I cannot remember posting this on this forum however the amounts/numbers still amaze me. Complete List of Lend Lease to Russia including atomic materials
Sent by the US to Russia 1941-1944. Britain and Canada also sent huge amounts of military equipment. This is the summary at the end of the link's page.
This is a collective snapshot of the numbers supplied by the allied nations to Russia! The numbers are just mind boggling. 427,000 trucks 13,000 combat vehicles 2000 ordinance vehicles 35,000 motor bikes Petroleum products 2,670,000 tons Food 4,478,000 tons food
You can chuck in a few thousand aircraft as well - Spits, Hurris, Hampdens (!), Kittyhawks, Airacobras, Kingcobras, Bostons, Mitchells, um...
The numbers are huge. The sad part is that most Russians who have been on the forums do not believe the West helped in anyway because they did not start the second front in 1943 instead of 1944. (This does not include Italy of course) They do not accept the contribution of the 55,000+ Commonwealth or 26,000 US airmen deaths as "assisting Russia. Look at these numbers: From the US: 6,430 planes 3,734 tanks 10 mine sweepers 82 smaller boats 210,000 automobiles 3,000 anti aircraft guns 1,111 oerlikon guns 17,000 motor bikes 991 million cartridges 1.2 million Km telephone cable 245,000 military telephones 257 million oil refinery,electrical equipment 5.2 million boots 2 million tons of food Shipped to Russia June 22 1941 to April 30th 1944 From UK 5,800 Planes 4,292 Tanks 12 minesweepers 103,000 tons rubber 6,000 machine tools Shipped from Canada 1188 Tanks 842 Armoured cars One million shells 36,000 tons Aluminium 208,000 tons grain
One wonders what the result would have been if this equipment wasn't shipped there. Combined, it's an impressive arsenal and any country with just that equipment would have made a serious contribution.
Though there are doubters in Russia to the benefit of this aid, Zhukov openly stated that without lend lease in 1943, Russia would have been defeated.
Anybody that states Lend Lease did not help save Russia in my opinion is an ass! Many look at the overall figure of 7% and say it is/was a pittance however it has to be taken in the context of when/what/where these goods were supplied. Britain was in a bad way in the early years of the war with the U-Boat threat in the Atlantic sinking vital food and war material. By the end of 1940 Britain had lost one fifth of their 1939 Merchant Fleet. In those early years, Britain was losing up to 500,000 tonnes a month and could not have survived. Yet, when taken as a percentage over the 1939-1945 period, U-Boats accounted for less than 1% of sinkings such was the demise of the U-Boat and the increased successful crossings after 1942/43.
One must remember too that the supplies started before the US had even entered the war. Though the initial consignments were formally paid for, there were still supplies provided otherwise. Right up to Pearl Harbor, many in the US were isolationist and rabidly anti-communist, so this was a brave move on Roosevelt's part. It should also be noted that, though the overall statistic of 7% may not seem like a lot, in the first year the proportion of LL against domestic domestic Soviet production was much higher. The sad thing is that despite all the assistance provided, the Soviets had a very funny way of showing their appreciation. On example is the way that they treated allied aircrews who made emergency landings in the Soviet Union.
Pictures of the Land Lease Memorial in Alaska The Lend - Lease Memorial ~ Griffin Park ~ Riverfront ~ Fairbanks Alaska pictures from alaska photos on webshots
I beleive that this may be simply due to ignorance. Unfortunately, the western and Russian views on WW2 are both biased and, in a sense, incomplete. We all need to read different historians in order to build up a true picture... Western contribution to the war was absolutely crucial- according to some Russian sources, it totalled 5.6% of the entire supplies of the Red Army. Obviously, for some vital items (aircraft, trucks food supplies) this could be even higher: 10-15%. I talked to many Russian WW2 veterans and they all highly valued help of the allies. It is hard though to make any guesses about what could have happened had the West acted separately from Russia, on their own. Do not forget that Britain was already long at war with Hitler, even before the German invasion at the east. To better understand russian point of view, try to comprehend the entire scale of the war on the russian side. At any time during the war (I do not include period after summer 1944), allies were holding up to 15-20 axis divisions (most of them non-German). At the same time on the eastern front Germans had up to 215 divisions! One example: In the 1943, when the allies defeated Germans in Africa - they took 120,000 prisoners. After Stalingrad battle, around 90,000 POWs were taken- but that was what was left of almost 300,000! And Stalingrad was neither the biggest nor the bloodiest one... W. Churchill in his book "Second World War" wrote about the enormous scale of war at the eastern front- fantastic book! There is also no comparison about the severety of war at the eastern and western fronts (after the D-day). Crushed and mauled in the east, german divisions were sent to the westen front for reforming and for some rest. Many german troops at the West were formed of old men and children. Having said all that, the war was won by allies, by all who contributed, though of course, "Hitler's spine" was broken at the eastern front. Do not beleive, that it is just "severe russian winter" that stopped Hitler. But It is true though that in this war any contribution was vital.
Welcome to the forum Atau. Many of the discussions about Russia now are "What If's". Hitler invading Russia was a mistake and they eventually tied up the greater percentage of the German forces. Lend Lease was a distinct benefit to Russia. The math's just do not lie. We needed Russia, they in turn needed our support. The Air offensive over Germany by the RAF (Commonwealth) and the USAAF destroyed Germany's ability to adequately supply its war machine. Just another point, the prisoners taken after the surrender in North Africa was between 200,000 and 300,000. Cheers Geoff
The Japanese were a bit pesky for the 'western' allies as well. Nothing can be looked at in isolation and the war extended well beyond eastern and western Europe.
Hi Geoff, I guess, you are right about numbers. From Wikipedia- there were around 240,000 axis POW's taken in Africa. In my previous post I referred to the estimates by General Alexander (from his letter to Churchill). Numbers are sometimes tricky. However my point was just about staggering scale of operations in the east. This is one of the reasons why some of the Russians "who have been on the forums do not believe the West helped in anyway",- as you said. And this is pure ignorance on their side. Another reason (and this is the main one)- is a cold war propaganda of the West. This is what is really stupid and annoying! Most of western historians of this period claim that Germans were defeated in the east only due to: 1. Enormously severe "Russian winter" 2. Poor state of preparation of German army/ army supplies 3. NKVD regiments who forced russian troops to fight against their will It could look from the side that as soon as Germans stopped some 40 km from Moscow (due to russian winter) in Nov 1941, they could not move forward ever since because SPRING NEVER CAME! (Moreover, it is often implied that it was only the US who won the war, Britain also sometimes gets written off.) Due to the Cold war propaganda, there is a certain resentment towards Russians, and a tendency to underestimate even historical facts, and all this makes some Russians quite defensive. I strongly beleive that in order to get a right perspective, one needs to look at WW2 from different points (american, british, russian, german, australian), so that we can get a full picture. People from different backgrounds tend to know only their part of the story. For example: It is well known, that Stalin was a total bastard, but try to evaluate his actions during WW2 (and before) in the context of events which took place at the time- this may change your opinion on some of the decisions he made. Cheers, Alexei
Hi Alexei, I agree with you on most points especially the one about Stalin being a bastard! He was one before during and after the war and I accept or like to accept that it was KGB chief Lavrenti Beria who poisoned him and received his just desserts less than a year later. Stalin was the one credited with the quote: One death is a tragedy, a million deaths a statistic! (There are so many versions) I believe I have been quite open with my belief that without Russia, the allies would not have won the war as it eventually turned out. Without the allies, Russia too would not have overcome the Axis. Any other comment would be a "What if". He hoarded and exported wheat when his people were starving to death and was responsible for millions of death in the Ukraine alone and possibly up to 20 million altogether those people in the Soviet Union. Anyway, returning to the actual war, Stalin was prepared to sacrifice all of his people to achieve success, the other allied nations were not after the terrible losses incurred in WW1. To say (those forum Stalinists) that the other allied nations did not do enough is ludicrous because it is based on the fact that they would not throw their soldiers into the fray unprepared and without a chance of victory. Of course Lend Lease was not the be all and end all of Soviet success however it was instrumental as was the Bombing of German industry. It does not take too much imagination to see the result if Germany did not have to protect itself against the "bombers" and the devastation to their manufacturing industry. Cheers Geoff
