherman in Soviet service in the 64th Guards Tank Regiment, 8th Guards Mechanized Corps, US Army Signal Corps, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
»» GET BOOKS & VIDEOS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Tank Assault - Combat Manual of the Soviet Tank Forces 1944 - stm44.com
» IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
» StuG: Ausbildung, Einsatz und Führung der StuG Batterie - stug-hdv.de
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
» Panzerkonferenz Video - pzkonf.de
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon, see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
Geschichte des Großen Vaterländischen Krieges der Sowjetunion. Band 6: Die Ergebnisse des großen Vaterländischen Krieges. Bd. 6, Deutscher Militärverlag: Berlin, German Democratic Republic, 1968.
Lokatis, Siegfried: Die Zensur historischer Literatur in der DDR unter Ulbricht. In: Historische Zeitschrift. Beihefte , 1998, New Series, Vol. 27, Die DDR-Geschichtswissenschaft als Forschungsproblem (1998), p. 281-293.
Telpuchowski, Boris Semjonowitsch: Die sowjetische Geschichte des Großen Vaterländischen Krieges 1941 - 1945. hg. von Hillgruber, Andreas/Jacobsen, Hans-Adolf, Bernard & Graefe Verlag für Wehrwesen: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 1961.
Boris V. Sokolov: The role of lend‐lease in Soviet military efforts, 1941-1945, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 7:3 (1994) p. 567-586
Hill, Alexander: The Red Army and the Second World War. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2017.
Cambridge History of the Second World War. Volume 1: Fighting the War. Cambridge University Press: UK (2015)
Strydwolf: Lend-Lease to Soviet Union, significance, impact and myths
Harrison, Mark: THE SOVIET ECONOMY AND RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES AND BRITAIN, 1941-1945, Draft 25 August, 1993
Harrison, Mark: The USSR and Total War: Why Didn’t the Soviet Economy Collapse in 1942? In: Chickering, Roger (ed.); Förster, Stig (ed.); Greiner, Bernd (ed.): A World at Total War: Global Conflict and the Politics of Destruction, 1939-1945, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2005), p. 137-156.
Glantz, David M.; House, Jonathan M.: When Titans Clashed. How the Red Army stopped Hitler. Revised and Expanded Edition. University Press of Kansas: USA, 2015
00:00 Intro
01:08 Soviet Claim Only 4 %
03:22 Missing the Impact?
03:37 Division of Labor / Specialization - High Quality Products - Higher Effectiveness & Efficiency
05:10 Trucks - Omitting comparable data
07:15 Artillery, Aircraft & Tanks
08:31 Tank Discussion [Book Footage]
09:10 Machine Tools
09:56 Still debated
11:12 Source Discussion
#lendlease #ww2 #sovietperspective
Before someone else comments, MHV incorrectly says "69%" when he meant to say "96%" at 2:30. The massive difference between how English and German handle numbers is a constant headache when transitioning between the two in the Broca's Area of your brain.
I also said 12th instead of 22nd (for XXII) and I think 1945 instead of 1941. Not my best recording.
hardly relevant. the correct text is right there in front of you. anyone can mis-speak a word
noice
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized You do solid work but yeah I agree. This is not your best recording. Also I recommend you get a higher quality mic to lesson the echo.
@@victorfinberg8595 It is relevant, for those of us who sometimes listen to it while doing something else. Perhaps this may be more likely due to this being his "not visualized" channel. Not putting him down, just a reminder for all creators to keep in mind the person "watching" your video, may in fact only be listening to it. (Something sports announcers often fail to get right as well.
In 1963, KGB monitoring recorded Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov saying: "People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own."
The sad thing is people actually believe the old Soviet propaganda that they practically won single-handedly with no help.
@@chrisjackson1215 It's not that different from some Americans thinking the US won single-handedly with no help. Funnily enough, I don't recall the British ever sharing such a sentiment about their own involvement. Quite the opposite, with pessimism dominating. I've argued with more than one Brit who thought the Battle of Britain was extremely close to being lost, despite post-war historiography demonstrating war-time perception was very much wrong.
@@MaxRavenclaw I can't say I've ever heard an American say that, and if I have it's not many. On the flip side, I've seen far too many claim the Soviets did all the heavy lifting.
@@MaxRavenclaw I think its quite different. The ussr being autocratic, they can or could easily just push this idea, while a democratic country, like the usa allowed and allows different viewpoints.
@@chrisjackson1215then you must live under several rocks maybe even a whole Mountain.
soviets trying not to lie challenge impossible
But American propaganda is the most truthful source!
Russians lying to make themselves look better? Color me surprised. 😆
Only shocking to Soviet/russo-philes
Says a fucking Anglo-Saxon? Hahahahahahaha
Aww, a Westerner, the Paragon of Truth!
Premier Stalin to Prime Minister Churchill: "Without these two forms of help the USSR will either suffer defeat or be weakened to such an extent that it will lose for a long time any capacity to render assistance to its allies" About 4 years later: "The glorious and mighty USSR could have reached Berlin on it's own haha.
No kidding. Also "All those soviet citizens who were killed by Stalin in the 1930s... well.. never mind, let's blame the germans, like Katyn"
Fancy seeing you here, I watch your gameplay vids all the damn time!
They pulled the same trick regarding Dresden.
Well, when you have to beg for a help, you underestimate your capabilities, when the victory is won no one wants to share it. Look at the US - during the Cold War they claimed that it was them who defeated Hitler, haha. Russians? What - Russians? Weren’t they fighting on the Hitler’s side?No?!
The opposite is just as true. Without the destruction of 70-80% of the German army by the Soviets, the Normandy Landings could never have taken place.
2 things made an impact that's undeniable. They became iconic in the USSR. Studabaker trucks and Spam.
Yup
One Soviet general, circa 1946, claimed that the Studebakers contributed more to winning the war than the T-34.
Virtually all explosives and gunpowders were either shipped from north America or manufactured on supplied plants. I'd say this was at least as important as spam
@@PrairieCossack true
@@PrairieCossack Bulk aircraft aluminium was another and bauxite.
Nikita Khrushchev, who led the Soviet Union from 1953 to 1964, agreed with Stalin's assessment. In his memoirs, Khrushchev described how Stalin stressed the value of Lend-Lease aid: “He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war.” If even Stalin claim that it was cruciall then I supose it was.
And Khruschev also mentioned in those same memoirs that “without spam we would not have been able to feed our armies.”
"even Stalin" No, if you're bad in matters military, which Stalin was, you don't suddenly become more intelligent just because you're speaking again your own side. So I would trust neither Stalin nor Khrushchev's opinions on any matters military.
Was Zhukov also bad in military matters? Because he says the same
@@thearpox7873 He was not speaking "against" his own side. They were the leaders of the country so would have a position to see all of the economic and logistic factors in their context. Also, at that level you can't just "make stuff up", like you are doing, and get away with it.
It means that a meere 2% of USA's GDP won the whole war. An extraordinary claim which requires better evidence than what a politician might say at some point.
The fun part is that EVERY Lend Lease shipment was signed by soviet side, that wasn't random items, those were things that we ourselves had requested as critical supplies needed ASAP. The only few exceptions are cases when we were told that something better were available ie we requested motorcycles with sidecar for recon and weapon crews, but americans straight up gave 4x4 jeeps. Another interesting part is that due to proliferation of licensing from US before the war(and straight up straling a lot of a time too), a LOT of soviet equipment was already produced in US. All radio components were US standard, most engines were US derived, US factories already had all the tooling for soviet ie russian imperial calibers and so on. Things like radars were arriving, renamed and then immediately reported as local produced a lot of the time.
"We were told". How old are you? And you seem to have been a very important american politican in WW2.
@@sovietheart3883 я родился в СССР, поэтому и говорю "когда нам сказали". Есть еще вопросы, школяр?
@@TheArklyte Да конечно.
