Russians simply won by the power of numbers

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 08 Apr 2005 19:29

Kunikov wrote:
You are missing my point, the fact that the Soviet Union bore the brunt of that war in essence is 'priceless', no amount of money can be put on what the USSR has to endure during that war, what the US did was helpful, but to think that they could have 'won' the war without the USSR is laughable at worst. That being said, lend lease shouldn't have been a 'lease' at all, if the USSR would have lost then Europe would have been in for a fate much worse than what they endured at the hands of the Soviet Union. What America gave to the USSR helped in saving American lives in the west, the debt should be seen as 'paid' in full.
USSR did bear the brunt of land warfare. That is truth.

The reason for that was geopolitics and unavoidable aggression between national-socialist and communist system. USA did what it did the best - manufacture. There is no reason to dismiss that help.

And yes, US could had done it by themselves. Quite messy solution, but solution to nazism anyway... (BTW. If for some reason USSR and Germany would had been in peace with each other - Germany ruling western Europe - US could had gone further if they would had started to walk that path...).


Regards,
Mark V

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003 18:03

Post by RichTO90 » 08 Apr 2005 19:37

Kunikov wrote:You are missing my point, the fact that the Soviet Union bore the brunt of that war in essence is 'priceless',
No, you appear to be missing the point, the losses may have been "priceless" but they also have nothing to do with Lend-Lease or debts owed, where the "price" was very well known and understood by all sides incurring the debt.
no amount of money can be put on what the USSR has to endure during that war,
Agree 100 percent.
what the US did was helpful, but to think that they could have 'won' the war without the USSR is laughable at worst.
But the corrollary is also true, but I won't laugh at you. :D The sad fact is that it is likely that none of the "Big Three" could have beaten Germany alone, that is without the assistance of the others. The US in terms of population and production capability may have been able to negate the power of Germany alone - if the war with Japan is not factored into the equation and if we assume that the effects of prosecuting a war from North America to continental Europe are also ignored. But by the time all these strictures and what-ifs are accounted for, the idea becomes as unlikely as the supposition that the USSR could have beaten Germany alone as well. :D
That being said, lend lease shouldn't have been a 'lease' at all,
Uh, it wasn't, that is simply the common (and incorrect) term the act is known as. The act was known as the "Lend-Lease Act" and that was the way it was normally referred to. But in fact its correct title as entered into the Congressional Record is "An Act Further to Promote the Defense of the United States, and For Other Purposes" while a careful reading of the legislation itself confirms that intent of the act was to provide a “mechanism through which agencies of the United States Government furnished munitions and other supplies to foreign governments in order to promote the defense of the United States, generally without the payment of cash." "Lend-Lease" was simply one of the mechanisms used to transfer values between the US and the signatory countries under the act - but it sounded catchy to journalists and Churchill and Roosevelt liked the term, so it is the one that gets used. :D
if the USSR would have lost then Europe would have been in for a fate much worse than what they endured at the hands of the Soviet Union.
No argument there.
What America gave to the USSR helped in saving American lives in the west, the debt should be seen as 'paid' in full.
Sorry, but it was a contract entered in good faith between two sovereign countries and "payment" in "lives" was not stipulated as part of the contract. So no matter how much it "should" be considered, it simply is not.

Of course that is all pretty much moot in any case since AFAIK the Soviet debt, just like that of Great Britain, is still being paid, the collapse of the Soviet state did not absolve the Russian Federation of its debts. But again in both cases the remaining balance is miniscule (unless you happen to be a private citizen) and the fact that it still exists is probably only of interest to detail-obsessed historian types like us. :P

DIREWOLF75
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 04 Jan 2003 13:48
Location: Sweden

Post by DIREWOLF75 » 08 Apr 2005 19:53

Evzonas wrote:If LL only provided SU with a mere 4-7% of their own production and this percentage was not all that important or wouldn't change the course or speed of war and if it came too late in the war, as some members already stated, then what was the reason for SU to accept that help, what was the reason for US to provide that help especially considering the high cost in money and men it took to transport all that help?

Note: Russia still owes the US 100 million $ from LL!!!!!
Because it helped the war effort of course. While not DECIDING the outcome of the fight, LL still helped alot, covering "holes" in domestic production that COULD have been covered anyway but would have taken resources that in turn had reduced the effectiveness in other areas.

In one of your own links, the reason for that debt is quite clear.
Coldwar politics got USA to "markup" the debt ridiculously much.

