That is what YOU say.
And secondly, if you venture into providing such an extensive quote in yout post it is a good taste to mention quote’s refference or even better a link to the source. But you know what they say: One is never too old to learn. Here is your chance.
And what is my perceived overall attitude, may I ask?
How doe my attitude is seen on the other side of the Internet?
Yes…your right, I should have put that down, my mistake. As for never being to old…I think im forgetting it faster than Im learning it. 
http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Lend-Lease-Fighter-World-Aircraft/dp/1846030412
An attitude that is extremely defensive at the first mention of “lend lease.” One that is seemingly reflexive and encoded in your DNA I might add…
I am not Chevan. I am Egorka. And I am proud of it above all expectations.
So Chevan, just the trucks and the spam ?
You inserted the word “just”. Why did you do such an evil thing?
This is exactly what I was saying… It was critical at that time, and the Murmansk convoys were the only supply route then.
At what time was it critical?
How do you define criticity of the situation?
Can you provide how the LL deliveries were distributed over time?
Thanks for the link. Very detailed info.
I wonder… are you related to Stalin?:mrgreen:
No I am not related to him.
Thanks mate! Though I already cought it with help of Google…
Maybe… You see it is sometimes difficult to comprehend how the listener would perceive your words.
As of being defensive if it is true than it is maybe because I am put in such a position. My position is seen being defensive since my actions are reactive in this matter.
Something like that…
Marshall G.K. Zhukov.
OK. Kruschev also wrote similar thing.
The field radio´s is said to have been very important. The Soviet electronics industry was not well developed and could not supply them in anything approaching adequate numbers.
They might also have had to do without radars if the US had given them those, but I don´t know how important the Soviets thought they were.
(Thanks to Rising Sun and Egorka for having a sense of humour :D:D:D:D
(and I´m not thinking of Australian procreational habits)) :shock:
Would it be safe to say the war would have lasted longer for the Soviets without lend lease?
But how much longer?
And what would that mean to the Soviet population?
Found this on another site…’‘Soviet agriculture was barely functioning after 1941. The improvements in later years can only be attributed to American aid in delivering food stuffs and machinery (since the Soviets ceased all production on agricultural machinery)… a lower food supply might have led to a stalled front for an additional few years and tens of millions more dead of starvation. Additionally, more millions would perish if the Soviets took longer to take the offensive. And without the mobility provided by the US, offensive operations consistent with Soviet doctrine might have taken years longer. The Soviet Union may well have experienced what Germany experienced during the 30 Years War where more than half the population perished. It is not a pleasant thought.’’
Or quoting Glantz… ‘‘had Stalin and his commanders been left to their own devices, it “might have taken 12 to 18 months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht,” but "the ultimate result would probably have been the same’’
Oh gentlemenns, you’ve lifted up old the conversation about LL
You my friend watch ONLY at the one side of problem.
In fact the LL was just a supplies that helped to wage the war, but the americans did not wish to fight as desperatelly as the other allies utill the 1944 in Europe.
They prefered the supplyed the Brits and Russkies fro gold and money:)( althought with the convenient conditions for all sides)
Jus take in mind…the LL provided the Red Army with about 15 000 of aircrafts and 7 000 of tanks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_USSR
And a anourmous sum of strategical materials.
The Americans could form the whole several armies.
And send them to the Western Europe to beat the GErmans more quickly and effective.
So i doubt that the LL to USSR actually made the war shorter.
It just redistributed the Wearpon among allies- it made the Red Army and Britash troops stronger, but US army losed the certain strength at the same time.
Even if the LL to the USSR has not been started at all the Red Army could beat the Germans in the Soviet territory (as they have beated them in stalingrad in the 1942 when lend lise was still quite unsignificant).
But in this way the Red Army could not so effective beat the Germans in the Eastern Europe in the 1944-45.
Even if so, there was still the problem of marshalling the forces, transport and materiel for an invasion of Western Europe. Equipment that went to the Soviets before 1944 was a lot more effective against the Germans in Russian hands than it would have been sitting in England for a year or two waiting for the invasion.