A clear indication of how important LL was is that when the Soviets were told that to do a 2nd Front in 1943 lend-lease would have to be terminated to concentrate on build-up of western forces - the Soviets insisted on continuing LL and settled for a 1944 2nd Front. At the time, The Soviets considered LL necessary to avoid a collapse..
Alternatively, post-war the Soviets maintained control along the territories they have captured, and there was in fact a competition between the Soviet and Western sides to reach Berlin. So them wanting maximum support for their own front at the expense of the west makes perfect sense even if LL was just a bonus, because it still means more Europe would go to USSR.
@@thearpox7873 🤨
@@thearpox7873That is made up, at the end of the war the germans removed near all forces from the west and thrown them against the east. Western allies had no resistance but refused to attack because why fight for areas that you already signed off to soviet occupation. Its hilarious how historically illiterate the audience of history channels is😂
@@alphana7055 I don't think anyone starts off studying history as an expert. There is always more to learn.
@@abcdedfg8340Sure, but there's a differenve between not knowing and just making shit up to make sense of something.
A huge point is the relatively early and and scale of supply. In total numbers allied supply can look lacking; but the timing changes it. The classic mantra of "whats better than no equipment, some equipment". Issue is in the early years the USSR got sufficiently comparable equipment. As noted, the Valentine was provided in larges numbers, and was a good tank. superseded later by Sherman tanks. High quality aviation fuel was vital. Radios, ambulances etc helped keep soviet forces alive and combat effective. And food & boots supplies were also staggering, and kept the Red army operational. Britain alone supplied 15 million (excellent quality) boots. THE USSR *needed* allied lend lease.... It may have still been able to have helped win the war, but the loss of life would have been significantly greater.
This is objectively the correct take
What you just mentioned however also empathizes how off Sokolov's conclusion (and for that matter, yours) is. It is precisely the timing of Allied Lend-Lease that shows it never had any notable role in preventing a collapse of the Soviet Union. Lend-Lease massively picked up pace from July 1942 onwards, which is obviously too late to play a significant role in the Moscow offensive of '41 and would likely still play a limited role in the Stalingrad offensive of '42. Meaning that any of the actual existential threats to the Red Army were defeated long before the bulk of Lend-Lease had even left the US and UK, let alone reached the front lines. Lend-Lease does of course help the USSR with Kursk, a still-born offensive that would likely never have reached the threat level of Barbarossa and the Soviet offensives of the following years, which obviously didn't endanger the USSR in any real way, as they were now on the offense. It's important to emphasize that Lend-Lease likely shortened the war by a massive time frame, but it's a disservice to go too far to the other extreme and pretend like something that didn't play much of a role until 1943, somehow prevented the Soviet collapse in 1941.
@@Tepid24 while that is *probably* true, there is also a lack of mention of other lend lease objects in the general historiography because the Aliies did not supply just trucks, radios, tanks and planes; but also -petroleum products (2.67 million tons, among which 58% of the aero fuel used by the VVS, or 90% of the high octane fuel) -foodstuffs (4.478 million tons) -locomotives (1 977 steam and diesel engines) -rolling stock (11 075 train cars of various types) -ordnance supplies (no precise weight, but amounting to 53% of domestic consumption) even an entire tire manufacturing plant it is difficult to estimate the value of some of the products sent because they didn't directly correlate to fighting power but for example the tire factory allowed soviet trucks to run, trains made so the supplies provided reached the frontlines, ordnance goods guaranteed the soviet army had sufficient supply of shells and mines, petrol kept the air force in the air, machine tools bolstered the USSR ability to manufacture what it's armies needed, food kept people fed and energetic for production/combat it's possible the LL was "just" a bonus, but it's also possible it helped win the war by making sure the USSR was able to beat the germans, even if it was past the big scare of 1941, it was probably the difference between total victory, and a bloody stalemate
@@Tepid24 I do contest this comment somewhat, as, inline with my comment, early supply was the most vital, and was admitted by high ranking soviets, to be vital. Case in point; the battle of Moscow.
The German army was more or less defeated by the fall of 1941.I agree with you 100%.@@Tepid24
Worth pointing out that until the collapse of the Soviet Union and the prevalence of the internet, you never "saw" pictures of Lend Lease equipment in the Red Army in almost any situation. All those pictures/videos, etc. were more or less concealed for 60-70 years.
They even had to Photoshop Pokryshkin with his cobras lol
That is not true, I have books at home from communist Czechoslovakia where there are American and giant tanks in the USSR army and it is written there that the equipment was from the West.
That's a myth
In terms of lend lease, the Americans basically gave everything that the Soviets asked for, that they had the ability to produce, sometimes to an almost comical degree. We can see this in how in 1943, the Soviet Union decided to reintroduce epaulets, and requested 2,961,900 yards of braid, a sterling silver base with 1-2% gold content, costing approximately $7,000,000. This hardly seems like vital military material, but I suppose you can never skimp on the good things in life.
FDR was an asset of the Marxist cult. Everything he did as POTUS was based on the Soviets, Stalin in particular. This is why he bent over backwards to keep them alive, AND accommodate them after the war. The bigger question was why did we teach them how to build dams and send Ford execs to teach them mass production?
They still have to ration promotions though lol
I like that you used the wording "comical degree" It just making me think it like this: Soviets: "Okay US, we need around 5k trucks. We are making our own, but they.... Cant kept up" US: "Okay no problem. We will send you 50k trucks and jeeps next month" Soviets: "50k?! Next month?!" US: "Oh? Isnt that enough? How about 500k trucks next month?"
@@Danspy501st Exacly. We need to remember that US outproduced entire Axis. The funniest part of "comical degree" was on pacific bc when Japanese starved because they couldn't supply themselves even with food, the US had dedicated fleet to distribute ice creams to soliders so they wouldn't feel sad and lonley
@@rotmistrzjanm8776 Well US did fix their economy by putting money into their economy so it made more money so they could put that into their economy Also why looking at today I fear if US goes out of NATO. Not solely because of their military might, but primary because of their production power
The Machine tools, lathes, milling machines, drill presses etc etc, can not be understated in their importance. Those are force multipliers when EVERYTING needs them from rifles, to tanks, to artillery shells. Unlike a tank which can be seen as a 1 for 1 swap, more or less. Machine tools will make 1000's upon 1000's of parts of tanks, artillery, and shells. Usually folks fixate on the tanks, planes, guns and TRUCKS. But forget the machine tools. I read somewhere that they were some of the most requested things the Soviets asked for, and justifiably so. Do you want 30 tons of tank or 30 tons of tools to make 1000's of tanks. It's a no brainer. So happy that got mentioned. Always gets forgotten. Sort of like how lend lease also went the OTHER way. Some rare earth stuff coming out of the USSR headed west. Also, important and forgotten.
Depending on the timing too, if the situation is extremely dire it might be better to send tanks in the short term to create the conditions to send production machinery.
True
What sort of rare earths, and for what? AFAIK rare earths are mostly valuable nowadays for making computers which didn't exist at the time.
@@deek0146 chrome, manganese and platinum. It's worth noting however that this "reverse lend lease" was mostly from the British Empire to the US. The Soviets didn't really send all that much compared to the likes of the UK, Canada et al. They sent what they could.
@@deek0146 You use rare earth metals for things like making tank armour and shells, artillery guns, etc. They are not just made out of steel, they are alloy metals.
When looking at Soviet Histories you can see the contemporary stuff and immediate post war stuff is like: 'This saved our asses' then you go on a decade or two as the cold war is in swing and there is a deliberate effort to downplay the contribution. Get to the 90's and a lot of military records are declassified and you can again see how vital it was to the Soviet war machine for example unit strength listings showing 40% of tanks and the vast majority of heavy tanks on the Caucus front were lend lease models, or how British tanks were pretty much the only armour reinforcements reaching Stalingrad.