DIREWOLF75
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 04 Jan 2003 13:48
Location: Sweden

Post by DIREWOLF75 » 08 Apr 2005 20:09

demonclaw
actually the aid did help Russia alot . Take trucks for example , they got 400,000 tucks from the western allies and in 1945 it made up 60% of the Russian trucks . So dont tell me that the red army would have been a effective fighting force without the amount of trucks they received from the western allies .
1. USSR had alot more prewar built trucks than it got via LL.
2. USSR built alot more trucks DURING the war than it got from LL (600k - 800k or something, anyone with excact number do post it if you want)
3. As already said, they built that many DESPITE having turned over alot of truck production to light tank production.

4. LL trucks didnt make up 60% of USSR trucks, it made up 60% of USSR frontline trucks. The LL trucks were newer models and therefore usually more or less better than those domestically produced. Which is why they tended to end up in the frontlines where any advantage/disadvantage made a bigger impact.

User avatar
Kunikov
Member
Posts: 4455
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 19:23

Post by Kunikov » 08 Apr 2005 20:30

RichTO90 wrote:
Kunikov wrote:You are missing my point, the fact that the Soviet Union bore the brunt of that war in essence is 'priceless',
No, you appear to be missing the point, the losses may have been "priceless" but they also have nothing to do with Lend-Lease or debts owed, where the "price" was very well known and understood by all sides incurring the debt.
We are talking about two different things then.


But the corrollary is also true, but I won't laugh at you. :D The sad fact is that it is likely that none of the "Big Three" could have beaten Germany alone, that is without the assistance of the others. The US in terms of population and production capability may have been able to negate the power of Germany alone - if the war with Japan is not factored into the equation and if we assume that the effects of prosecuting a war from North America to continental Europe are also ignored. But by the time all these strictures and what-ifs are accounted for, the idea becomes as unlikely as the supposition that the USSR could have beaten Germany alone as well. :D
I'd argue that there it is easier to see how the USSR could have beaten Germany than vice versa. But that is in the realms of 'what if' and I hate that type of argument.
Uh, it wasn't, that is simply the common (and incorrect) term the act is known as. The act was known as the "Lend-Lease Act" and that was the way it was normally referred to. But in fact its correct title as entered into the Congressional Record is "An Act Further to Promote the Defense of the United States, and For Other Purposes" while a careful reading of the legislation itself confirms that intent of the act was to provide a “mechanism through which agencies of the United States Government furnished munitions and other supplies to foreign governments in order to promote the defense of the United States, generally without the payment of cash." "Lend-Lease" was simply one of the mechanisms used to transfer values between the US and the signatory countries under the act - but it sounded catchy to journalists and Churchill and Roosevelt liked the term, so it is the one that gets used. :D
Although I've heard this before, I have to ask if the poster before is correct in saying that 'Russia' owes 100 million to the US?
Sorry, but it was a contract entered in good faith between two sovereign countries and "payment" in "lives" was not stipulated as part of the contract. So no matter how much it "should" be considered, it simply is not.
That's right, and it's a shame that so few people know about what in fact the USSR indirectly did to help the allies in the west.
Of course that is all pretty much moot in any case since AFAIK the Soviet debt, just like that of Great Britain, is still being paid, the collapse of the Soviet state did not absolve the Russian Federation of its debts. But again in both cases the remaining balance is miniscule (unless you happen to be a private citizen) and the fact that it still exists is probably only of interest to detail-obsessed historian types like us. :P
But what is this debt owed to, if Lend Lease is not a 'lease' at all? I figured you'd show up sooner or later :D

User avatar
Kunikov
Member
Posts: 4455
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 19:23

Post by Kunikov » 08 Apr 2005 20:35

DIREWOLF75 wrote:demonclaw
actually the aid did help Russia alot . Take trucks for example , they got 400,000 tucks from the western allies and in 1945 it made up 60% of the Russian trucks . So dont tell me that the red army would have been a effective fighting force without the amount of trucks they received from the western allies .
1. USSR had alot more prewar built trucks than it got via LL.
2. USSR built alot more trucks DURING the war than it got from LL (600k - 800k or something, anyone with excact number do post it if you want)
3. As already said, they built that many DESPITE having turned over alot of truck production to light tank production.

