Lend Lease of WW2: was it paid by Soviet Union?

Discussions on all aspects of the USSR, from the Russian Civil War till the end of the Great Patriotic War and the war against Japan. Hosted by Art.
durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Lend Lease of WW2: was it paid by Soviet Union?

#1

Post by durb » 18 Mar 2015, 02:26

One thing that has bothered me is did Soviet Union pay some compensation and how much for the Lend-Lease aid it received from USA/Britain. Here what wiki says about US/USSR Lend-Lease payments:

While repayment of the interest-free loans was required after the end of the war under the act, in practice the U.S. did not expect to be repaid by the USSR after the war. The U.S. received $2M in reverse Lend-Lease from the USSR. This was mostly in the form of landing, servicing, and refueling of transport aircraft; some industrial machinery and rare minerals were sent to the U.S. The U.S. asked for $1.3B at the cessation of hostilities to settle the debt, but was only offered $170M by the USSR. The dispute remained unresolved until 1972, when the U.S. accepted an offer from the USSR to repay $722M linked to grain shipments from the U.S., with the remainder being written off. During the war the USSR provided an unknown number of shipments of rare minerals to the US Treasury as a form of cashless repayment of Lend-Lease. This was agreed before the signing of the first protocol on 1 October 1941 and extension of credit.

So something was paid in the end to USA at least (how about Britain?).

In some Soviet photographs I have seen P-39 fighters with the Russian text that they have been funded by the donations of some Soviet collective organizations and citizens. But taking in account the above it was more likely that USA or US taxpayers "donated" them.

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5821
Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
Location: Spain

Re: Lend Lease of WW2: was it paid by Soviet Union?

#2

Post by Ironmachine » 18 Mar 2015, 09:05

This may be of interest:
THERE are so many issues in US-Soviet relations that the lend-lease debt stemming from World War II tends to be overlooked. But this is one issue with a relatively simple solution. First some background: Under the Lend-Lease Act of 1941, the United States sent billions of dollars of war materiel to its allies while postponing the question of payment until after the war. In the euphoria of victory, the United States forgave all except materiel which would be useful to the postwar civilian economy (trucks, for example). In the case of the Soviet Union, this residual civilian-type lend-lease was valued by the United States at $2.6 billion (out of total lend-lease to the Soviet Union of $10.8 billion). The Soviet government at first offered to pay $170 million.
Negotiations dragged on intermittently for 25 years. Then in 1972 agreement was reached on $722 million to be paid in installments running through 2001. The catch was that the lend-lease settlement was dependent on implementation of a trade agreement under which the US would extend most-favored-nation treatment to the Soviet Union. The trade agreement was scuttled by the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974, which made most-favored-nation treatment contingent on Soviet liberalization of Jewish emigration. When the Soviets balked on emigration, the trade and lend-lease agreements came crashing down. By that point, the Soviets had actually paid $48 million, leaving a balance of $674 million.
http://www.csmonitor.com/1985/0703/elend-f.html
The article has a date of 1985, can't say if later a new agreement was reached.


Hoist40
Member
Posts: 215
Joined: 30 Oct 2009, 17:59

Re: Lend Lease of WW2: was it paid by Soviet Union?

#3

Post by Hoist40 » 19 Mar 2015, 13:35

Lend Lease was no cost to the user for anything consumed during the war. So all equipment, food, fuel, etc that was used and consumed/destroyed during the war was paid for by the US taxpayer. After the war any equipment still servable was supposed to be returned to the US. Only equipment/supplies kept after the war was considered to be a debt and in the case of Britain was discounted 90% but they got a billion dollar loan at the end of the war which added to the debt.

User avatar
Der Alte Fritz
Member
Posts: 2171
Joined: 13 Dec 2007, 22:43
Location: Kent United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Lend Lease of WW2: was it paid by Soviet Union?

#4

Post by Der Alte Fritz » 20 Mar 2015, 00:20

There is something profoundly disturbing about the richest nation on earth with a living standard several multiples higher than Britain or the USSR, asking for payment when the continental United States suffered no physical damage to its country and lost 420,000 military and civilian dead compared to the destruction visited on the United Kingdom and its 450,900 (with a third of the population) dead and the USSR which lost 40% of its economy and infrastructure, either destroyed or carted away and a staggering 24,000,000 military and civilian dead. For every US citizen who died the USSR lost 57 dead. To repay the US Lend Lease debt of 1.38 billion dollars values the life of every dead Soviet citizen at only $55. Whereas the lowliest dead GI was awarded a death gratuity of 6 months pay or $300.