You can see the same in Western stuff to be honest, during the war it was like: We need to open a 2nd front to help the Russians who are fighting 3/4 of the German army. Then the cold war kicks in and they're like: And the we landed in Normandy, fought the strength of the mighty German army and won the war!
@@rileyernst9086 Recently, I think its a huge trend to under-sell Western contributions. Off the top of my head its like 45% (ish) casualties caused to Germany and Italy, was by the Western powers. Its really not a huge diffrence, as some suppose. And that doesnt even factor in the war with the Japanese.
@@tisFrancesfault How can there be a huge trend to under-sell western power contributions , think about it for a sec , when they spent the better half of a century to downplay each other. I don't know what you taking source from but if you take from the west it would be underplay the soviet , not the western. Their contributions is uncounterable, due to without them the war might last longer than 1945 and many more soviet would die to starvation.About the german , it was mostly the soviet that did the heavy lifting ,the west carried the sea while the soviet stand brave against the germans .With that being said, the cold war happened ,both side do what they do best, propaganda.If you want the truth you have to stand neutral ,not seeing it from what the soviet or the western wrote
How can they took out 45% of the germong/ita force when germans went into the soviet with the largest invasion force humanity has ever seen. And by the time the allies landed on Normandy in 1944 the war in Europe pretty much over.That not to say the west invasion did nothing , it certainly did a great amount in helping cutting losses.But saying they took out 45% of the germans and ita is just not true. You could said the western power carried the war against japan because they did , fought without the soviet help so the soviet barely did anything to help the west in the war against japan but it can't really be said the same for the war in europe when the soviet did most of the heavy lifting. All the lend lease would mean nothing without soviet blood
Look at Operation Cobra and Goodwood. The British had 16 divisions commencing sustained offensive operations against 64 German Infantry Battalions and 7 panzer divisions, whilst the US Army was operating 21 divisions against 64 infantry battalions and a single panzer division. The Americans took twice the losses. They were not effective.
The story I heard was that in 1942 (or 1943?) the Soviets were pestering the Anglo-allies about mounting an invasion in France. They were told they could do this, but this would mean an end of Lend-Lease shipments. The Soviets response was, "Never mind." Arguing the importance of Soviet Lend-Lease is like arguing the value of the North Africa campaign. Compared with the Eastern Front or the 1944 Western Front, the North Africa campaign was insignificant. But it also weakened Germany at a critical time so its value was magnified.We will never know how the Fall Blau campaign would have played out if Germany had the resources it was wasting in Africa available in the East.
@@mitchellcouchman6589 No. If Rommel had made it to the Suez, it would have been catastrophic for the British. Of course, for that to have happened, both the Italian and German navies would have had to have performed better which would have compounded the problem.
Sure we can. Rommel and his Corps in the USSR in 1943?
Although not solely and not entirely so, there is no doubt N Africa provided the western allies room and space to exercise and improve their tactics and strategies in combined arms war-fighting against a "top seed" opponent half a world away from most of their manufacture and production.
usa sent supplies to the enemy. sad
@@obsidianjane4413With what oil? Germany has little reserves of oil in 1942, for that they attack on the caucasus and leaves empty tanks along the way. The same happen on Africa.
"17.5 millions of tons went to the USSR compared to 22 million tons to American forces on continental Europe." While the 22 excluded british and allied forces also fighting on the western front and all of north Africa. It does show an interesting comparison.
way more in raw materials went to the USSR which was seen as a more important use of shipping capacity since factory space in the US was not infinite
@@AsbestosMuffinsgm trucks were the most important factor in a tactical view.
Geography probably played a role as well. Getting good from the US to the UK is far easier and cheaper than getting things to the USSR.
@@charlesramirez587 interestingly GM trucks(namely opel Trucks, Opel was GM) also played a vital role for Germany.
@@Saufs0ldatJapan and the Soviet Union were not at war. Ships could travel from the US west coast to Vladivostok without fear of submarines. It may have been a longer distance, but it was much safer to get supplies to the Soviets. American liberty ships were used, but they were Soviet flagged and crewed.
Perhaps it was on Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles as the source, but what I recall one of the potentially overlooked quality factors (besides the machine tools and radio equipment specifically mentioned) of Lend Lease petroleum products was the superior octane rating of western supplied aviation gasoline vs the domestic Soviet variety. While the Lend Lease airplanes required this stuff, straight, to run properly in the Merlin, western radial, and Alison engines, it could also be blended into the Soviet fuel to up the overall octane rating for use in the Yaks, Migs, LaGGs, etc, allowing them to run at higher engine manifold pressures without suffering pre-detonation / engine knock. This allowed a substantial increase in power, resulting in the benefits provided thereby. Great stuff as always MHnV.
Yes, it was really big deal. Not only for Lend Lease airplanes, but soviet too. USSR had really big problems in producing anything with high octane then 76
When you learn that American companies were producing the buttons on Soviet uniforms, it puts the sheer scale and importance of allied assistance into view.
Nikita Khrushchev was praising the POWDERED EGGS from the U.S. for helping save soviet soldiers and millions of civilians from starvation. What good is a factory fresh T-34 tank when the crew has been buried weeks before due to NO FOOD AVAILABLE. Nikita Khrushchev: "Powdered eggs! How can they do that? From fresh eggs to powder and to warm eggs again that fills the stomach. It's a miracle of American ingenuity."
True
its sad that we fought the wrong enemy. usa should be ashamed
@@Blox117 … Nazi Germany was the wrong enemy, huh?
@@daemonofdecayignore him, he’s clearly a neo n@zi
What’s missing is the British contribution to the Soviet Union. 3000 Hawker hurricanes . Most of these were supplied before 1942 was out and the type was certainly not out of date and perform much better than MiG 3, LaGG 3 and early Yaks and IL-2. They’re also 1200 supermarine Spitfires, 2000 Valentine tanks and, 2000 Matilda two tanks most before 1942 was out. Started shortly after the German invasion and lasted throughout the war. Noteworthy was that the age was delivered when Russia had its own, and was maybe 40% of the armour, to defend Moscow. At the time, the Valentines 57 mm gun was more powerful than the T 34 gun or any of the German panzer III are three or Panzer 4 guns. The Matilda II 40 mm gun could deal with any German tank at the time. They also had thicker armour.
Valentine was not the best tank in the world. But it had a much more reliable engine than the russian tanks - which made them superior to use for intensive driving unlike russian made tanks. So for that reason did Valentine become the tank used by russian tank schools because their own tanks was so crappy.
@@nattygsbord well... so much not true :-D :-D :-D
@@michaljanecek82 I have the book Ostfront as my source. You have just russian lies and your stupid gut feeling as your source. Do everyone a service and just shut up. Bot.
@@nattygsbord in 1941 and 1942 for T-34 was very unreliable and it could be piece of junk in regards to the quality of its optics. Both Valentine and the Matilda had superior fire power to the panzer 3 and 4 and the Matilda head much better armour. Soviet and German tanks only began to improve towards the end of 1942. The aircraft and tanks Britain supplied in 1941 and 1942 top class and better than anything the Germans or Russians had. The point isn’t just the amount of British aid but it’s timing. The British aid came when Russia didn’t have much.
@@michaljanecek82 actually, all of its true. I suspect you’re one of those people that doesn’t use dates in history.
Dirty little secrets of WW2 mentioned some of the important contributions, including something ostensibly as mundane as insulated electrical wire for laying telephone lines. Soviet cables were poorly insulated which led to break downs in communications. It also noted that Lend Lease also supplied gold braid for general’s uniforms. It’s a great read and does not down play the efforts and achievements of the Soviet Union.
Zhukov himself said that the Soviet army welcomed the American supplied vehicles and supplies. He said as he was riding in an American made jeep.