4. LL trucks didnt make up 60% of USSR trucks, it made up 60% of USSR frontline trucks. The LL trucks were newer models and therefore usually more or less better than those domestically produced. Which is why they tended to end up in the frontlines where any advantage/disadvantage made a bigger impact.
In 1941 the US supplied 8,300 motor vehicles of which only 1,506 arrived in the USSR for use and 867 arrived from the British (Van Tuyll, pg. 52). While the USSR produced 139,879. There were 272,600 motor vehicles available at the beginning of the war, 204,900 were received by the Red Army which gave a total stock of 477,500 motor vehicles in the Red Army, of which 159,000 were lost, and 318,500 were available in the beginning of 1942. 79,000 were shipped and received via Lend Lease in 1942 (Van Tuyll, pg. 54), while the USSR had built 32,409 (Harrison, pg. 197). The Red Army had at it’s disposal 378,000 motor vehicles and received another 62,000, if they had manufactured 32,409 then again Lend Lease aid was minimal, in fact for the victory at Stalingrad under 10,000 Lend Lease vehicles were used for operation Uranus. The USSR received 173,000 trucks in 1943 via Lend Lease (Van Tuyll, pg. 61) while making 46,720 of their own (Harrison, pg. 197. Their stock of trucks for the beginning of 1943 was 404,500 and they received 158,500 (Krivosheev, pg. 257). I copied and pasted this out of a paper I did a few years back on lend lease, this is just the truck numbers for 1941-1943.

User avatar
Evzonas
Member
Posts: 664
Joined: 01 Jul 2004 10:25
Location: Athens, Greece

Post by Evzonas » 08 Apr 2005 20:55

Kunikov wrote:But what is this debt owed to, if Lend Lease is not a 'lease' at all? I figured you'd show up sooner or later :D
LL is as far as I studyed a contract between USA and USSR according to which USA was to supply USSR with fabricated war material according to Russian specs and USSR was to supply USA raw materials .

The financial aspect of the whole contract is that all destroyed equipment during the war was not taken into account. All left to USSR after the war would be accounted for and then a price would be set. It seems this price was set to around $700 million and of that ammount USSR still owes $100 million. This out of over $10 billion worth of products transfered to USSR!

LL was a lease and as far as I take a look at it, it does take into account the lost lives of Russian people. It is exactly what was mentioned above, instead of taking US army fight in East front, and Russian workers to work in USA, they saved american lives who instead worked to produce weapons and ammunition and whatever was needed for the Russians to do the fighting.... seems fair to me! It also seems fair that all that was left behind after the war and could be used by the Soviet gov. had to be paid for as that was to be considered "excess help"!
DIREWOLF75 wrote:Because it helped the war effort of course. While not DECIDING the outcome of the fight, LL still helped alot, covering "holes" in domestic production that COULD have been covered anyway but would have taken resources that in turn had reduced the effectiveness in other areas.

In one of your own links, the reason for that debt is quite clear.
Coldwar politics got USA to "markup" the debt ridiculously much.
Direwolf, that still doesn't answer my question... any help from anywhere at any cost is not how USSR worked. I read about unmarked food cans and almost everything so simple citizens wouldn't know it came from USA or anywhere else so they didn't feel bad that mother Russia couldn't feed them...

I don't think that for USSR to pay 1/14th of what they received was a rediculous markup from the side of USA! Numbers speak for themselves! they received over 10 billion and where called to pay less than one! What has coldwar politics to do with that??? Had USA been in the receiving end would SU save them the debt??? I don't really think so!

I am reading everything you people had to say and I am still confused.....

Which is it?
Would SU win the war without US help?
If yes how much would that cost in terms of human losses and money?
If no, then at what extend was US help a winning factor? How many lives have been saved from all that help (we know the cost in money already).

And please take the time to explain to an ignorannt fool like myself....
Why those 400.000 trucks all the fuss is happening about where so badly needed in the SU???
Would the production of more lower quality trucks in the SU and the parallel decrease in tank production give the same results??

Finaly and to get back to subject (which was not my idea ruther Marcus' BTW) :

Did numbers win the war or what?????? I will extend this just a bit further... : Could SU fight back Germany without external aid? Would their own production cover those massive losses throughout the war?? And since you like to play with numbers, how many Russian soldiers where lost before 1942 and how many after 1942 as that seems to be the date after which LL reached SU in numbers?

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 08 Apr 2005 21:14

RichTO90 wrote: The sad fact is that it is likely that none of the "Big Three" could have beaten Germany alone, that is without the assistance of the others. The US in terms of population and production capability may have been able to negate the power of Germany alone - if the war with Japan is not factored into the equation and if we assume that the effects of prosecuting a war from North America to continental Europe are also ignored.
Rich,

You are underestimating the industrial power, large population and almost unrestrictred supply of critical strategic materials that US enjoyed.

