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.
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?
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.