Ruzzia happily lies to try and cover inconvenient facts like that. Just look at the past 2 years to see the levels of copium ruzzian propaganda reaches to
Lend Lease was very important to the totality of Soviet victory in the last half of the war. Less so to the first half when the war was in the balance. That said, we also need to understand that a lot of the comments made by Soviets regarding Lend Lease were still in the fog of war so to speak. They were IN it, they didn't have historical 20/20 vision to see that Germany had basically shot its load in 1941. They were operating, commenting, and thinking from a position where they only could see their side of the war. Historians since then have been able to put things in context a little bit more, because we can see what Soviet side, and see the resilience of their military/industries and the scale of their mobilization. From 1941 onwards, the balance of power only went one way. The Soviets didn't know that in 1941, or 1945, or 1955. They didn't know the Wehrmacht was largely spent by March 1942.
I don't think all those trucks and food were insignificant but idk
USSR Stronk tho, these capitalist "logistics" were insignificant and glorious communism truly won great patriotic war and t-34 was best tank, etc etc
Just don’t tell the t-34 guys that the stalinium that t-34s were made of was actually imported US steel 😂
@@crown7639 clearly since there hasn't been any T-34s or Kv-1s before land lease... Oh wait...
I think 27 million soviets who gave their lives to win the war are a bit more important but idk
@@kingfish2703 you’re statement does nothing to disprove my claim. The USSR imported raw materials before the war and was given a lot during it.
Another factor that helped soviet production of tanks and guns, was that their railroad production facitlies were all converted to produce tanks and artillery and other war materials as the US took care of railroad production for the USSR, delivering hundreds of locomotives and thousands of railcars.
Also according to DM Giangreco there was a large surge effort to modernize the trans-Siberian railway
We are still grateful for your help in that darkest hour of our history. Thank you for your excellent help and alliance in the Great patriotic war, dear Western allied powers.
Honestly, it took ALL 3! The Soviet Union, The British Empire, and America, to put Hitler's Nazi's down. I am American and really hope we can remember this - our peoples are not enemies. Just sometimes our leaders are. And that we all best keep an eye on the CCP and it's actions involving India. Russia is WAY too smart and sane to ever start WW III. But get pulled into it against their will? And Russia is far more reasonable that the CCP.
The Soviet Union could have won without lend lease, but with much more dead men. We are speaking of millions more.
Lend-lease was there for the year Soviet weapon productions was near nothing while they moved everything past the Ural mountains. On another video years ago from Military History (i don't remember if it was visualized or not) he mentioned that the amount of trucks alone lost to in the ill fated Artic Convoy PQ-17 were the same amount of trucks used by the USSR in the Battle of Stalingrad.
Operation Begration would have not been as successful without American trucks and logistics . Deep Battle doesn't work without full motorization. Calvary can only do so much.
This is a lie. Lend-lease didn’t pick up to a meaningful degree until 1943, where one could argue that the victory of the Red Army was already inevitable.
Aluminum, food, transport aircraft, and trucks played far more important roles than the base numbers indicate. Not forget communication equipment from radios to wire for telephone.
Yep.
Of course they would Wouldn’t fit in their narrative
It's pretty obvious why they would try to minimize the contributions of lend lease. "It should be emphasized that the socialist state was able to solve the problem..."
@@Ungood-jl5ep I mean, it kind of undermines a Communist movement if a Capitalist system had to fund your entire war effort.
Its almost like there was a geo poitical conflict right after were both side tried to worsen the others image in any way shape or form🤔
Aviation gasoline supplied by the Allies: 90%. Explosives supplied: 55% Copper supplied: 80% Food supplied: between 3 and 5 million tones. The Allies literally saved the USSR from starving to death. Marshall Zhukov said that the war would not have been won without Lend Lease.
This is a Cold war "issue" not really about WW2. Obviously while fighting hard and on a huge scale big material support helps. The UK got more lend lease than the Soviet Union, hence why is the issue only about the US- Soviet Union (due to Cold war.. needs). One might say easily that the US (like Canada, India, Australia, New Zeeland, South Africa) helped Europe a lot in WW2.
With your aviation fuel point I think you might be confused because that number is not even close to the correct one. It is around 40-50%. I think you might be thinking specifically of high-octane aviation fuel since the Soviets struggled to produce this. And since Soviet planes did not need it but American lend lease planes required it then the fuel was specifically kept for those lend lease planes or simply mixed into the low octane fuel they had to slightly improve the mixture.
@@crusadertank970 perhaps I was referencing the high octane aviation fuel, and your figure of 50% is more accurate. But that doesn't matter because this means the Allies provided half of Soviet aviation fuel. And without that fuel, the Red Army would not have won, simple as that.
@@crusadertank970 Well, who tell you "Soviet planes did not need it"? ВК-105, for example need no less then 92, М-105Ф - 95. Do you want to found out how much Gas with octane number more then 76 had been produced in USSR at a time?
@@vladimirpecherskiy1910 Soviet aviation fuel was 95 octane typically so it was enough. American fuel was 100/110 octane since the P-39 needed 100-130 octane fuel. So I meant that Soviet planes did not need 100/110 octane fuel as their 95 was enough. It just gave a bonus in the mixture.
I personally think that pop culture overvalues the lend-lease tanks and planes given to the Soviets while underestimating the impact of food. The destruction of Soviet agriculture must have been devastating through the war. Maybe the whole Soviet Union wasn't Leningrad level of starving, but there must have been a food shortage.
No, the soviets were already just as destructive to their own people just before the war. they decided anyone good at farming was an evil capitalist and imprisoned or killed them. then insisted on micromanaging everything. and then, as food got low, they decided that Ukraine was too culturally distinct and used that to justify starving them for a year as punishment, killing 10 million.
look up the holodomor
@@scout360pyrozSafe to say peasants who starved to death aren't growing food for the Soviets
@@alex_zetsu i had more to say originally, but describing how the soviets were mismanaging everything and starving their people (and weaponizing that) got my comment canned by YT. My point is that the soviets were starving themselves before the war even began
@@alex_zetsu and, you know... those peasants were in ukraine. the literal bread basket of eastern europe.
We gave them so many army trucks that Russian slang for any truck was the name of one of our companies. I think Studebaker was the name.
Studebakers were so above anything soviets had that even decades after the war they were prized posessions in various works, mills, transport hubs etc who were lucky enough to get one from surplus. I remember several communism-era books I read in childhood which had an archetypal character of mechanic who had his beloved Studebaker which "he cared for more than for his wife".
@@czwarty7878 The workhorse of and for a better life indeed The lend lease saved, reached and benefitted millions upon millions of soviet civilians, besides the soldiers
My mother built Douglas A-20 aircraft during the war that all went to the Soviet Union. I think it miffed her a bit that she never saw a single one fly with US markings. Thanks again Bernhard.
And many US fathers that stacked and gave rations, clothes and food to the soviet people nonstop It must've looked like an even bigger effort than the US providing foods for the soviets and russians in famine earlier in the decades
4% of GDP is more than most country's entire annual military budget. Even if a country could still win without such aid, missing such a colossal sum would make winning much more difficult and cause untold suffering on the population.
nah factory workers didn't need food nor aluminium in order to build tanks, at least that's according to tankies.
4% during peacetime. During 1943 and 1944 Germany's war expenditures went as high as 75% of its gross national product. During 1945, the US military expenditures was 37.5% of GDP.
When saying unpatriotic things about the great patriotic war is illegal. It’s really easy to deny that lend lease was very effective
It would have been strange if the Soviets publicly declared Lend Lease as essential, which it was. Nikita Khrushchev mentioned in his memoirs that Stalin said numerous times in private conversations that "without the American help we wouldn't be able to win"
Lend lease wasnt essential, but helpful at best. The soviet union could have won without it, although with much more casualties
@@sovietheart3883 Without Lend Lease the Soviets would have been deprived of their entire stock of aeroplane fuel, their aluminium which was essential for their aircraft, most of their food stock, thousands of tanks that comprised 40% of their force during the defence of Moscow, almost all of their locomotives and so much more. Lend Lease was absolutely essential.