- US industry was just stretching its legs lightly in 1944/45
- the practically unhindered and plentifull resources in New World, and sub-Saharan Africa were available for US - and Germany could not had done squat to prevent that

Germany could not had done anything to prevent the accumulation of military power that would eventually been capable of landing million-man invasion force anywhere in the long coast of Europe or north-Africa - straight across Atlantic Ocean. After that Germany would had been doomed. Same time Germanys own preparations would had been severy restricted by manpower shortage and severe raw-material starvation.

It would had taken till turn of 40/50s, but it would had happened eventually (assuming politic will is there).

Anyway, we don't have to wait till that - nuking Germany to ashes from Iceland or from west-Africa is way easier solution.


Mark V

User avatar
Kunikov
Member
Posts: 4455
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 19:23

Post by Kunikov » 08 Apr 2005 21:24

Mark V wrote:
RichTO90 wrote: The sad fact is that it is likely that none of the "Big Three" could have beaten Germany alone, that is without the assistance of the others. The US in terms of population and production capability may have been able to negate the power of Germany alone - if the war with Japan is not factored into the equation and if we assume that the effects of prosecuting a war from North America to continental Europe are also ignored.
Rich,

You are underestimating the industrial power, large population and almost unrestrictred supply of critical strategic materials that US enjoyed.

- US industry was just stretching its legs lightly in 1944/45
- the practically unhindered and plentifull resources in New World, and sub-Saharan Africa were available for US - and Germany could not had done squat to prevent that

Germany could not had done anything to prevent the accumulation of military power that would eventually been capable of landing million-man invasion force anywhere in the long coast of Europe or north-Africa - straight across Atlantic Ocean. After that Germany would had been doomed. Same time Germanys own preparations would had been severy restricted by manpower shortage and severe raw-material starvation.

It would had taken till turn of 40/50s, but it would had happened eventually (assuming politic will is there).

Anyway, we don't have to wait till that - nuking Germany to ashes from Iceland or from west-Africa is way easier solution.


Mark V
And you are underestimating what a 1941 circa German Army (with many supplies from the USSR) could do to a green US landing force.

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 08 Apr 2005 21:46

Kunikov wrote:
And you are underestimating what a 1941 circa German Army (with many supplies from the USSR) could do to a green US landing force.
Americans would arrive to European continent not in 1941, but around 1948/49, and only after years of strategic bombing campaign and naval blockade.

You just confirmed the worst fears that US suppreme command would held at that time - Soviet Union would gladly help Nazis in such scenario.

Anyway - that was just mind game. In reality nuclear weapons would be used. Germany (and their helpers) would burn.


Regards,
Mark V

User avatar
Evzonas
Member
Posts: 664
Joined: 01 Jul 2004 10:25
Location: Athens, Greece

Post by Evzonas » 08 Apr 2005 21:48

HEY GUYS......

Don't get so wild of an imagination will you all of you?
Lets get back to the point when I was still learning something out of this conversation please!

DIREWOLF75
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 04 Jan 2003 13:48
Location: Sweden

Post by DIREWOLF75 » 08 Apr 2005 23:44

Kunikov, your numbers for USSR army and production seems to be "heavy" trucks only?(prime movers? ) While LL numbers include anything from Jeep and bigger.

User avatar
Kunikov
Member
Posts: 4455
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 19:23

Post by Kunikov » 08 Apr 2005 23:45

DIREWOLF75 wrote:Kunikov, your numbers for USSR army and production seems to be "heavy" trucks only?(prime movers? ) While LL numbers include anything from Jeep and bigger.
No no, that is just trucks.

Molobo
Banned
Posts: 629
Joined: 14 Feb 2005 14:20
Location: Poland

Post by Molobo » 09 Apr 2005 00:20

Kunikov-why do you use the term Russians when saying about Soviet Union victories if you deny any responsibilties of Soviets transfered to Russian state ?
In 1941 the US supplied 8,300 motor vehicles of which only 1,506 arrived in the USSR for use and 867 arrived from the British (Van Tuyll, pg. 52). While the USSR produced 139,879. There were 272,600 motor vehicles available at the beginning of the war, 204,900 were received by the Red Army which gave a total stock of 477,500 motor vehicles in the Red Army, of which 159,000 were lost, and 318,500 were available in the beginning of 1942. 79,000 were shipped and received via Lend Lease in 1942 (Van Tuyll, pg. 54), while the USSR had built 32,409 (Harrison, pg. 197).
Being born and experienced communist rule- I would like to know if the numbers of produced vehicles are trustworthy ?
Also-what about the planes, canned meat, supplies ?
No no, that is just trucks.
IIRC jeeps were also part of Lend Lease.
Last edited by Molobo on 09 Apr 2005 00:43, edited 3 times in total.