By contrast the GI Bill of 1944 cost the US taxpayer $14.5 billion and covered some 7.8 million soldiers or $1858 each. Likewise Switzerland was paid $64 million dollars for the death of just 55 Swiss citizens by a bombing raid by US plans that hit the wrong target. That valued every Swiss life at $1.3 million dollars.

So while $1.3 billion sounds a lot, if it stopped US boys being killed (and 4 out of 5 German soldiers were killed by the forces of the USSR,) it sounds like the United States got itself a bargain.

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5643
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Lend Lease of WW2: was it paid by Soviet Union?

#5

Post by OpanaPointer » 20 Mar 2015, 01:22

Do you not know that capitalists rule here?
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: Lend Lease of WW2: was it paid by Soviet Union?

#6

Post by Rob Stuart » 20 Mar 2015, 08:46

Hoist40 wrote:Lend Lease was no cost to the user for anything consumed during the war. So all equipment, food, fuel, etc that was used and consumed/destroyed during the war was paid for by the US taxpayer. After the war any equipment still servable was supposed to be returned to the US. Only equipment/supplies kept after the war was considered to be a debt and in the case of Britain was discounted 90% but they got a billion dollar loan at the end of the war which added to the debt.
I'm not sure how many thousands of 2.5 ton trucks were provided to the USSR through Lend-Lease, but what would have been the point of giving them back to the US when the US military was de-mobilizing and already had more than it needed? Also, I presume that it was the USSR which would have been expected to pay the costs of shipping them back to the US, so potentially it would have cost Moscow more to ship them to the US than Washington would earn by selling them on the civilian market as war surplus. Ditto for C-47s provided to the UK, the recovery of which would also weaken the air force of an important ally without strengthening the US air arms.

The Canadian equivalent of Lead-Lease was Mutual Aid, which, so far as I know, did not require the recipient to return or pay for the materiel in question when the war ended.

Hoist40
Member
Posts: 215
Joined: 30 Oct 2009, 17:59

Re: Lend Lease of WW2: was it paid by Soviet Union?

#7

Post by Hoist40 » 20 Mar 2015, 15:32

The point of either giving back or destroying or paying for those trucks and planes is that is what the agreement said when it was agreed to. It was called Lend/Lease, not give away everything for free. Why is the US going deeper into debt OK and not the Soviets or British. Why is the US taxpayer suppose to pay for the wars of the British or Soviet empires? And in the case of the British it got everything free during the war, it got a 90% discount on everything kept after the war, it got a billion dollar loan on top of it, and it got such a low interest rate on paying back that it did not pay it back until a few years ago. Adding all that together its probable that the US paid the British to take lend/lease and the Soviets probably would have gotten the same deal if they had not decided to occupy Eastern Europe for th next 50 years.

And please no sob stories about Soviet dead or British fighting alone. That was your problems, the Soviets had been slaughtering your own people since the Soviet Union started and Britain was never alone since it was an Empire which stretched around the world and wanted to play power politics in Europe but did not want to pay for it.

durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Lend Lease of WW2: was it paid by Soviet Union?

#8

Post by durb » 20 Mar 2015, 17:56

Stalin himself recognized (behind closed doors to his Western Allies) after the war that Lend Lease was vital to keep Soviet Union fighting against Germany, although during Cold War the importance of Lend Lease was diminished in official Soviet history with the claims that it was rather insignificant and that the equipment provided was second quality scrap compared to USSR own aircraft and other military equipment. Besides aircraft, guns and other military equipment USA supplied USSR also with significant deliveries of fuel and food which is often forgotten.

It is probable that USSR would not have standed alone with its own resources and without any Lend Lease - or at least it would have taken longer time for Soviets to win the war just with their own resources.

Of course from the US point of view the later USSR behaviour was one of the ingratitude to put it mildly - it was the unwillingness to recognize the importance that capitalists kept socialist fatherland enough supplied to combat and eventually defeat Nazi Germany. When it comes to money I guess that it was from the beginning realised by US/British that there would be only little economical compensation for it and that most of Lend Lease had thus a nature of donation. It was also clear after the war when the European parts of USSR were completely in ruins that USSR was unable to pay for Lend Lease nothing more than some symbolic compensation.

I think that what most has hurted feelings of US/British is the attitude adopted in later official Soviet war history which tried to diminish the importance of Lend Lease as much as possible. Claiming that it was something secondary without which USSR would well have survived alone. Also making propaganda paintings in American warplanes that they were funded by donations of Soviet citizens was grossly falsifying the fact that in practice they were donated by Uncle Sam.

Official Soviet history writing and propaganda took the stand that they owed nothing or only little for Lend Lease and thus had not any obligation to pay a single cent for it or be honestly grateful for it. And speaking of lost lives - many British/US sailors lost their lives at the Arctic Sea when the Lend Lease convoys were attacked by Germans. It was not just the equipment and other stuff, but also the cost of its deliveries and lost sailors which should be taken in account.

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: Lend Lease of WW2: was it paid by Soviet Union?

#9

Post by Rob Stuart » 20 Mar 2015, 22:58

Hoist40 wrote:Why is the US going deeper into debt OK and not the Soviets or British. Why is the US taxpayer suppose to pay for the wars of the British or Soviet empires?
In point of fact, the US did not go deeper into debt. It emerged from the war richer than ever. Furthermore, the US taxpayer did not pay for the wars of the British or Soviet empires. Lend-Lease was not enacted until the spring of 1941, so almost all Lead-Lease materiel was provided after the US became a belligerent. It was thus an American war as much as anyone else's. If the US has not supplied P-39s to the USSR then some of the German aircraft they were used to destroy and German personnel they were used to kill would have survived and later killed US personnel. And if the US had not supplied landing craft to the British and Canadians then more Americans would have died on D-Day than actually did. Asking its allies to pay for US materiel supplied to them to fight America's enemies was akin to asking Texas to pay the federal government for equipment provided to Texas National Guard units which served overseas.

Hoist40
Member
Posts: 215
Joined: 30 Oct 2009, 17:59

Re: Lend Lease of WW2: was it paid by Soviet Union?

#10

Post by Hoist40 » 21 Mar 2015, 13:45

In 1941 the US government had $49 billion in debt, in 1946 it had $269 billion in debt. So how was it richer?

And just because the US was at war does not mean that it pays other countries debts. If so does this mean that the US can transfer trillions of debt to Britain since we are both fighting the "War on Terror". Where is the free equipment from Britain being supplied to the US since the US is doing most of the fighting

And no it is not like the US and Texas, Texas is part of the US. The British Empire nor the Soviet Empire were not part of the US and the US is not responsible for their debts nor responsible to supply them with anything even if both are at war with the same countries.

And Britain even though the US gave them billions(equivalent of trillions now) in free stuff they still complain. And the Soviet Union has nothing to complain about since they were allies with Germany in attacking Poland.

LineDoggie
Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06

Re: Lend Lease of WW2: was it paid by Soviet Union?

#11

Post by LineDoggie » 21 Mar 2015, 21:26

Der Alte Fritz wrote:There is something profoundly disturbing about the richest nation on earth with a living standard several multiples higher than Britain or the USSR, asking for payment when the continental United States suffered no physical damage to its country and lost 420,000 military and civilian dead compared to the destruction visited on the United Kingdom and its 450,900 (with a third of the population) dead and the USSR which lost 40% of its economy and infrastructure, either destroyed or carted away and a staggering 24,000,000 military and civilian dead. For every US citizen who died the USSR lost 57 dead. To repay the US Lend Lease debt of 1.38 billion dollars values the life of every dead Soviet citizen at only $55. Whereas the lowliest dead GI was awarded a death gratuity of 6 months pay or $300.

By contrast the GI Bill of 1944 cost the US taxpayer $14.5 billion and covered some 7.8 million soldiers or $1858 each. Likewise Switzerland was paid $64 million dollars for the death of just 55 Swiss citizens by a bombing raid by US plans that hit the wrong target. That valued every Swiss life at $1.3 million dollars.

So while $1.3 billion sounds a lot, if it stopped US boys being killed (and 4 out of 5 German soldiers were killed by the forces of the USSR,) it sounds like the United States got itself a bargain.
Not profoundly disturbing at all...

Why would you expect the US taxpayers to eat the cost of feeding, clothing, medicines for the civilians and arming the military of the UK, USSR, Free France, Nationalist China, Belgium, Ethiopia, Greece, Iran, Norway, Poland, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico Nicaragua, Paraguay, Uruguay, Peru, Venezuela ?

Because we weren't invaded or Bombed on the continental USA we were supposed to prostrate ourselves in gratitude to those who were? We didnt want the war in the first place, tried to stay out of it till Pearl Harbor was attacked.

SOURCE- http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref ... html#index
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach

LineDoggie
Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06

Re: Lend Lease of WW2: was it paid by Soviet Union?

#12

Post by LineDoggie » 21 Mar 2015, 21:29

Rob Stuart wrote:
Hoist40 wrote:Why is the US going deeper into debt OK and not the Soviets or British. Why is the US taxpayer suppose to pay for the wars of the British or Soviet empires?
In point of fact, the US did not go deeper into debt. It emerged from the war richer than ever. Furthermore, the US taxpayer did not pay for the wars of the British or Soviet empires. Lend-Lease was not enacted until the spring of 1941, so almost all Lead-Lease materiel was provided after the US became a belligerent. It was thus an American war as much as anyone else's. If the US has not supplied P-39s to the USSR then some of the German aircraft they were used to destroy and German personnel they were used to kill would have survived and later killed US personnel. And if the US had not supplied landing craft to the British and Canadians then more Americans would have died on D-Day than actually did. Asking its allies to pay for US materiel supplied to them to fight America's enemies was akin to asking Texas to pay the federal government for equipment provided to Texas National Guard units which served overseas.
And I remember how the Joint chiefs were getting tired of the UK wanting to attack not in France But Italy and in Greece and in the Balkans frittering away men and material and that finally the US chiefs said no More to side shows
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: Lend Lease of WW2: was it paid by Soviet Union?

#13

Post by steverodgers801 » 22 Mar 2015, 05:19

Considering that the Soviets were fighting the majority of German troops it was only right we supply the equipment they needed to fight the Germans. After the war the US was the only country to have its industrial might intact. The Soviets despite their growth during the war still had a tremendous amount of rebuilding to do. Britain had also suffered. So in order to keep our people working we agreed to supply everything needed, this also kept the Communists from exploiting the misery of people and expanding their control of Europe. I would suggest you look up the Marshall plan.

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: Lend Lease of WW2: was it paid by Soviet Union?

#14

Post by steverodgers801 » 22 Mar 2015, 05:21

Also consider the mistake France and Britain made before the war of letting all their allies be over run, Britain fought alone because of the policy. IF keeping our allies in the war meant supplying goods then that was a small price to pay to avoid fighting alone

LineDoggie
Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06

Re: Lend Lease of WW2: was it paid by Soviet Union?

#15

Post by LineDoggie » 24 Mar 2015, 20:27

steverodgers801 wrote:Considering that the Soviets were fighting the majority of German troops it was only right we supply the equipment they needed to fight the Germans. After the war the US was the only country to have its industrial might intact. The Soviets despite their growth during the war still had a tremendous amount of rebuilding to do. Britain had also suffered. So in order to keep our people working we agreed to supply everything needed, this also kept the Communists from exploiting the misery of people and expanding their control of Europe. I would suggest you look up the Marshall plan.
Uh No it wasnt only right, remember up till june 22nd 1941 the Soviets were nazi Allies by treaty, helped stab poland in the back by invading it after germany also invaded. They encouraged French ordnance workers in 1939-40 to strike, to help their Allies in Berlin. they encouraged French trops to desert and hit their morale with propaganda of german invincibility.

once they war was in full swing they deliberately let the Warsaw uprising fail, not only not helping them but refusing to let the USAAF & RAF drop supplies to the Polish Home Army. they murdered 10,000 Polish officers at Katyn.

Frankly they reaped what they'd sown but allying themselves with Hitler
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach

Post Reply

Return to “The Soviet Union at War 1917-1945”