@@sovietheart3883 The soviet economy at the time swithced to production of arms and armor. About 80% percent of their whole economy was producing war material. The USA had to make their uniform buttons, boots, canned food, trucks, train cars, aviation fuel and so much more. Without the support of the allies, the soviet would lose hard.
I'd like to mention a particular quote from Hitler that is often used when describing the Eastern Front: "One swift kick and the whole rotten thing will come crashing down". What everyone likes to forget is that without Lend Lease(as everyone here has pointed out), that statement is completely accurate. Had America stayed out and not provided the aid it did, the sieges of Leningrad, Stalingrad, and Moscow would likely have been successful.
@@hocestbellumchannel 1. "...the entire supply of aviation fuel and aluminum...." Seriously? Can you name the Soviet war production of aviation fuel and aluminum? 2. "40% of tanks near Moscow" Śource? If it's A.Hill, I'll give you what he wrote: "According to the British Military Mission in Moscow by 9 December1941 about 90 British tanks had been in action with Soviet forces" Are you saying that only about 220 tanks fought in total near Moscow? (by December 9, 1941)
Soviet perspective: We didn't invade Poland in 1939, we were invited in by the Germans.
Western perspective: Poland didn’t invade Czechoslovakia, the Czechs invited them to
Poland invaded the USSR in 1920-21
Are you talking about Western Ukraine by any chance? Yep, you are😅
British perspective: "We never tried to preserve our Imperial possessions, never tried to push Germany against Russian in the First World War or the Second World War, never sold Czhechoslovakia, never tried to reassert our domination it the Middle East etc...".
should the soviets have let germany take over all of poland?
State approval at all time high, says state report.
You're so funny and original.
@@user-eqwl2htry45Il Yawn
Spot on
It takes only one stat to disprove the lie that Lend/Lease didn't matter to the Soviets. The Soviets were (and the Russians still are) primarily dependent upon rail logistics for the sustainment of their armies. Just compare Soviet rail equipment production, and especially locomotives, to what they received during the war, and in particular from 1942-1945.
Nobody says it didn't matter. It just in the west they like to cope by saying only cuz of leand lease soviets won.
Now let’s talk how things would of gone without anyone lend-leasing
A better world
@@DogeickBatemanbruh. Stalin and the Urss should have never existed but nazi Germany was even worse.
@@amogus948 Oh I know, I’m just saying Operation Unthinkable should have been conducted
@@DogeickBatemanI can't disagree. Unfortunatly, even had they actually decided to launch it, there would have been no support at home and even on the front because both civilians and soldiers (especially the British and Canadians) were tired of the war
Nazi Germany would have still lost. They just did too many mistakes against the USSR that their push would have still collapsed due to their overextended logistics and the locals increasing resistance. But the USSR would have lost too, as without logistics boost that came after the winter (Because the only sea route that wasn't threatened by axis was frozen during winter). They would have been broken by their own war effort and eventually they would have stopped at Warsaw or even at their own initial borders as they would have suffered from the same logistical problems as the germans had. It would have become a broken and bloodied carcass that would either dissolve on it's own or be easily smashed by an external force. In truth the Lend Lease was the greatest political mistake the US ever did and without that, it would have ruled the world with an unquestionable level of power.
The big ones were simple things like boots and canned-meat (spam).....In some of the Russian memoirs the Russian-troops name for the canned meat was "Second Front"...lol
I like how the books only address finished goods and not the raw material support in terms of steel, aluminum, and probably more importantly, the chemical requirements to make gunpowder and explosives.
Didn't a previous video here mention the soviets also received large supplies of explosive related chemicals as well in addition to a petro-chemicals like lubricants or am I mis-remembering? I remember this figure because it was one of the most dramatic figures I had seen in this regard but I am doubting my memory. Not saying that this changes the conclusions or anything, just I swear I remember something of the sort being mentioned. Edit, wait, I found it on your other channel. " Did the Soviets win WW2 due to US Support? The Impact of Lend-Lease ", around 7 minutes in, where in 1941 a soviet general mentioned about 34% of the gunpowder supply was imported, but in one of the early years it was 53%.
They also got stuff like high quality aluminum and rubber wich saved the entire Soviet airforce. Animarchy history made a great video about it
*surprised Pikachu*
The USA sent around 225,000 2.5-ton trucks, along with 1,000 locomotives and 7,000 railroad cars. This not only freed up Soviet heavy industry to concentrate on tanks and weapons but allowed them the logistics to conduct Deep Battle.
As mentioned in the video, those trucks carried more than their Soviet-built counterparts. They also were more reliable, had all-wheel drive, more range, and a more powerful engine. Oh, and not least, especially if you've played anything in the _Spin Tires_ franchise, is that the US trucks had built-in winches. These not only make it harder for the truck sporting them to be truly stuck, but mean they're effective at unsticking less capable vehicles.
We also sent millions and millions of food rations... so much that their military recently found stores of some and started passing them out to the meat shields they call soldiers in Ukraine...
@@cptmiller132 You are mixing periods and nations here we are talking abou the soviet or USSR that was only composed by 50 russians. No prob we all do mistakes :)
@ouinon4138 actually I'm not... we sent the Soviet union so much food rations during ww2 that russia is still feeding it to their troops in Ukraine today...
Westerners talk sounds like soviet's had nothing before the war. No munition, no tanks, na planes, no locomotives, no explosives, no fuel ... They had the biggest railroad network with ten thousands of locomotives and milions of wagons. How many (obsolete) factories did they purchase from americans in late 20s and early 30s? Studebaker's US6 were delivered 11!!! pieces by end of '41. They were tested in '42 and corrections were made on their input. Great deliveries started in late '43 per iranian corridor.
Below are three crucial and very under-appreciated contributions by the western allies to victory in WWII. (1) More vital than lend-lease was the transfer of technology to Russia in the 1930s, chiefly from the US but also from Britain and to some extent France. As explained by the great Russia historian Stephen Kotkin, except for synthetic rubber EVERY technology the Russians had came from the western allies and EVERY Russian factory was designed by American or other western consultants (often via in-person on-site direction). One factory was itself built in the US and then shipped in pieces for reassembly in Russia. Furthermore, the tech transfers (some of which were involuntary) included military tech. Russia's first tank was a knock-off of a British design except for its suspension which Russia licensed from America's Chrysler. (2) It's often said that amateurs talk tactics while pros talk logistics; yet that saying is incomplete. True experts talk national production, i.e., the ability to make war. As Kotkin points out, perhaps the most under-appreciated component of allied victory was the US and British air campaign against German factories and infrastructure, a bombing campaign that largely destroyed Germany's ability to make war just as Russia was marching on Berlin. (3) The Russians ignored logistics so much that -- without the 400,000 jeeps, 14,000 planes and 8,000 tractors that the US gave them thru lend-lease -- the Russians had NO way to transport to the front the shells for their artillery, ammunition and fuel for their tanks, nor food and supplies for their troops.
I am sure the land lease got played down quite a bit as it was not necessary for the Russian population to know about it and also very likely out of embarrassment and unwillingness to admit that it played a much bigger role before the own industry behind the Ural mountains could into full gear and prevent Moscow and maybe even the oil fields in the SE fall into Nazi hands. On another side note. The land lease to the CCCP probably also helped to prevent the use of the atomic bombs in Europe.
4% is a huge amount of material. Even if we take that statistic at face value, that is a tremendous amount of support.
This reminds me of that salt mine that was captured by Wagner and it had Thompsons and other Lend-Lease rifles that went unused for some reason.
Nice video. I like how you focus on qualifying the material given to the soviets so as to clarify how the value was disproportional to its stated dollar value.