The delay also bled the Western Front of better quality troops who were sent to the east, and also to Italy from 1943. They might have been more effective on D Day than the troops who were left by 6 June 1944.
From an overall Allied strategic viewpoint, once the risk of a German invasion of England had passed, it made more sense to beef up the Soviet ability to resist the Germans and, among other things, deny them access to oilfields and other resources in the east which would have greatly improved Germany’s military position if the USSR was defeated.
I did not mean they should sit in the England or somewhere else.
They could fight in Italy, Africa or finally in Asia agains Japane.
Besides thsoe hypotetical armies could prevent the Eatsern Europe from the Soviet liberation ( Stalin would not had been started the Great soviet offensives of 1944-45 without strong LL support).
I do agree - the LL got the Allies additional time to prepear own armies, but don,t forget also - the LL helped Red Army occuped whole Eastern Europe and essential part of Western one.
The LL in fact was the thing that made position of Uncle Joe stronger in Tehrain and Yalta ( when the allies have started devide the post-war Europe)
So we have the one conclusion out of it- without LL the Soviets NEVER would have been spread their influence over the world after the victory.
From Cold war point - the LL to USSR had more the harm then the profit for USA.
And about marshalling forces to the USSR - i’ve read an article - that the allies convoys lost ( in average ) every 4 transport to the USSR.
So i do not think their loses would be higher if the USA moved trose forcer to the Africa or Italy to use it for own aims.
What an incredibly foolish post that is completely contradicted by the actual historical record of the first conferences between officers of the US Army and the British Army. Perhaps you are ignorant of the facts? You’ve made this silly trash before, and I have responded to it about three times now, yet you keep ignoring the fact that you have little idea nor basis of what you are actually talking about…
The FACTS are that the US military wanted to begin planning for an invasion of France to take place in the spring or summer of 1942. But the senior British commanders along with Churchill managed to influence FDR and enough US generals that such an attack would be foolish given that the US Army was still new, under-equipped, and too small as they were fighting a two-front War and the Wehrmacht was too well equipped and experienced to mount such a desperate battle. The US and British Armies simply did not have enough divisions to directly confront Germany on French soil without a real possibility of being driven back into the sea. The compromise was North Africa. Then it was the Italian theater, which in turn went on for too long and it was the US commanders that had to wisely pull the the British out of their fixation on the Mediterranean (Italian) Theater in order to get them into France by 1944 (Churchill seemed obsessed with invading Austria through the Alps!). They truth is that it was your American cousins that expressed far more anxiety of the USSR falling than the British commanders did in those meetings, and shame of not being able to help them sooner, more directly, with a European invasion…
I’ll post long specifics regarding this when I have more time…
But nothing could be further from the truth. Absolutely nothing. It’s a lie you learned under the Soviet system, and one oft repeated enough.
BTW, when did the Soviets go to War against Germany, again? What were the circumstances? Because I think if my history is correct, the great Marshal Stalin also did not seem inclined to fight Hitler until after he had co-conquered Poland with them, Hitler knocked France out of the War, and also drove the British out of Europe…
Oh yes, did I mention that Soviet fuel was in the panzers on their drive to the coast?
Lend-Lease indeed! :rolleyes:
Oh Nick in fury:)
It’s so scarry…
So this everything is a Soviet lie…
Why did you not tell me about before?
Sure you right the Americans was wanted to save the USSR , but…“dastard Churchill” has persuaded don’t do this.
Yes Nick this is true, nobody doubts.
The US and British Armies simply did not have enough divisions
But…they had still very enough wearpon to waste it for the Lend lise ower all the world:)
So why they prefered to supplied the allien armies, instead to create its own stronges army in the world?
BTW, when did the Soviets go to War against Germany, again? What were the circumstances?
This is not Soviet go to war agains GErmany but GErmans has started the war agains USSR Nick ( as well against USA after Perl-Harbor)
well your version of history is interesting Nick.
But i have to distress you - Stalin did not concuered “Poland”, he just took back the Western Ukraine and Belorussia lands ( that were prevuously stolen by Poles).
So from pure political and moral poin- ONLY Ukrainians and Belorussians could blame Stalin for that actions:)
And yes - you did not mention that the Japs used the PURE American fuel when began the slaughtering in CHina and even when they attacked Pirl-Harbour.
