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

[steverodgers801]

So you would rather the Soviets quit the war and let the west face the Germans alone. Stalin only signed a treaty with the Germans because France and Britain never made a serious effort. They had abandoned the Czechs and Poles so even if they had made an effort to sign a treaty which they never did, why should Stalin trust them to act if the Soviets did fight them. The last delegation the allies sent to Russia went by slow boat, and the delegation had no one with any actual authority. The only thing the delegation did was try to find out what effort Stalin would make, while offering nothing in return. Stalin did let the Poles be killed, but the Poles made a fatal mistake of attacking too early. The Soviets were at the end of a 400 mile offense.

[LineDoggie]

So you would rather the Soviets quit the war and let the west face the Germans alone. Stalin only signed a treaty with the Germans because France and Britain never made a serious effort. They had abandoned the Czechs and Poles so even if they had made an effort to sign a treaty which they never did, why should Stalin trust them to act if the Soviets did fight them. The last delegation the allies sent to Russia went by slow boat, and the delegation had no one with any actual authority. The only thing the delegation did was try to find out what effort Stalin would make, while offering nothing in return. Stalin did let the Poles be killed, but the Poles made a fatal mistake of attacking too early. The Soviets were at the end of a 400 mile offense.

Several things to remember-

Stalin was never going to quit the war, as it would mean the end of him, literally. And you should remember from June 1940 to June 1941 it was the British who faced Hitler alone while his allies the soviets sent him trainloads of ore and material worth over 576 million reichsmarks

1,600,000 tons of grains
900,000 tons of oil
200,000 tons of cotton
140,000 tons of manganese
200,000 tons of phosphates
20,000 tons of chrome ore
18,000 tons of rubber
100,000 tons of soybeans
500,000 tons of iron ores
300,000 tons of scrap metal and pig iron
2,000 kilograms of platinum


the British were in no position to fight in 1938. Much of their forces were still being equipped with modern weapons and the Army was small, production of tanks and aircraft was not on a war footing- what would you have them do?

in 1938 the Wehrmacht has 2,200,000 men mobilized
the British regular Army was 220,000 men in the UK, India, Hong Kong, Singapore, Burma, etc.

the Poles attacked too early because they wanted to Liberate Warsaw before the soviets arrived. The Poles had this silly idea they could keep their sovereignty, but the soviets had other ideas.

[Rob Stuart]

So you would rather the Soviets quit the war and let the west face the Germans alone. Stalin only signed a treaty with the Germans because France and Britain never made a serious effort. They had abandoned the Czechs and Poles so even if they had made an effort to sign a treaty which they never did, why should Stalin trust them to act if the Soviets did fight them. The last delegation the allies sent to Russia went by slow boat, and the delegation had no one with any actual authority. The only thing the delegation did was try to find out what effort Stalin would make, while offering nothing in return. Stalin did let the Poles be killed, but the Poles made a fatal mistake of attacking too early. The Soviets were at the end of a 400 mile offense.

Several things to remember-

Stalin was never going to quit the war, as it would mean the end of him, literally. And you should remember from June 1940 to June 1941 it was the British who faced Hitler alone while his allies the soviets sent him trainloads of ore and material worth over 576 million reichsmarks

1,600,000 tons of grains
900,000 tons of oil
200,000 tons of cotton
140,000 tons of manganese
200,000 tons of phosphates
20,000 tons of chrome ore
18,000 tons of rubber
100,000 tons of soybeans
500,000 tons of iron ores
300,000 tons of scrap metal and pig iron
2,000 kilograms of platinum


the British were in no position to fight in 1938. Much of their forces were still being equipped with modern weapons and the Army was small, production of tanks and aircraft was not on a war footing- what would you have them do?

in 1938 the Wehrmacht has 2,200,000 men mobilized
the British regular Army was 220,000 men in the UK, India, Hong Kong, Singapore, Burma, etc.

the Poles attacked too early because they wanted to Liberate Warsaw before the soviets arrived. The Poles had this silly idea they could keep their sovereignty, but the soviets had other ideas.