It’s not the tonnage percentage, it’s the ability to ask for what you don’t have. Germans were short of rubber. Panzer track blocks were made of steel instead of rubber, and had to be serviced far more frequently
There is a book about everything that was shipped to Russia during the war. This is a summary of shipments and deliveries so it's inherently unbiased. Yeah they shipped over a few thousand tanks and planes. But they shipped over hundreds of locomotives and thousands of box cars. They shipped over hundreds of thousands of trucks. They shipped thousands of tons of spam which kept the red army alive during the famine of winter of 44. Your army cannot sustain combat operations without calories, it is the very most basic reality of warfare.
More visualized military history please. We want to sew graphs, tanks, all sorts of cool stuff
seconded. especially with this topic, more graphs would have been great.
Stalin didn’t agree. He even said that without material support from allied nations, Russia might have been defeated. Also, the input of millions of tons of food, aircraft, trucks ammunition and raw materials was not insignificant.
When you don't have to produce significant amounts of vehicles, rail stock, and railway engines, those materiels can be directed towards producing tanks, and other armaments. To imply that lend lease was not significant is disingenuous on the part of the Soviets. A railway engine can't kill tanks, or stop an infantry assault, however, the steel, and other resources that were not expended in building them could build multiple weapons that could.
Nothing in the USSR moves without American trucks. 6000 Aircobras alone. Insignificant? Pfft.
Ridiculous statement 😂
6000 aircobras were very few tbh, the soviets produced almost 150,000 planes, it wouldn't have changed the war if the soviets diddn't received american planes.
When is as important as how many. 150,000 aircraft of all types is over the whole war with the largest production numbers late in the war when the Germans had lost the initiative and therefore the war. P-39’s were supplied as early as 1941, when Soviet production was a mere 15,000 aircraft of all types.
@@markkruger8540 but the bulk of the lend-lease only reached the soviet union after 1943.
You need to consider how widely they were used and how often they were used.
I've read that Lend-Lease accounted for some ~90% of their high-octane fuel, and I'd imagine that missing it would've had drastic results for air superiority, which locally managed to stall the soviet advance even in 1945. No source though. Also, even the obsolete weapons were used on secondary fronts, where they faced secondary axis tanks as well (M3 lees vs French tanks in Lapland). Therefore, even obsolete tanks would let the soviets use thousands of more typical tanks in the battles they really needed to win.
8:44 The Valentine was liked because it was so quiet, with a low profile, making it very good in the reconnaissance role. It may be strange to describe a tank as quiet, but really was a hell of a lot quieter than a T-34 or any or the models of Sherman.
Informative and amusing. Thanks.
Let us Americans NOT forget; The Soviets paid for Lead-Lease in the blood and lives the soviet peoples lost fighting Hitler. We provided aid so they died where we would not. Otherwise we would have fought Hitler the way we fought in the Pacific. And that was fought like a SERIOUS, Indian War.
Yeah except for that collusion part with Nazi Germany.Soviet losses are all on there own leadership the murdering bastards that they were and still are.
@@GeorgeSemel russia lost ww1 against Germany 🇩🇪 russia survive ww2 only because American landlease LOL 😂 russians are clown’s russians can’t even defeat Ukraine without american landlease forget about fighting against German 🇩🇪 military
Of course the Soviet historian is going to say this. He didn't want to be disappeared by Stalin, and Beria. Black on Red by Robert Robinson gives a different view as a civilian worker in the Soviet Union
Stalin died in 1953 and beria too
I like your videos. A suggestion for improvement: install sound baffles in your studio so the you do not sound like you are in a tunnel / reduce echo.
Magnitude alone is not always decisive. A smaller amount of force applied at the right time and place can have a large effect.
The true value of LL wasn't in the tanks and aircraft that were sent but rather with the trucks, radios, aviation fuel, raw materials, food products and monetary loans made to the USSR
Tankies are never able to explain how any of the massive late war operations (Dnieper-Carpathian offensive, Bagration, Lvov-Sandomierz, and the final drive towards Germany) are possible without the American trucks alone.
Had they not had lend-lease they could've still produced trucks you know? Those trucks were a big boon. But they could've made them on their own, at the expense of tanks for example. Or something else.
Or why Shermans and M5s were given with priority to Guards' divisions...
@@alanywalany6460 not really, not in these numbers and soviet trucks were not even close in quality and abilities to Studebakers. They would end up like Germans, with trucks only for highest priority logistics and elite armored divisions, and everything else towed by horses.
@@czwarty7878 What do you base that on?
NAFO trolls are never able to explain how exactly would the Soviet Union lose without lend lease other than speculating that they would all just magically starve to death
Your intro statistic was for economic output for the entire country. Specifically, food and industrial goods. The second quote from the bourgeoisie author speaks of replacing “losses“ of military power. Assuming you’re not pushing an agenda, we have to assume that in Russia “food and industrial goods” translates as “military power.”
Me and Hitler are adamant that had it not been for Lend-lease, the USSR would have collapsed in 1943.
Why did you not mention the import of aluminium as lend lease! USSR did not have enough bauxite to produce the required amount of aluminium. 30% of all their needs came from USA. They built their fighter planes mainly out of wood, due to the shortage of aluminium. The greatest usage was the Klimov V2 diesel tank engine. Without US Lend Lease, they would not have been able to produce enough tank engines to cover the losses. Another hidden fact is the time where they received the British help. At the battle for Moscow, British Valentine tanks made up almost 40% of the tanks defending that front. Lastly the food import from the US cannot be underestimated at all. USSR lost 60% of arable land and more than 40% of its livestock.
30% is also out kinda out of context. They had no reserve of aluminum in 1941 and could not mine its resources to manufacture any for themselves until 1943. And you need aluminum for the engine of those aircraft.
another thing not mentioned is food. The axis took most of the breadbasket of russia. Lend Lease food fed them until they could recapture the area.
The Klimov V-2 was arguably one of the best and most important tank engines of the war, but using precious aluminum in its construction was a mistake. An engine with a cast-iron crankcase and blocks would have weighted slightly more, but that doesn't really matter that much in a tank.
@@jbepsilon It became good - after the war! Until late 1943 8 of 10 T-34 tank could not complete a 300 km trial before a major engine or transmission failure. Average lifespan before a major break down was 160 km. The T-34/85 you see competing were all produced after the war and with a 5 speed gearbox and a much improved radiator system. During the war road speed was kept down at w5 km/h on road and a half hour break cooling down the engines for every half hour traveled during summertime. Otherwise the engines would overheat and heads warp. Off-road the speed was limited to 12 km/h, because it was impossible for the driver to shift into third, before the tank had slowed below minimum speed for third gear to be engaged. The tactical speed of the T-34 was indeed very low, much lower than the tactical speed of the lumbering Churchill Mk VIII. That despite the very decent road speed, but if the hare has to rest for half an hour for every 800 meter sprint, then the turtle will catch it up. The T-34 only prevailed through sheer numbers, and those numbers were only happening with the massive American aid.
One of my new favorite WWII food facts is that Ettore Boiardi, the Italian immigrant who created the Chef Boyardee brand of canned pasta, was awarded the Order of Lenin for the amount and quality of Chef Boyardee that fed the Red Army.
The Americans spared their own b.lood by helping the Soviets with the Land Lease. The Soviet victory in the East (destruction of 70-80% of the German army) allowed the Normandy Landings, since Adolf H. had lost the war at Kursk in 1943 and Germany no longer had the necessary reinforcements to drive the Allies back to the sea.
First A bomb test July 1945.
@@nickdanger3802 russia lost ww1 against Germany 🇩🇪 russia survive ww2 only because American landlease LOL 😂 russians are clown’s russians can’t even defeat Ukraine without american landlease forget about fighting against German 🇩🇪 military
Britain and the US provided Russia with a huge amount of weapons and equipment. The bulk of this material probably had the most impact between the initial German invasion and Russian factories being relocated to the Ural Mountains. Russian war production didn't really get fully back on track until 1943-1944. Even then, the delivery of raw materials and other supplies continued to help immensely. Yet, after the end of the war Stalin refused to publicly acknowledge the vast amount of assistance he had received from the West. At the time, it was convenient and necessary for Russia to minimize its reliance on those same countries that were then regarded as Cold War enemies.
