You have an interesting way of writting off our sources, yet you still are yet to supply a reliable source of our own. Indeed your source from Soviet Russia in itself is to be doubted. I'm interested to note you have not even tried to defend your source.
Keegan's sources come from John Erickson, John Erickson researched both in Russia, England and America from my knowledge to create his history of the Ostfront. Thus is it not so that he has a better overall picture of the war than perhaps anyone else ever?
The number Keegan gives is for the end of the war, and does not make any account of Lend Lease vehicles supplied, which would if we take into account likely losses, make the figure much higher, and thus increase the Soviet reliance on Lend Lease vehicles.
Unfortunately Keegan does not look at numbers for Lend Lease in 1941,42 and 43, however if someone can show me and reliable source for these numbers (and Soviet reports are generally not a reliable primary source on history)
Kulik was not in charge of Soviet automotive industry.
Kulik was not in charge of General Staff and therefore could not do anything about establishment of Soviet formations.
I never claimed he was either if you read my original post. He is in charge of Ordnance, thus being able to halt production of Anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons. However, while not directly in charge of the Red Army motorized transport division, he was obviously able to convince Stalin to make the change. Hence why it is Stalin who makes the change and not Kulik directly, though Kulik was the advocator of this action.
-if you don't believe it or you want to make number that will suit your theory best-
No, that appears to be the specialty of more dubious historians. I draw my figures from Keegan and Erickson, both who are some of the most reliable sources on the Ostfront The theory which I am presenting to you, Oleg, is one that is supported by, I suspect, the majority of historians now days. The fact is the USSR was dependent on Lend Lease to win the war in the time that they did.
Yes the USSR could have won on its own, yes it could have built the said trucks on its own, but it would have taken even longer to do so.
the data on Soviet production has to come form the Soviet reports since there is no other source on the Soviet production
And the point I am making is that we must question the reliability of these figures. The entire idea of the "Great Patriotic War" comes from Stalin, and he wished it to appear a Russian engineered victory. Likewise both Britain and the United States wanted it to appear they had engineered victory, this is true, and one could argue that this would also make their figures unreliable. But the difference between Soviet Russia and the West is that ultimately, those who make these reports in the West are far more accountable than those in Soviet Russia. Accountability is perhaps the biggest honesty maker known to governments. And the only accountability in the Soviet Union is to the party, and the party for the obvious reason of wanting to appear infalliable, and to maintain the support of the people, does not want to look bad, and thus they can, and will cover up accountability. Such was the case in the Ukrainian Famine, and such was the case with the disasters in the Soviet Space programme, and equally this can be applied to the records of Soviet War production.
In the west however, accountability is open to the public, not closed to the party like Communist Russia. It is this aspect, the fact that if, in the West, you doubt the figures, you can perform an independent inquiry, that the accountability is there for you to see, it is tangable, this is what makes records in the West more accurate than those in the East. Mistakes are in the open in the West during this period, and thusly they are there to be critically analysed and to be corrected, but this is something the Soviet Union lacked. There is no unbiased critical analysis, the focus is on saving face for the party, especially in light of the disaster which befall the Red Army in 1941.
Oleg, you have proven yourself to be a valuable source to us in terms of supplying us with material from the Soviet Union. However, as a historian, it is your duty to critically analysise your sources and ask "Is what I'm reading true?" and "How might it be biased?" This is what I'm asking you to do here. I'm not convinced the sources your providing us with are reliable, and thats essentially the crux of the matter.
The reason why I rely so heavily on Erickson as a source for the Ostfront is that he is perhaps one of the model historians of our time. Erickson was known for throughly checking the information he collected in order to ensure that what he put into his books was as accurate as humanly possible. Keegan too follows this, however as Keegan's book focuses on the entire war, he was unable to give a blow by blow account of Erickson's work, due to limitations on space, however, a figure as reliable as Keegan has proven to be, it is hard to imagine him distorting figures.
In fact, while this thread has brought me much frustration, it has equally brought me joy in being able to engage people in an intellectual debate, which is ultimately why I return so often to this forum