This is all irrelevant. Once the US was in the war it was in its interest and would save American lives to supply its allies with materiel which would be thrown into the fight against America's enemies. And while it's probably true that Stalin was never going to quit the war, it would have been stupid to deny him the trucks, P-39s and so on which would allow him to kill more Germans, destroy more German tanks, etc, than he might have done without US assistance. Or do you think that it would have been better for the US to have spent more lives so that it could spend less money?

[Karelia]

This is all irrelevant. Once the US was in the war it was in its interest and would save American lives to supply its allies with materiel which would be thrown into the fight against America's enemies. And while it's probably true that Stalin was never going to quit the war, it would have been stupid to deny him the trucks, P-39s and so on which would allow him to kill more Germans, destroy more German tanks, etc, than he might have done without US assistance. Or do you think that it would have been better for the US to have spent more lives so that it could spend less money?

Was it better for the US and it's interests to have the soviets conquer half of Europe for half of the century - with the US generous supplies?

If the US had restricted or even (gradually?) ceased the supplies for the soviets e.g. after Kursk in 1943 (or latest mid-1944), had the soviets still kept fighting the Germans but advanced less. That probably would have meant more US casualties then, but the situation after the war would have been very different. Who knows - there even might have been no Korean and/or Vietnam wars! After all those wars happened, because after the WW2 the SU was a new super power too - thanks to the USA (and the captured German scientists)...

[LineDoggie]

This is all irrelevant. Once the US was in the war it was in its interest and would save American lives to supply its allies with materiel which would be thrown into the fight against America's enemies. And while it's probably true that Stalin was never going to quit the war, it would have been stupid to deny him the trucks, P-39s and so on which would allow him to kill more Germans, destroy more German tanks, etc, than he might have done without US assistance. Or do you think that it would have been better for the US to have spent more lives so that it could spend less money?

No actually its not irrelevant.

the question put forth was why should the US have expected to be paid back for Lend Lease. For some reason many here seem to think the US should have provided for free all these supplies.

I also note the grand help the soviets gave the US/UK/Aust/China in the PTO, ugatz until 1945 when they raged in to loot and steal land

[Hoist40]

The US did supply Lend Lease for free during the war

I will repeat this since some don’t seem to realize it

The US did supply Lend Lease for free during the war

What were talking about is after the war and whether countries should pay for equipment/materials kept after the war

[steverodgers801]

So Rob, you don't count the French and Czech armies as allies. The Czechs alone had close to a million men. The Poles also would be a threat if things went badly. As I stated Stalin was convinced the French and British wanted him to start a war with Germany and would do nothing to help.

[steverodgers801]

Question how were the British better off fighting with out allies???

[steverodgers801]

Also those 2.2 million men that comes from counting every person in training, active or reservists in Germany verses counting only active duty men in the British army. Plus we all know how London would be leveled to dust by the JU 52 transport/bomber and other type aircraft. The Germans had a few He 111's, most of the other were light or Psuedo bombers. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/German ... Gr%C3%BCn)

[Rob Stuart]

So Rob, you don't count the French and Czech armies as allies. The Czechs alone had close to a million men. The Poles also would be a threat if things went badly. As I stated Stalin was convinced the French and British wanted him to start a war with Germany and would do nothing to help.

Did you mean to address this question to someone else? I've said nothing about this, and really don't understand what point you're trying to make here.

[steverodgers801]

Rob sorry I thought you stated the British only had 200,000 men against the German 2.2 million. You must have quoted some one

[LineDoggie]

Rob sorry I thought you stated the British only had 200,000 men against the German 2.2 million. You must have quoted some one

You must have read wrong when making your accusation

[steverodgers801]

It was part of a quote you used, I just didn't realize you were quoting

[spgapi]

Anthony Eden, 1942 report

[jeffreyd357]

I'm sorry Steve I'm just not convinced that the US was obligated to provide anything under the pretext of limiting our own casualties. That being said I'm sure that was a factor but not the entire case point. It doesn't matter how rich or poor the US was at the time it was a deal. Anyway gentlemen this is my first post and I thought your arguments were well thought out and quite feisty. Thanks for listening to another side opinion and can't wait for a sidebar Yours truly Jeff