Lend lease was a huge by itself, but compare to the total materials Soviet Union spent at the war to win, it was small, about 4%. Do you understand it or not? For instance, this house is big, but if you compare this big house to skyscraper, this house became small.
I've got a question and an addition: Does "under Lend Lease" mean the material only that was delivered due to the Lend-Lease-Act dated February 18th 1941? Or is the term used - in the book and your video - to summarize all goods the Sovier Union and UK got from other nations? i.e. are the (very olden) destroyers the UK got in fall of 1940 due to the Destoyers-for-bases-aggrement inclueded? That question leads to an addition I wanna make: It is right, the UK got american support much sooner than the Soviet Union. The reason for that is that the UK fought Germany from the very beginning. In contrast to this from September 1939 till the german invasion of summer 1941 the Soviet Union fought several aggressiv campaigns itself: Poland, Finnland, Baltic nations, Romania. Nobody should be surprised that during this period the Soviet Union didn't get any support at all (from the USA and the UK) because the country lead by Stalin was an aggressor itself.
15 miilion pairs of boots, 3 mil. tonnes of beef, 600000 deuce and a halve, etc. The allies might not have saved the USSR but without the aid they may have met the Red Army at the Bug rather than the Elbe.
I'm an American Veteran with American Biases. The biggest surprise to me honestly out of all the Soviet Propaganda numbers? How careful they were to dance around and acknowledge "the great TIMED contributions". The Capatalists didn't SAVE the Soviet Union... they were just so Well Timed to Allow US(SR) to save OURSELVES
А разве это не так?
And the soviets basicly won the war on the ground. Kind of a team effort, its not like the west also like to deny this fact or anything
Well, Soviet Propaganda dance around internal numbers even more carefully. In 12 volume "History of ww2 " of soviet time you would not find neither number of tanks nor military plains in USSR at June 22 1941. Neither full numbers nor numbers in west part of USSR. You would find only numbers of "tanks and planes of new types" - which is like 15% of all.
Imagine someone generously providing you with much-needed financial assistance when you're truly in dire need. Later, as you amass wealth, you glance at your net worth and dismiss the money once given to you as insignificant.
The food deliveries are not heavily scrutinized enough. -Calories delivered by American aid would not have been replaced without lend lease. Fewer calories in the diet of an already malnurished population means more nutrition and disease related deaths. -Americans delivered tremendous quantities of canned meat. That meat provided a morale boost on top of the protein and calories. Not only did Soviets feel better treated, they knew that the Americans had their backs where they had deficits. The belief that Americans would fill in the cracks was reinforced in many ways, including food.
Without food, the red army may have turned into a starving mob. No amount of Lend Lease non food aid could offset that. I'm surprised this video doesn't mention the food aid.
@@briankoepke9891 Soviets had enough food to feed the Red Army. The population was the group most at risk of strategic deprivation.
>Insignificance is when you're so embarrassed about your industrial shortfalls you have to shop it out of your photos
The soviets never produced more than 50.000 T-34 for sure...
The numbers were not the biggest benefit. I greatest benefit was the technology. The Soviets were basically starting from scratch, turning their mainly agrarian economy into a more industrial economy. They brought in as many foreign experts and equipment as they could afford to help them get started but since most nations were anti communist, the only way they would have received all the advanced technology they did was from mostly lend lease ( and spying). Lend Lease also allowed them to focus on what they were good at (tanks and combat equipment)..
Western aid allowed division of labor that enormously increased effiecency and industrial output of the russian economy which would never have been possible otherwise. Without millions of american food rations would soldiers, miners and factory workers have been forced to work in agriculture instead. And then you would have seen less iron produced, less tanks produced and fewer soldiers at the frontline. And with less russian troops and tanks to worry about could the Germans now focus their defence on a fewer points along the frontline and fight more effectivly. Russia would have been forced to down scale their own tank production if they had to upscale their own production of trucks and locomotives if they couldn't get those things from the west.
That's true. But that's begin long before the Great Patriotic War. e.g. Ford's "russian Detroit" etc. Lend lease allowed to focus on tanks not the trucks. Lend lease was not crucial but it made a big contribution to the victory.
Soviets traded a lot of machine tools and military tech from the Molotov-Ribbentrop cooperation 1939-41 pact. I heard that in 1940 up to 25% of IIIrd Reich grain, fuel and rare metals consumption was supplied from USSR, but Soviets got more out of that deal. Soviets even got blueprints for a Bismark battleship and a heavy cruiser hull.
@@PaciatInteresting, but I think you have posted this under the wrong comment
Well, during the war particularly technology impact was not so big.
The most important numbers are the lend lease amounts during and prior to 1942. By 1943 the Soviets had clearly turned the corner and largely stopped the German advance. More assistance is always welcome of course, but it is safe to say assistance given in 1942 was far more decisive than assistance given in 1944. Had the Germans not been stopped by the end of 1942 even twice the amount could have been too little too late.
The importance of the transport trucks and the required petroleum products is vastly underappreciated. The German's encountered the problem of long supply lines and horse drawn support. Mechanized warfare is largely a matter of logistics, and early German success was largely a matter of Russian weakness in logistics, which lend-lease addressed, The Ukraine conflict underscores this continuing weakness of Russia, as their mechanized units are easily countered by Ukraine.
I think people focus too much on the planes and tanks and less on supplies. The amount of fuel, clothes, food, ammo, etc that was sent certainly made a good bit of a difference early in the war as the Soviets ground the Nazis to a halt and simultaneously transported huge manufacturing centers thousands of miles eastward. They probably still would have won without the help, but it would've been a lot harder.
You forgot Transport trucks as well
With infinite integrity, men and full stomachs maybe? The country would've collapsed, especially because the germans would've kept being in an advantageous position. If they won, which is very unlikely, every city would've been emptied and entire generations lost because of the effort on their own. The soviets and any country in its place would've needed to turn into cyborg stuff to resist such an onslaught and deprivation, it's not a knock if "USSR alone vs" can't be successful.
Communists do not appreciate. China didn't appreciate Soviet's assistance. North Korea does not appreciate China's help in Korea War either.
USSR with Lend-Lease just about won the war at the cost of an entire generation. USSR without Lend-Lease would've been like WW2 China: impotently grinding underequipped manpower against superior firepower on land and totally absent in the air and sea.
I am a Lil late to the discussion but something people often don't realize that the soviets defense was on a knifes edge WITH lend lease. Without it the soviets would have had to make the difficult choice between siphoning manpower for production and resource extraction or putting them on the front.
What about the factories that where shipped over
That happened several times since mid 30s. Soviets traded a lot of machine tools and military tech from the Molotov-Ribbentrop cooperation 1939-41 pact. I heard that in 1940 up to 25% of IIIrd Reich grain, fuel and rare metals consumption was supplied from USSR, but Soviets got more out of that deal. Soviets even got blueprints for a Bismark battleship and a heavy cruiser hull.
-The Allied bombing campaign cut German munitions production by 40%, it occupied 50% of the Luftwaffe, It smashed German fuel production and transport by 80% for months. The allied bombing campaign probably meant that only 6000 Panthers reached the front lines instead of 10,000 or 12,000, almost completely stopped StuG III production. The allies campaign in North Africa leading to the Surrender of Rommel s army which was as large as the sixth army loss at Stalingrad. To that which we can add the Allied campaigns in Normandy, Sicily and northern Italy. - it’s likely Germany could’ve won without the Western Allies distracting them. The Russian completely lacked the ability to attack the German fuel industry or conduct strategic bombing. The effort required to make 800 U-boats probably would’ve produced 20,000 tanks. -I found David Glanz’s, histories more and more annoying. Despite his work in translating Soviet sources, he just comes across as Philo-Russian and anti German in a sort of haughty way.
You're right that the Soviet Union profited significantly from allied aid, however the fact that a country originating from the backwards semi feudal Russia, that had been devastated by civil war just 20 years prior, managed to put out industrial outputs rivaling the USA and British Empire in many areas with a population much lower than the USA or the British Empire, the two most relevant industrial great powers since the 19th century, is definitely quite impressive nevertheless and very much collides with the narrative of the inferiority of a planned economy.
I’d imagine it’s easy to do when your workers are forced under guard and at gun point, not to mention prisoners of war.
Without a custom layeth the Russians would not have been able to build the T34-85 they could not have milled the turret ring correctly.
At soviet school we were taught that Lend-Lease WAS SIGNIFICANT, BUT NOT CRUCIAL for winning the war. It helped to decrease losses both of military and civilian personnel, and increase quality of soviets metal surpassing german. But overall, Soviet Union would have won the war even without Lend-Lease yet with higher losses and more suffering. That is early 90-s history books in Kazakh SSR.
I am curious how the USSR would have handled even higher losses than they ended up suffering. 20 million men is already a crippling amount of manpower loss but imagining losing even a few more million or worse the war continuing for another 2 years. after all Germany didn't fight alone and with extra time they might have been able to harden their production lines against allied bombing campaigns and dig in with more defensive fortifications along the eastern front if the soviet advance had slowed down much.
@@dominuslogik484 "The Germans would harden their production lines" when by Kursk they already had reliability issues.
The Soviet “perspective” is that Maskirovka (deception) is a formally acknowledged part of their military and political strategy. In other words, what the Soviets SAY reflects only what they WANT to be true at the time they said it. They probably don’t believe it themselves. The context of Allied supplies under lend-lease cannot properly be measured in tonnage. Given the costs and dangers of convoys to Russia, it would have been incredibly stupid for the Allies to ship high-volume, low-value supplies to Russia. Instead, they focused on the things that the Soviets could not supply for themselves AT THE TIME. Measuring the importance of those supplies only by their tonnage is like saying that the spark-plugs in your car don’t weight very much, so they are not important. Try leaving them out and see how well your car runs. 🙄. It’s a dishonest argument, and always has been.
" *Maskirovka* " They don't use it as a standalone term. Only in the West it is seen as something specific and distinguishable from common deception. " *what the Soviets SAY reflects only what they WANT to be true* " As opposed to the West, which never does the same thing? " *The context of Allied supplies under lend-lease cannot properly be measured in tonnage.* " At "tipping point" theory. The interesting conclusion resulting from this view is, that a mere 2% of USA's GDP won the whole war. Kinda silly, isn't it? BTW - what you say obviously does not reflect what you want to be true. You wouldn't go there, would you?
@@bakters Someone's very salty. Yes, what was a miniscule portion of USA's production output tipped the scales in favor of allies in Europe, whether you like it or what.
@@bakters In 1938 the US had a GDP per capita of 6436. In that same year the USSR had a GDP per capita of 2150. 2% of the US GDP is a comically large amount of foreign aid. Especially when the Soviets had a mere third of the US economy.
@@colbygordon6936 " *Soviets had a mere third of the US economy* " That would amount to about 6% of their GDP, which is roughly in sync with what they say. This is not a "comically large" contribution.
@@czwarty7878 " *tipped the scales* " What have the USA done with the *rest* of their war effort? Like, literally nothing? C'mon people. Why it's so hard to think straight? BTW - I'm not a Soviet lover, by a *long* shot too. I'm from your country.
As a Russian, I will say that many of the country's WWII military museums have corners with the Lend-Lease episode, we remember. It's just that often the significance of the Lend-Lease is lost amidst the incredibly deadly and massive fighting that brought the German advance to a halt later, like Stalingrad.
Thank you
Thank you for the Glantz quote showing once again that he is nothing more than a fanboy. Seriously the man has made a career on republishing the ramblings of the Soviet General Staff.
Having just read Glantz's "After Stalingrad", I must disagree. Who is he a fanboy of? The "ramblings" are his own diligent research, which was often groundbreaking- and very much disliked by Soviet apologists/Russian chauvinists. At the same time, he has little use for German influenced narratives which became so popular in the Cold War West. Yes, his books are long and bulky-they are for serious readers, and attempt (not always successfully!) to combine in depth, scholarly research with popularity and readability.
Maybe all the western countries should apologies and promise never to try and help another communist country with anything ever again.
They already did.
Soviet ingratitude is astonishing.
What an embarrassing mistake it was to accept any lend lease. It would've been better having no lend lease even it if meant millions of more causalities.
U know they fought your war for you right?
@@slopeisdope2293 Nope, they fought for themselves and continuation of their slavery. But this is besides the point. First, let's admit the fact of the deal with one devil against another. Second, LL made possible Soviets survival, yet they apply tremendous efforts to belittle it's importance and role of the western allies, pretty much since mid or late 40s. I'd say if West left Soviet's to their devices, the result would be similar but Germans power would be wasted on futile attempts to control vast backwards country and make unproductive population work for their war efforts
@@artyommakarov403 I expected nothing different from Soviet- brainwashed people.
@@artyommakarov403 you do realize The high casualties you were bred to be proud of (which I find extremely weird) were mostly inflicted by dumbness of command cadre of red army, don't you? And this was Soviet leaders who asked, if not BEGGED, for lend lease?
I recently read that Soviet high-octane aviation fuel was almost entirely made using USA-supplied additives. Just after the war (or just before the end...) inital planning for an East v West 'continuation war' made the point that Soviet 'planes would be hugely outlassed by Western models not only due to technical differences, but also because the Soviet fuel would be very poor without those additives. It was in specialised areas like this, and the supply of radioe, trucks, locomotives, lead ingots (for bullets) , telephone cable, etc., that LL was really significant. And food of course! From "The taste of War", award winning book on WW2 and food - "..LL foodstuffs increased the availability of sugar and vegetables in the SU by as nuch as half, and ... meat by one-fifth, ...doubled the amount of fats..." "Without the American aid many more Soviet civilians would undoubtedly have starved to death." It is estimated that over 2 million Soviet civilians starved to death during the war - not in German-occupied areas; this is those who starved in areas continuously held by the Soviets - and without LL that figure would have been far, far higher.
I blame Stalin and the cold war for such nonsense. None of allies won the war by themselves. Period.
Stalin never said aid was insignificant. Don’t lie.
One thing that you failed to mention:in 1941 and 1942 western aid was vital to soviet union survival.Without it,the soviet would not have been able to resist the germans. Not to mention the importance of food delivered to the soviets
Most important part is aviation fuel, which was more than 50% lend-lease
A simple ‘thank you’ would have sufficed.
What a load of crap. If it weren't for Lend-Lease, the Soviets would have had no logistics and no operational mobility. Their aircraft production would have been hampered as well, due to a lack of specialized metals.
Stalin on cameras said, that they couldn't have won without lend lease! 128 locomotives and 14 million boots, 10,000 trucks were definitely important to logistics! (Moving stuff!) The Russians had a museum to lend-lease, till Putin disappeared!😅
Posturing nonsense from the factory of propaganda. Without the rubber, food, radios, trucks and weapons, they would have had a long walk to Berlin.
Maybe Soviets assume that if they didnt get that stuff, other countries would. And often this material would be better used than the Soviets used it - thus its not very important that THEY got it. :D
They most likely wouldn't walk to Berlin at all. They could defend Russian soil, but wouldn't be able to mount offensive into Germany, that's for sure.
Wearing what on their feet?
@@motherlesschild102Kirza boots,50 million of them, allied LL boots were basically insignificant compared to the number of home production ones.
The United States also lent warships to the U.S.S.R, for example the Omaha class light Cruiser under the Soviet name Murmansk was used to bolster the Soviet fleet until the wars end, to which after the war the ship was returned to the U.S navy.
I think you should listen to your recorded audio maybe once or twice more. There are quite a lot of spoken errors in there. Just one: 9:35