DIREWOLF75
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 04 Jan 2003 13:48
Location: Sweden

Post by DIREWOLF75 » 09 Apr 2005 00:24

Evzonas
From your own link:
Equipment destroyed in the war was supposed to be regarded as a gift from the United States, with surviving, operational materiel to be returned or paid for by the Soviet Union. When the time came for the latter to pay, Washington, influenced by Cold War sentiments, inflated the sum owed by the Soviets in comparison to the debts of the rest of the coalition. The negotiations dragged on for decades until an agreement was signed in 1972, under which the Soviet Union received a final bill of $722 million. Of that sum, $100 million still has yet to be paid.
LL is as far as I studyed a contract between USA and USSR according to which USA was to supply USSR with fabricated war material according to Russian specs and USSR was to supply USA raw materials
It wasnt that specific. And, 1st of all, as have already been stated, it was voted through as an expenditure to further USAs safety.
LL was a lease and as far as I take a look at it, it does take into account the lost lives of Russian people.
:roll: Hardly.
It is exactly what was mentioned above, instead of taking US army fight in East front, and Russian workers to work in USA, they saved american lives who instead worked to produce weapons and ammunition and whatever was needed for the Russians to do the fighting.... seems fair to me!
Sweat and money for blood? You have a seriously twisted sense of fair.
Direwolf, that still doesn't answer my question... any help from anywhere at any cost is not how USSR worked. I read about unmarked food cans and almost everything so simple citizens wouldn't know it came from USA or anywhere else so they didn't feel bad that mother Russia couldn't feed them...
What question is that specifically?
The average citizen and soldier usually knew full well where they were getting which supplies from. If they got extra stuff from outside their own country that was a bonus to be happy about, since it might not be available next week.
I don't think that for USSR to pay 1/14th of what they received was a rediculous markup from the side of USA! Numbers speak for themselves! they received over 10 billion and where called to pay less than one! What has coldwar politics to do with that??? Had USA been in the receiving end would SU save them the debt??? I don't really think so
No, numbers never "speak for themselves". During a time early in Barbarossa, both USSR and Germany lost roughly 10% each of their airforces in an area. Sounds amazing? Well, difference was that USSR also had 10 times as many aircrafts as Germany at the time. A tank has 60mm armour, another has 80mm, which is strongest? The 60mm of course since its sloped and the 80mm isnt.
Thats numbers for you.

The vast majority of LL was "used up", so there wasnt any huge amount of things to pay for. And why should USSR pay full value in 1970 for a P-39 or Sherman as if it had been sold brand new THEN? With the price marked up for inflation effects "of course"... Thats pure robbery.

And really, how much do you think reverse LL was worth? Actually it could be considered near priceless, since it allowed the production of high quality metal alloys in far larger amounts than otherwise possible.
Which is it?
Would SU win the war without US help?
If yes how much would that cost in terms of human losses and money?
If no, then at what extend was US help a winning factor? How many lives have been saved from all that help (we know the cost in money already).
USSR would likely have won, but not 100% certain of course.
You ask about cost in MONEY? :roll: 2-10 more years of fighting is what i would say.
And please take the time to explain to an ignorannt fool like myself....
Why those 400.000 trucks all the fuss is happening about where so badly needed in the SU???
Mobility. Frontline supply (strategic supply was covered by railroad).
Would the production of more lower quality trucks in the SU and the parallel decrease in tank production give the same results??
Hard to say for certain. Personally, since the light tanks became of more use as artillery movers(light tanks quickly proved less than useful in fighting and its scout role was often performed by T-34s instead anyway), i think it might actually have been preferable to build trucks or even perhaps APCs instead.
Did numbers win the war or what??????
More or less, yes. Stalins officer purges and the following throwback in doctrine meant the Red Army in -41 was markedly inferior to that just a few years earlier and had very little chance of winning any "one on one" fights(at least offensively) with the Germans. Some few Soviet units that had both a good commander and militarily competent political officers sometimes managed to outperform German troops but that was very uncommon in general.

With less outside aid however, most likely USSR would have been FORCED to be less wasteful with lifes and material. This should not be forgotten. There was still a bunch of very competent officers left in USSR even after the purges, just not enough go around for the whole army.

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”