But if Soviets had recieved a modern military tehnologies and brenchs from GErmany for soviet oil ( that later were used agaisn Germany) than Japs payd the money for American goods and oil without no tehnological benegfit for USA.
LOL No, I just want this to be a board grounded in actual history; not in Chevan’s revisionist, anxiety flaming…
So this everything is a Soviet lie…
But obviously “this” is. Since you keep uncritically repeating it without in any way factoring or considering that there were actual reasons why a ground war in Europe could not be fought before 1943, mainly since the US was not prepared for war and had to grow an Army that only introduced conscription in May of 1940, and had not only its own military to produce supplies for, but the Soviet, British, and “Free” ones as well. And of course for a multitude of resistance movements…
Why did you not tell me about before?
I have, no less than twice in a couple of the many flame threads here…
Sure you right the Americans was wanted to save the USSR , but…“dastard Churchill” has persuaded don’t do this.
Yes Nick this is true, nobody doubts.
Um, that’s not even remotely related to what I said. Is your translator broken again, or does it function selectively? Perhaps you don’t understand, but there was a schism in the Allied high command and the British, at Churchill’s and Brooke’s behest, largely wanted to continue the War in Italy --even at the expense of Normandy. Certainly not all British officers found this a good idea and many have since been critical…
But…they had still very enough wearpon to waste it for the Lend lise ower all the world:)
So why they prefered to supplied the allien armies, instead to create its own stronges army in the world?
No, they didn’t have any weapons to spare.
Perhaps you cannot see the inherent contradiction in your own post or are just completely irony impaired. But how was the US to build an army after years of it being an underequipped, underfunded “constabulary force” and supply everybody else as well? Feel free to Google on US tank production, which consisted largely of the M-2 up until 1940, and had only begun designing tanks that could match the German panzers in 1941 (The M-3 Grant). Their main anti-tank gun remained the 37mm and the US command was still reeling from the shock of the Fall of France and how they could counter such a force that caused it. The US Army at the end of 1941 was still scarcely over a million men TOTAL! And even then, that was because the peacetime draft was instituted for the first time in America ever only 18 months prior. Then they were to launch an amphibious invasion against what would have been a superior force in France, AFTER projecting such forces across an entire Ocean, WHILE supplying everybody and dedicating resources to the SECONDARY theater in the Pacific…
There simply were not enough divisions in the US Army at that time, and the ones available would have been less than the total of German ones in France…
Then, there is the question of Landing craft. I’m not sure how the US and Royal Navies/Coast Guards could have gotten the troops ashore…
This is not Soviet go to war agains GErmany but GErmans has started the war agains USSR Nick ( as well against USA after Perl-Harbor)
Oh, of course. But they failed to “help” France and Britain though. In fact, it almost seems they were providing much the Nazi Germany at that time as the Soviet gov’t was their primary resource supplier.
I’m sorry, the USSR’s enormous human toll and majority contributions to destroying the Wehrmacht should not be confused with martyrdom and apologism for the bastards that allowed it to happen. And they weren’t in the US gov’t…
So, the Soviet and British pleas for help should have been ignored? Even though they were already engaged and suffering losses? Really?
And supplying the US military wasn’t even the biggest problem. It was allocation of resources and even training enough men to form an army, which is also about time. So again, how was a US Army of scarcely over one million TRAINED soldiers and a British Army still making good its BEF-Battle of France losses supposed to open up a second front in Europe? Especially when the U-boat threat was prevalent and the Luftwaffe remained powerful in the West…
And oh yes, there was a matter of the Japanese that actually attacked the US. And where the ‘cowardly’ US troops ‘that hated fighting’ were actually engaged in it. And there were fears that the Japanese might attempt an invasion of Pearl harbor to use as a springboard to threaten the US West Coast…
This is not Soviet go to war agains GErmany but GErmans has started the war agains USSR Nick ( as well against USA after Perl-Harbor)
Just like Hitler was only saving the Germanic population in Poland, and retaliating for a dastardly border “Polish Army attack” on a German radio station… :rolleyes: