The Secret Side of Lend-Lease


Gulls shouted, and in the waves of the court swayed

In a lead haze from earth to earth,
Yesterday, they said goodbye to Reykjavik,
Yesterday they left London.
There was a war and not find more valuable cargo,
What was laid down in the holds
And on the fields of the fronts of the Soviet Union
They learned a new word - “Lend-Lease”.
A.S. Zeller


In life, any values ​​are relative. If the cargo was considered valuable to the sender, this does not mean that it was of great value to the recipient.

Agree, a very unusual look at the role and importance of Lend-Lease in the Great Patriotic War.

The material provides little-known facts about the events of that time.

The signing of the last Ottawa Protocol (April 1945), which regulated the supply of goods to the USSR, was accompanied by several scandals. The American side expressed bewilderment at the way in which the Soviet side disposes of “valuable goods” received from the Allies.

Thus, the Americans through their channels established that of the 50 ship diesels delivered as part of one of the orders, only three were installed on Soviet ships under construction. The rest just rusted in warehouses.

Thousands of tons of previously supplied equipment for the refinery and tire plants were also unpacked.

Representatives of the United States demanded henceforth a more thorough justification of new applications for high-tech equipment. All applications should have been accompanied by documentary evidence of the state of a particular branch of Soviet industry.

But bureaucracy was nothing new to the Union. It was not difficult for our representatives to provide any necessary reports and forms for any selected period of time. And account for any work done. As a result, during the war years the USSR "substantiated" the need to obtain 7784 units. marine engines!

Is it worth explaining that the domestic shipbuilding industry was in stagnation during the war years. The number of warships built (completed from pre-war reserves) of the main classes was only 70 units. And the number of ships and boats built was estimated at only a few hundred.

Why ordered over 7000 engines? Diesels and engines of exactly the class that the Americans themselves needed to equip them with landing ships and self-propelled vehicles for landing from the sea.

In the supply tables there are some incredible numbers. Hundreds of thousands of tons of explosives. Millions of tons of chemicals. 800 thousand tons of non-ferrous metals. 1,6 million kilometers of telegraph cable ...

Huge amounts of help!

As if it was a country that had not produced anything at all before. And in the prewar years, it did not have the largest and one of the most technically equipped armies in the world.

The bulk of these deliveries did not fall on the hardest period of 1941-1942, when the threat of a shortage could really arise from the loss of capacities and enterprises in the western regions of the country. Not! The main Lend-Lease deliveries were 1944-1945, when the evacuated industry was at its peak, and Soviet rear workers set labor records.

The Secret Side of Lend-Lease

How did they fight without Lend-Lease explosives and aluminum at the beginning of the war, breaking the ridge of the Wehrmacht near Stalingrad? And why did the USSR need so much military equipment at the very end?

These questions need clarification.

After half a century, liberal historians will write that "deliveries in certain categories were hundreds of percent higher than Soviet production during the war years." In such circumstances, without Lend-Lease, of course, there was no way to win.

But someone wondered if this help was used directly for the war with Germany.


The American delegation arriving in Arkhangelsk was amazed to see the use of Lend-Lease aluminum "as flooring for moorings and warehouses."

In total, 300 thousand tons of “winged metal”, so necessary, was delivered from abroad. aviation industry! About the same amount was produced in the USSR itself.

Soviet aircraft factories both produced aircraft with wooden cladding, and continued to produce them until the end of the war. It is quite obvious that the domestic aviation industry was physically unable to process and use such volumes of light metals as intended.

For example, the most advanced La-7: the power set of the fuselage is made of pine, the wing trim and the fuselage are made of birch veneer.

In the sources, such treatment of valuable materials is attributed to the wartime mess and the negligent attitude of the Soviet side. Sure, it was. For a country with a strict planned wartime economy. Which in the shortest possible time was able to carry out a unique operation to evacuate thousands of enterprises and deploy them in a new place in the same form.

Can you imagine that under such conditions they could “just forget” about the oil refinery or the mountains of aluminum dumped on the quays?

Or the Soviet Union was simultaneously solving another, unknown task ...

The more aluminum accumulates on our berths, the less you will build Mustangs and Fortresses!


It was the same with thousands of marine diesels and engines "for torpedo boats being built in the Soviet Union." The more rusting engines accumulate in our country, the less airborne assets (LCM, LCU) for the US Navy will be built.

Who in 1945 could guarantee that these funds would not be used by the Allies for landing, for example, in the Crimea?

See a hundred steps forward! The highest leadership of the USSR did not have the slightest doubt about how bad relations with the Allies would develop after the victory over Germany.

Even the victory in its accepted form was in question. The Anglo-Saxons could hastily agree with their poor German relatives and make a separate peace with them. This threat became even more apparent with the death of F. Roosevelt on April 12, 1945.

As already indicated, the bulk of Lend-Lease came at a time when the outcome of the war became apparent. A significant proportion of the supplied equipment and materials simply did not have time to be used in the fight against the Third Reich.

The geniuses of Soviet diplomacy did everything possible (and impossible!) In the interests of their country. In the conditions of rapid deterioration of relations, they continued to “punch” the necessary applications on the most favorable conditions. In an effort to reduce, as far as possible, the supply of military equipment that has already become unnecessary, gradually shifting the focus towards civilian equipment. All this was motivated by the need for the USSR to enter the war with Japan and the continuation of hostilities over the next 18 months.

In the spring of the 45th, our overseas partners nevertheless gradually began to see. The Americans flatly refused to provide technological equipment for the long-term operation in the national economy under the Lend-Lease Act. Food production lines, energy, metallurgical, glass-blowing and chemical equipment since April 1945 were provided only on credit. For real gold.

Not all valuable goods were “forgotten” or “disposed of” in order to prevent their use in the interests of the armed forces and the US economy


Some were of particular value. They were carefully guarded in case of use in the coming war with former allies.

A fairly well-known fact: not one of the 2397 Kingcobra fighters delivered, not one of the 1200 Spitfires of the later IX modification, fell on the Eastern Front. Luftwaffe pilots in isolated cases mentioned meetings with the King Cobras in their reports, but this can be attributed to the confusion and natural tension of the battle. In fact, unverified legends.


While high-altitude Spitfires were nevertheless enlisted in the Moscow air defense system (as of 1944, they were a deep rear), the most powerful Kingcobras were initially supplied with conditions that precluded their use on the Eastern Front. Only to participate in the war with Japan.

But the Soviet side had other considerations in this regard. The fighters were not going to be used either against the Luftwaffe, or in the Far East. They were cherished for a special day. Due to its powerful armament and high-altitude characteristics, the Bell P-63 Kingcobra at that time was the only type of aircraft in the Soviet Air Force that could intercept the B-29.

Take everything from the Anglo-Saxons and don’t give anything in return!


The presented hypothesis about the secret side of Lend-Lease supplies to the USSR needs to be supplemented with facts.

But the points listed are already enough to make a definite conclusion. Estimates of the value of Lend-Lease, made only on the basis of the ratio of the volume of delivered goods to its own Soviet production in one category or another, are incorrect.

A significant proportion of the equipment, equipment and materials that arrived to us was not used for its intended purpose during the Great Patriotic War. In the best case, these supplies were used in the restoration of the USSR in the post-war period.

In some cases (in fact, we can talk about mass cases), the delivered goods were “forgotten in warehouses” or used in a very unusual and interesting way. They questioned their real usefulness for the Soviet Army and national economy.

Finally, the sources mention the trade in Lend-Lease help. This is not about the domestic “black market”, although this moment existed from the first day of the program. The Americans were especially outraged that the USSR secretly resold the materials and equipment supplied to it to third countries of the world.

As for the main thesis (to squeeze everything possible out of allies), the author does not dare to draw conclusions about the priorities of this task. Whether this was a clear-cut concept or just a side effect of the Lend-Lease program remains to be seen by historians.

Interesting topic!

We are not entitled to give any moral marks. Nothing personal. These are questions of the survival of the country and the nations that inhabit it, in the most severe conditions of the struggle for their place in the world.

The logic of the state differs from the concepts of nobility at the household level. Therefore, take it easy.

Nothing prevents us from saying thanks to the Americans who agreed to provide valuable assistance (without the slightest sarcasm!) On conditions acceptable to the Soviet side.

The very importance of Lend-Lease in the fight against fascism was significant, but not decisive. And this should not be the reason for any speculation about the contribution of the Allies to our Victory.


Facts taken from the book “Lend-Lease. The deal of the century. " Posted by Natalya Butenina. Analysis and comments on various events - personal opinion of the author of this article
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

310 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. tlauicol 3 March 2020 06: 02 New
    • 28
    • 5
    +23
    Oleg, want to say that Stalin, loading orders for the American economy, wanted to weaken them in this way? "so that they get less"? Somehow naive request
    and about the growth of supplies by the year 44 ... is also naive. This is not a pizza to order
    1. Aerodrome 3 March 2020 06: 19 New
      • 30
      • 29
      +1
      "land lease" helped, of course, not to be denied, but, helped for our gold.
      1. Far B 3 March 2020 06: 24 New
        • 35
        • 7
        +28
        Rather, having the opportunity to get high-tech products and equipment in which the Soviet Union before the war in the vast majority of cases was refused even for gold, Stalin and his team took advantage of the moment to the fullest - everything will come in handy after the war. And for the restoration of the national economy, and for the development of new directions. Someone, and short-sighted fools, Stalin and Co. were not.
        1. Aerodrome 3 March 2020 06: 30 New
          • 10
          • 17
          -7
          Quote: Far In
          Rather, having the opportunity to get high-tech products and equipment in which the Soviet Union before the war in the vast majority of cases was refused even for gold, Stalin and his team took advantage of the moment to the fullest - everything will come in handy after the war. And for the restoration of the national economy, and for the development of new directions. Someone, and short-sighted fools, Stalin and Co. were not.

          I am not aware of "technology transfer", I just have not heard. stew, tanks, jeeps and airplanes (a small number of "Thompsons whose caliber was different) what technologies? enlighten, I will be grateful. hi
          1. Far B 3 March 2020 06: 36 New
            • 4
            • 6
            -2
            Are you serious about technology? A read carefully?
            high-tech products and equipment in which the Soviet Union was denied even gold for the vast majority of cases before the war
            Where is it about technology? The article is about engines, etc. - which I had in mind when speaking of "high-tech products and equipment."
            1. Aerodrome 3 March 2020 06: 48 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +1
              Quote: Far In
              Are you serious about technology? A read carefully?
              high-tech products and equipment in which the Soviet Union was denied even gold for the vast majority of cases before the war
              Where is it about technology? The article is about engines, etc. - which I had in mind when speaking of "high-tech products and equipment."

              Yes, I’m not complaining about you, I just haven’t met Anglo-American equipment, here are the “Krupp” machine tools, the sea, they still work somewhere, but they’re already “trophies”, but I haven’t met English-American, maybe it’s not lucky. Has anyone seen? just wondering.
              1. Far B 3 March 2020 06: 56 New
                • 6
                • 5
                +1
                I have seen. In childhood. In the 80s. In Primorye. And the Japanese. This is a trophy tochnik, but Krupp's are not always trophies; in the pre-war era, they were sent by echelons by the Guitar to the USSR. In exchange for raw materials. Pact is such a pact.
                1. Aerodrome 3 March 2020 06: 59 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: Far In
                  к

                  apparently in Primorye they settled ... behind the Ural ridge, where the whole defense industry was mainly, I did not meet.
                2. maidan.izrailovich 4 March 2020 04: 04 New
                  • 7
                  • 1
                  +6
                  Pact is such a pact.

                  Do not drag the pact here. The pact was signed on August 23, 1939, and trade cooperation with Germany began even before Hitler came to power. And not only with Germany. Companies from the USA took an active part in the construction of enterprises in the USSR. Not only equipment and materials went to the USSR. German and American engineers worked under contracts in the USSR.
              2. Bobrick 3 March 2020 17: 56 New
                • 8
                • 1
                +7
                American milling machines of the 30s have been used for a long time for high-quality milling operations in the production of aircraft gas turbine engines in Perm.
                Therefore, a situation is possible in which American machine tools basically went to specialized enterprises.
                Yes, and it is unlikely that the USSR ordered ordinary machines according to Land-Liz, but it could have been high-precision or for large diameter workpieces, etc.
                1. Whalebone 5 March 2020 11: 48 New
                  • 1
                  • 3
                  -2
                  T-34-85 appeared when American machines sailed on which it was possible to sharpen the increased shoulder strap of the tower.
                  1. Mwg
                    Mwg 6 March 2020 10: 07 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    That you are hot, hot ...
              3. Whalebone 5 March 2020 11: 47 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                Turnkey 570 American factories a certain Kahn sold, delivered, launched in the USSR with staff training.
            2. Olgovich 3 March 2020 09: 40 New
              • 22
              • 4
              +18
              Quote: Far In
              The article is about engines

              I think that almost all of the delivered was useful, because the entire range of delivered goods was in demand basically.

              The same marine engines were probably used later than the war.

              These supplies could not weaken the USA (in the volume of production in the USA it is not much), but they helped us a lot.

              At the same time, the Americans themselves admitted:
              Advisor Pres. USA Hopkins: "We never consideredThat our Lend-Lease assistance is the main factor in the Soviet victory over Hitler on the Eastern Front. It was achieved by the heroism and blood of the Russian army
          2. 3x3zsave 3 March 2020 07: 06 New
            • 11
            • 4
            +7
            "Thompson" went in large enough quantities. They, as a personal weapon of the crew, were equipped with tanks.
            1. Aerodrome 3 March 2020 07: 08 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              Quote: 3x3zsave
              "Thompson" went in large enough quantities. They, as a personal weapon of the crew, were equipped with tanks.

              cartridges did not have time ... therefore, "did not take root."
            2. Varyag_0711 3 March 2020 08: 31 New
              • 10
              • 12
              -2
              3x3zsave (Anton)
              "Thompson" went in large enough quantities. They, as a personal weapon of the crew, were equipped with tanks.
              Something I have never seen my tankers with the Thompsons anywhere. If it’s not difficult, do not discard the photo?
              P.S. With "Thompson" in the tank is not comme il faut, it hurts cumbersome for the tank. Ours were not stupid. PPS for the tank itself, but not Thompson.
              1. Malyuta 3 March 2020 08: 45 New
                • 21
                • 1
                +20
                Quote: Varyag_0711
                Something I have never seen my tankers with the Thompsons anywhere.

                Alexey! hi Absolutely all Amer’s tanks delivered to the USSR were equipped precisely with the “Thompson”, Amer’s pistols, as the crew’s personal weapons, as well as summer and winter overalls, headsets, and NZ dry packs. Soviet tankers had TT, PPSh and grenades as personal weapons of the crew, in rare cases PPS, this is more likely an exception.
                “Thompson” did not really take root because of the impossibility of a quick replenishment of the BC.
                1. Varyag_0711 3 March 2020 08: 50 New
                  • 7
                  • 12
                  -5
                  Sorry, I don’t know how to name you by name! hi As for the “Sherman”, then everything is quite logical. Just in my humble opinion, “Thompson” and “PPS” are like the M-16 and Kalash. Personally, in any case, I would prefer our weapons.
                  1. Malyuta 3 March 2020 09: 57 New
                    • 13
                    • 1
                    +12
                    Quote: Varyag_0711
                    Just in my humble opinion, “Thompson” and “PPS” are like the M-16 and Kalash. Personally, in any case, I would prefer our weapons.

                    I agree, it’s more convenient and familiar with us, but in this case you won’t run away from the facts))) The same situation was with deliveries of aircraft, Colt M1911 models, flight jackets of the pilot type, high boots, coveralls, headsets and even caps and pilots, mostly sorted out by pilots as "drivers" for souvenirs, workers on assembly lines in the states as a sign of solidarity managed to stuff even personal packages.
                    And in the memoirs of one of the pilots of the 16th GIAP, it was mentioned that these same Thompsons were found in two Cobras.
                    Sincerely, Fedor. hi drinks
                  2. hohol95 3 March 2020 10: 33 New
                    • 10
                    • 0
                    +10
                    And if you are in the crew of the BTR "UNIVERSAL" and your weapon is a BREN machine gun? Throw it away immediately and change it to DP-27?
                    1. mmaxx 7 March 2020 18: 10 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      I have an interesting artifact, as they say now. From Volgograd. More precisely, Stalingrad. There are still traces of that war.
                      Photo Shoot:

                      A fragment of machine gun belt. Open link tapes. That is, not ours. One cartridge there is three-linear. The second, apparently, is English. American springfield without rim.
                      Here about this snippet you can probably write a whole book. Where did he come from in Stalingrad? What kind of machine gun fought that soldier? Why was he wrong? What happened then? Maybe this mistake cost someone a lifetime. One of the cartridges was not the one. And how did it happen that this particular couple lay in the ground for 70 years?
                      In general, Shpakovsky is needed here. He can.
                      1. hohol95 9 March 2020 00: 05 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        There is no information on the use of imported tanks in the battles for Stalingrad. But there is information about the use of "Hurricanes" in the sky of Stalingrad! Perhaps it was left from a downed plane!
                        IN article
                        Soviet aces on Lend-Lease fighters. Part of 1. "Hurricanes"
                        November 28 2012
                      2. mmaxx 9 March 2020 06: 58 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Here I am about that. One thing and so many thoughts.
                      3. mmaxx 10 March 2020 16: 28 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        I looked that it is possible on machine-gun tapes. Apparently, this is a German tape. This is the turn. Everything is much more confusing. Maybe the German tape could be used in our maxims?
                      4. hohol95 10 March 2020 17: 09 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        The cartridges are different .. The steel tape ... I am not special in this ... I have already expressed my thought, but the cartridges are not GERMAN ...
            3. hohol95 3 March 2020 10: 25 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Originally there were Nagans. TT did not fit the size of the holes for firing from personal weapons.
          3. 3x3zsave 3 March 2020 08: 46 New
            • 5
            • 1
            +4
            The fact is that I also did not see such photographs, but the fact that American equipment was equipped with “Thompsons” is a fact that, by the way, surprised me too (the bagpipe for the tank is really bulky). I even got a version that the Americans were thus getting rid of "illiquid assets", however, not confirmed by anything.
            1. bubalik 3 March 2020 09: 09 New
              • 21
              • 1
              +20
              The fact is that I also did not see such photos



              1. 3x3zsave 3 March 2020 09: 48 New
                • 6
                • 0
                +6
                Thank you, Sergey! good
            2. hohol95 3 March 2020 10: 47 New
              • 15
              • 0
              +15
              The fact is that I also did not see such photographs, but the fact that American equipment was equipped with “Thompsons” is a fact that, by the way, surprised me too (the bagpipe for the tank is really bulky).


              Captain Kirill Nikolaevich Kalaida - commander of a separate combat engineer company, Karelian Front 1943
              In 1957, Kirill Nikolaevich Kalaida was appointed deputy head and chief artist of the Office of Urban Registration and Advertising of the Moscow City Executive Committee (abbreviated as Moscow City Registration). In the same year, a festival of youth and students was held in Moscow, Kalayda designed the main arena of the holiday - Luzhniki, this was his first big job in a new position.
              1. 3x3zsave 3 March 2020 11: 18 New
                • 5
                • 0
                +5
                Greetings, Alex! hi
                The question concerned tankers directly, and I answered it.
          4. hohol95 3 March 2020 10: 17 New
            • 7
            • 0
            +7

            Distinguish Soviet tankers from American?
            1. bubalik 3 March 2020 10: 32 New
              • 7
              • 0
              +7
              ,,, Americans in tunics and breeches with boots flaunted belay laughing

              258th post before crossing. Transcaucasian Front, August 1942.
            2. tihonmarine 4 March 2020 21: 51 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: hohol95
              Distinguish Soviet tankers from American?

              Kersey boots.
          5. Dmitry V. 3 March 2020 16: 21 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            Quote: Varyag_0711
            P.S. With "Thompson" in the tank is not comme il faut, it hurts cumbersome for the tank. Ours were not stupid. PPS for the tank itself, but not Thompson.


            They were in the frontier troops before the war.
            And during the war - you just have to look for a photo.
            Here's an example:
      2. Boris Petrov-Vodkin 6 March 2020 03: 59 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Night vision devices and sights, long-range radars (then ROS), airborne radars for aircraft, the superbase mentioned by B-29, even Americans refused to deliver penicillin, citing secrecy
        1. ccsr 6 March 2020 12: 51 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Quote: Boris Petrov-Vodkin
          Night vision devices and sights, long-range radars (then ROS), airborne radars for aircraft, the superbase mentioned by B-29, even Americans refused to deliver penicillin, citing secrecy

          There is direct evidence for this in the memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union I.I. Lezhov:
    2. Orel 3 March 2020 16: 36 New
      • 14
      • 14
      0
      The role of Lend-Lease will always be controversial, since not all documents are declassified, but there are a number of works with a technical justification that the Soviet industry in wartime seriously sinned by postscript, the amount of equipment released was overestimated, the same units two to three times passed records, the actual amount of materials used did not match the output, i.e. the real amount of extracted resources and produced raw materials in the USSR is likely to be seriously overstated, this issue can be clarified only after the final opening of all archives and a serious analysis of documents for the subject of “additions”. There is evidence from Zhukov that if it were not for the products of the chemical industry according to Lend-Lease, then it would have been impossible to produce many types of steel, explosives, gunpowder and much more, chemical production was mainly in Ukraine and suffered very seriously, you can have 99 percent and million tons of everything in the world, but not be able to produce 1% of complex chemicals without which finished products - shell, armor, bullet, fuel, explosives - will not work. There are words of Khrushchev who claimed that in conversations with Stalin, the latter repeatedly mentioned that if it were not for the supplies of the allies, then we would have lost this war, who, if not Stalin, would know the real situation in the country in those years? In general, the debatable question and the most correct thing here is not to share the victory and remember that everyone died in France, the USSR, Italy, Greece and Africa, the Pacific Ocean and the Far East, it’s better to stop sharing the victory and not try to appropriate her
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 March 2020 17: 12 New
        • 12
        • 1
        +11
        Quote: Orel
        the number of vehicles released was overstated, the same units were counted two or three times

        May I ask where this information comes from?
        1. Orel 3 March 2020 18: 09 New
          • 4
          • 11
          -7
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          May I ask where this information comes from?


          I discussed a lot about this, now I don’t remember much where I looked, the simplest example is the link:

          http://militera.lib.ru/research/sokolov1/04.html

          It doesn’t solve the problem of mistakes / errors, many things are very controversial in the data on Soviet production, and there are practically no detailed statistics of the war years on the chemical industry (a critical component), it’s not classified, it’s not preserved, but given the role of Lend-Lease in supply critically important raw materials that it is difficult and long to produce nitric acid, rubber, gunpowder, explosives, alcohol, much came from behind the hillock, even in the vast majority and this is not surprising, you can grind blanks at the relocated plant in the field, but nitric acid you you won’t quickly do it, if you lost a plant, it’s so simple in a month in an open field - you won’t organize a year
          1. Den717 3 March 2020 21: 34 New
            • 10
            • 2
            +8
            Quote: Orel
            the simplest example is the link

            Are you referring to B. Sokolov? Everything is clear ... You can not read further ...
            1. Orel 4 March 2020 04: 19 New
              • 3
              • 11
              -8
              Quote: Den717
              Are you referring to B. Sokolov? Everything is clear ... You can not read further ...


              There are links to official documents of both parties, what do you have? I suspect that nothing, it’s just convenient for you to believe what they say on TV, if there are serious studies that refute this, please, I haven’t seen a single one, all the refutations come down to statistics taken from the ceiling, the sources of which are absent, everything is clear and mathematically justified, and mathematics, a thing that does not tolerate lies, an ostrich with his head in the sand is also convenient;)
              1. Den717 4 March 2020 07: 01 New
                • 13
                • 1
                +12
                Quote: Orel
                what do you have Suspect nothing

                I have Falin, Maisky, Stettenius and others. In sum, they inspire more confidence from me than this principled Russophobe and anti-Soviet. There are recollections of the leaders of the NKTP, showing how the director of the plant lost his post for the fact that one tank assembled but not signed by military acceptance was included in the daily summary of manufactured products. But according to Sokolov, it turns out that instead of 65 medium tanks and self-propelled guns, the front received 650 from the force. So? For normal historians, reference to Boris Sokolov is considered "bad form." I myself am not a historian and I do not conduct research, therefore the name of the author whom I read means a lot to me. I think it is useful to understand whose information you are consuming, what the author wants to convince the reader of, how much he can be trusted. I'm not saying that Sokolov’s numbers are all false. But that is the skill of the propagandist, how he can present them for his own purposes and interests. A dozen times the repeated phrase about "falling asleep of the enemy with the corpses of soldiers" in his books forms a subconscious negative attitude towards all processes in those years in our country.
                1. Orel 4 March 2020 10: 32 New
                  • 3
                  • 8
                  -5
                  Quote: Den717
                  I have Falin, Maisky, Stettenius and others. In sum, they inspire more confidence from me than this principled Russophobe and anti-Soviet. There are recollections of the leaders of the NKTP, showing how the director of the plant lost his post for the fact that one tank assembled but not signed by military acceptance was included in the daily summary of manufactured products. And according to Sokolov, it turns out that instead of 65 medium tanks and self-propelled guns, the front received 650 from the force.


                  The main problem is the numbers, they don’t agree, Sokolov, who you hate, seems to be getting better with mathematics than other historians, I’m used to evaluate statistics more from the standpoint of mathematics and economics, rather than reputation. Mathematically, for some reason, no one can refute these inconvenient figures, but for some reason they consider that they agree with the words of Zhukov and Stalin in post-war questions about Lend-Lease senility)))
                  1. ccsr 4 March 2020 12: 13 New
                    • 7
                    • 2
                    +5
                    Quote: Orel
                    The main problem is the numbers, they don’t agree, Sokolov, who you hate, seems to be getting better with mathematics than other historians, I’m used to evaluate statistics more from the standpoint of mathematics and economics, rather than reputation.

                    If you seriously studied history, and less believed the rogue Sokolov, then you would know that only in 1938-1939 THREE battleships were laid, on which there was such armor steel that the tank builders did not even dream of. And all this was done in our factories. And since the construction of battleships and cruisers was stopped with the outbreak of war, all that was planned to be used on them went to other sectors of our industry. Here is for information what armored steel battleships are:
                    Reservation
                    armor belt: 375-420 mm,
                    bulkheads: 230—365 mm,
                    barbet: 425 mm,
                    gun turrets: 495 mm,
                    deck: 25 + 155 + 50 mm,
                    cabin: 425 mm

                    So the hints that we didn’t have armor steel for building tanks were just an ordinary lie, especially since after the Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk battles, we had trophies of armored vehicles in large quantities.
                  2. Victor Leningradets 5 March 2020 10: 49 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    As for the armored steel for the battleships, a shaped bummer came out. We did not pull up the production of thick cemented armor in 1939 - 1941. What we could do was a BC armor for belt plates, cast armor of varying degrees of hardening of the face for cutting, barbets and towers, and rolling homogeneous armor for decks.
                    However, the last two types were decisive for tanks.
                  3. Yamato1980 6 March 2020 13: 47 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    So the armor steel for the battleship in composition is not the same as the armor steel for the tank, and giving reservation numbers is generally so-so winked
                  4. ccsr 6 March 2020 14: 40 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: Yamato1980
                    So the armored steel for the battleship in composition is not the same as the armored steel for the tank,

                    The question was whether we could produce armored steel for our tank industry without the Americans, and I argued that there were production facilities in the country, not only in Mariupol (formerly Zhdanov), but also in other cities of the country. And technologists probably began to change the composition even then they knew how - this is beyond my doubt.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 March 2020 09: 56 New
            • 13
            • 0
            +13
            Sorry for not responding right away, but I fully agree with the opinion of the respected Den717. B. Sokolov is a rare liar; he, of course, provides links to documents and works of other historians. But the joke is that if you yourself take these same documents and works, and analyze them yourself, you yourself will see how monstrously sized noodles he hangs on your ears. I analyzed his “work” devoted to the losses of the USSR in the Second World War, and something else - a lie and distortion in literally every paragraph, and this is clearly seen from the sources cited by him. He has a calculation for the masses, for people who themselves will not read the primary sources
            1. Orel 4 March 2020 10: 40 New
              • 3
              • 9
              -6
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Sorry for not responding right away, but I fully agree with the opinion of the respected Den717. B. Sokolov is a rare liar; he, of course, provides links to documents and works of other historians. But the joke is that if you yourself take these same documents and works, and analyze them yourself, you yourself will see how monstrously sized noodles he hangs on your ears. I analyzed his “work” devoted to the losses of the USSR in the Second World War, and something else - a lie and distortion in literally every paragraph, and this is clearly seen from the sources cited by him. He has a calculation for the masses, for people who themselves will not read the primary sources


              The numbers are needed, as long as there are no clear numbers, one can agree or not, but mathematically there is no refutation, it is easy to brand a person, the history of thousands of examples knows, and they do not deal with this with documents more often. The issue of losses will never be possible to clear up at all, because their losses are underestimated deliberately, and the enemy’s losses and the number of prisoners are increased, and both sides do this and many documents are not saved
              1. Den717 4 March 2020 11: 00 New
                • 5
                • 1
                +4
                Quote: Orel
                The numbers are needed, as long as there are no clear numbers, you can agree or not, but mathematically there is no refutation

                With such aspirations for numbers, all writers should be ignored altogether, and research should be done. For in any collection of numbers, their interpretation is also important. And yes, reputation in your thematic community is sometimes more important than numbers. Because in some cases, even accounting figures can be juggled.
              2. Orel 4 March 2020 12: 05 New
                • 1
                • 8
                -7
                Quote: Den717
                With such aspirations for numbers, all writers should be ignored altogether, and research should be done. For in any collection of numbers, their interpretation is also important. And yes, reputation in your thematic community is sometimes more important than numbers. Because in some cases, even accounting figures can be juggled.


                In fact, it’s not so simple here, if you believe the official data, then the USSR, even in August 1942, issued 1500 tanks, monthly, then more, where did they all go ??? Even if they had to transfer to separate tank battalions, they lost so ineptly
              3. Yamato1980 6 March 2020 13: 51 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                There is such a thing as a reserve. Do you think that all tanks, planes, guns fired immediately went to the front? Badly mistaken. And yes, in August 1942 there were already tank armies, still shitty of course, but they already were.
          3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 March 2020 11: 15 New
            • 8
            • 0
            +8
            You have below comments on tanks and armored steel. In the evening, on its basis I will try to perform a "session of black magic and its exposure" :)
            As for the losses, I repeat - Sokolov is refuted by his own sources :)))
          4. Orel 4 March 2020 12: 11 New
            • 0
            • 6
            -6
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            You have below comments on tanks and armored steel. In the evening, on its basis I will try to perform a "session of black magic and its exposure" :)
            As for the losses, I repeat - Sokolov is refuted by his own sources :)))


            There is a lot of obscurity there, especially the ratio of tables on the production of tanks, the number of troops and losses
          5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 March 2020 18: 03 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            He answered as promised :)
  • ccsr 3 March 2020 19: 00 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    Quote: Orel
    There is evidence from Zhukov that if it were not for the products of the chemical industry according to Lend-Lease, then it would be impossible to produce many types of steel, explosives, gunpowder and much more, chemical production

    Actually, Zhukov did not engage in arming the army and did not lead our military-industrial complex, so it is simply unreasonable to completely trust his recollections in this matter. Especially taking into account the fact that he “forgot” how Golikov informed him with reports on the concentration of German troops near our border since March.
    Quote: Orel
    There are words of Khrushchev who claimed that in conversations with Stalin, the latter repeatedly mentioned that if it were not for the supplies of the allies, then we would have lost this war, who, if not Stalin, would know the real situation in the country in those years?

    Khrushchev quotes Stalin - this is generally nonsense after the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU. It may be better to study statistical sources, then it may become clear how the Americans wanted to cut down extra money from us for non-returning equipment.
    1. Orel 3 March 2020 19: 55 New
      • 4
      • 10
      -6
      So, Marshal G.K. Zhukov in post-war conversations with the writer K.M. Simonov said: "Speaking about our preparedness for war from the point of view of the economy and the economy, we can not ignore such a factor as subsequent assistance from the Allies. First of all, of course, on the part of the Americans, because the British in this sense helped us to a minimum. When analyzing all aspects of the war, this cannot be discounted. We would be in a difficult situation without American gunpowder, we could not produce as much ammunition as we needed "Without American" Studebakers, we would have nothing to carry our artillery on. Yes, they largely provided our front-line transport. The production of special steels necessary for the most varied needs of the war was also associated with a number of American supplies. " At the same time, Zhukov emphasized that “we entered the war, still continuing to be an industrially backward country compared with Germany.” {3} The reliability of K. Simonov’s transfer of these conversations with Zhukov in 1965-1966 is confirmed by the statements of G. Zhukov, recorded as a result of a security audit in 1963: "Now they say that the Allies never helped us ... But it cannot be denied that the Americans drove us so much material without which we could not build up our reserves and could not continue the war ... We had no explosives, gunpowder. There was nothing to equip rifle cartridges. The Americans really helped us out with gunpowder, explosives. And how much they drove us to sheet steel! How could we quickly establish production tanks, if it weren’t for American help with steel? And now they present the matter so that we had all of this in abundance "
      1. ccsr 3 March 2020 20: 22 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        Quote: Orel
        So, Marshal G.K. Zhukov in post-war conversations

        Marshal Zhukov G.K. He left behind famous memoirs, which, when analyzing declassified documents of that period, do not always withstand criticism - this was incidentally pointed out by some generals immediately after their release. And his words, retold by someone, but without documentary evidence, can be regarded as his personal opinion, and not as a historical fact.
        Quote: Orel
        How could we quickly set up tank production if it weren’t for American steel help?

        And how did we produce almost 20 thousand tanks on the eve of the war - were they collected on their knees or something?
        1. Orel 3 March 2020 20: 35 New
          • 3
          • 13
          -10
          Quote: ccsr
          And how did we produce almost 20 thousand tanks on the eve of the war - were they collected on their knees or something?


          The facts of deliberate overstatement of accounts are an enduring vice of the socialist planned economy, known in relation to armaments and military equipment in the USSR both in the prewar and postwar years. So, on the eve of the war, vehicles that didn’t exist in nature were handed over to mobilization plans. {52} And even in the last years of the USSR’s existence, in 1985, one of the future leaders of the August 1991 putsch A. Tizyakov artificially overstated the number of missiles produced by double counting . {53} And during the war, German intelligence recorded a deliberate distortion of Soviet statistics already in 1942. {54} During the war years, emergency conditions made scheduled tasks often notoriously impossible, and current control difficult. It is also possible that production was artificially overstated by double counting of defective products. Chief Marshal of Aviation A. Novikov, former Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, was arrested in 1946 for accepting defective aircraft from the factories during the war years. By his own admission, the representative of the State Defense Committee (GKO) G. Malenkov was perfectly aware of and tacitly covering this practice. {55} The top leadership, perhaps, suspected the inconsistency of the true situation in the production of weapons and equipment with reports, but chose to repress the perpetrators after the war, and distortions in reporting were actually just an excuse that covered the true, political reason for the disgrace (A. Novikov was actually arrested because of his proximity to Marshal G. Zhukov, and the post-war disgrace of G. Malenkov was related to the struggle within the Politburo) . In the years of the war, repressions still would not help to establish accountability and increase the production of weapons and equipment, but most likely they would only disorganize management, which could only reduce, not increase output.

          According to our estimates, based on the reduction of labor costs per unit of various types of weapons and equipment in 1941-1943, the production of tanks and combat aircraft during the war years was at least doubled. With this in mind, the share of Western deliveries of weapons and military equipment is approximately twice as high as is commonly believed. {56} 7057 tanks and self-propelled guns were delivered from the USA, 5480 from England and Canada. the total number of 15 combat vehicles amounted to about 481 thousand. {3384} Taking into account the overestimation of data on Soviet production, the share of Western deliveries on combat aircraft will not be 18%, as was traditionally believed, but about 865%; on tanks and self-propelled guns from traditional 17% to 57% of the total level of production in the USSR during the war years.
          1. ccsr 3 March 2020 20: 43 New
            • 9
            • 3
            +6
            Quote: Orel
            The facts of deliberate overstatement of accounts are an enduring vice of socialist planned economy,

            You don’t seem to know how the “cotton business” ended in the late USSR, and even under Stalin it would hardly have occurred to anyone to overestimate the accounts, certainly to the military representatives. So we don’t need to tell an alternative story to us - you just don’t know how the registration was made in the USSR, especially weapons and military equipment.
            Quote: Orel
            According to our estimates, based on the reduction of labor costs per unit of various types of weapons and equipment in 1941-1943, the production of tanks and combat aircraft during the war years was at least doubled.

            What is yours - name the source first. By the way, manufacturing defects occurred in any country, including the Germans, but this is no reason to say that because of this, the quantity of manufactured equipment was doubled.
            1. Orel 3 March 2020 20: 48 New
              • 2
              • 10
              -8
              Quote: ccsr
              What is yours - name the source first.


              The link above is in the dialog. A detailed squeeze is given there, however, this is not enough, a lot of data is not available. Plus, the cumulative effect of Lend-Lease must be taken into account, they always forget about it, railroad tracks, wagons, locomotives - this was almost never done in the war years, production capacities from this were directed to the production of military products, and the USSR transport system at that time provided with supplies of allies. If we were forced to release this ourselves, then military production would significantly decrease for the sake of civilian production. Food is not a secret, which was extremely important, having such supplies it was possible to transport part of the people from food production to military factories, again the growth of military production, and so on in many respects. Therefore, Lend-Lease is important not only in absolute numbers, but also in the cumulative effect for the military-industrial complex of the USSR
              1. ccsr 4 March 2020 11: 54 New
                • 6
                • 4
                +2
                Quote: Orel
                The link above is in the dialog.

                You gave reference numbers - 52, 53, 57,58, etc., and the sources themselves are not named, that is why there are doubts about their reliability, especially if they are of post-perestroika origin and are associated with Yakovlevism.
                Quote: Orel
                railway rails, wagons, locomotives - during the war years, this was almost never done,

                This is a distortion - the rails and all the attendant were removed in Siberia from the construction of the railway. BAM, when it was required to quickly create new ways of transportation to Stalingrad in 1942.
                Quote: Orel
                If we were forced to release this ourselves, then military production would significantly decrease for the sake of civilian production.

                No one denies that the help of the Allies helped us reduce the time of the war, which would simply last longer for us without their help. However, for them, the war with Japan would also drag out without our help. But even faster it would have ended if the Americans through third countries did not supply Germany with raw materials during the war, and did not cherish their factories in Europe during the bombing, which just worked for the Wehrmacht. It’s a shame to remind about the second front - they promised it to us since 1942 ...
                Quote: Orel
                Therefore, Lend-Lease is important not only in absolute numbers, but also in the cumulative effect for the military-industrial complex of the USSR

                It’s not as important as you want to imagine it - the Americans did not give us advanced technologies, but they themselves robbed Germany very intellectually, and stole documentation even where our troops were already located. So the myths of Lend-Lease impress those who have little knowledge of the history of that war, and do not know that Mongolia supplied us more food than the United States.
              2. Sardanapalus 6 March 2020 08: 52 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                "The main imports of the USSR from Mongolia were cattle and small cattle, livestock, hides, fur and fur raw materials, short fur coats, wool, felt. From June 1941 until the end of 1945, the USSR imported 0,7 million heads of cattle from Mongolia , small cattle 4,9 million heads, 0,4 million horses, almost 6 million pieces of small hides. The Soviet Union paid Mongolia throughout the war with food and industrial goods. [4] "
                Well, where is more ??? In addition to bored American stews, we do not discard flour, saccharin, egg powder, milk powder, chocolate (cocoa). After the war for the entire Soviet period, the trade balance with Mongolia was in the red. Overpaid ten times.
              3. ccsr 6 March 2020 12: 41 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                Quote: Sardanapalus
                Well, where is more ???

                Here:
                Five hundred thousand horses

                Invaluable was the contribution of Mongolia to the supply of horses to the Red Army. In fact, only Mongolia, with the exception of the Soviet Union itself, assisted the Red Army with horses. It should be noted that, apart from the Soviet Union itself, there was nowhere to take horses for the needs of the Red Army except in Mongolia. Moreover, in such quantities as were required by the front. First, only the United States possessed similar horse resources. Secondly, their delivery from the USA was practically impossible due to the excessive complexity of transportation and the impossibility in a capitalist country to organize their purchase from private owners at cheap prices. So Mongolia became the main supplier of horses for the Red Army.
                .....
                The food assistance of the Red Army, provided by the small population and economically weak Mongolia, was almost equal to the supply of food from the United States. If the American side delivered 665 thousand tons of canned food to the Soviet Union, then Mongolia provided 500 thousand tons of meat for the needs of the front. As we can see, the numbers are almost equal, only the scale of the American and Mongolian economies is completely incomparable. A huge role in providing the Red Army was also played by the supply of wool from Mongolia. They even blocked the supply of similar products from the United States - if 54 thousand tons of wool were sent from the United States, then from Mongolia - 64 thousand tons of wool. Naturally, such a large-scale supply of food and things demanded tremendous tension from the Mongolian economy. The labor resources of the Mongolian People's Republic were fully utilized. In Mongolia, a ten-hour work day was officially introduced. A huge part of the livestock was withdrawn by the state for the support needs of the union Soviet state. Thus, throughout the entire period of World War II, Mongolia provided substantial and invaluable assistance to the fighting Red Army and the Soviet people. But nevertheless, the main contribution of Mongolia to the Second World War occurred after the victory over Nazi Germany. This is a war with Japan, in which the Mongolian People's Republic took an active part.

                By the way, in VO this topic has already been discussed
                https://topwar.ru/74604-pomosch-stepey-mongoly-vernye-soyuzniki-velikoy-otechestvennoy.html
              4. Sardanapalus 6 March 2020 13: 51 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Yes, I do not detract from the help of Mongolia (some short fur coats are worth it). But still, in the appendage to the "herd" of Mongolian horses, the Allies put 200 THOUSAND cars with a hook, which is more common. What is the value of such an ally as the United States and Britain, their allies and colonies were automatically our allies, and this is about 30 states at that time. If you recall that we entered the Second World War without any allies.
              5. Octopus 6 March 2020 18: 01 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Sardanapalus
                If we recall that we entered the Second World War without any allies.

                Why do you think so?
                Quote: Sardanapalus
                I do not detract from the help of Mongolia at all (some short fur coats are worth it)

                They do not cost anything. In Mongolia, like Tuva, there is Soviet power.
              6. mmaxx 7 March 2020 18: 17 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                How to say. These deliveries put Mongolia on the brink of hunger. And the Americans are the opposite. Finally, they began to eat from the belly. When a person gives the last - it is much more valuable.
              7. Octopus 7 March 2020 21: 08 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: mmaxx
                When a person gives the last - it is much more valuable.

                You see. Comrade Choibalsan is not a little Mr. Roosevelt. His relationship with Comrade Stalin had a slightly different format. Not quite the secretary of the regional committee, but not exactly ally.
              8. mmaxx 8 March 2020 07: 02 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Let's get the results. And Roosevelt helped Choibalsan. Each in its own way. US financial assistance is greater. And morally Mongolia. The poor country has given everything.
                Look now at our "brothers" and "allies." No one will give a penny.
              9. Octopus 8 March 2020 11: 31 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: mmaxx
                The poor country has given everything.

                Again.
                Mongolia at that time is not a country. Comrade Choibalsan is sitting there like some Mr. Bganba in Rwanda Abkhazia. What comrade Stalin will say that he will give, not his own good, but class enemies, shamans, fists.
              10. mmaxx 8 March 2020 14: 01 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                I am aware that in those days, Mongolia was considered only the USSR as a country. But again: the contribution of Mongolia to the war is incomparable in comparison with the size and population of Mongolia itself.
                Maybe my attitude towards the Mongols is superimposed on my attitude. Yes, they are such and such. But mentally, they are much closer to us than some Western Ukrainians, whom some for some reason consider us to be relatives. Personally, I don’t even need such relatives. Faced. A Mongol, if a friend does not betray. Yes, this is proven. What they could, they gave everything.
              11. Octopus 8 March 2020 14: 11 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: mmaxx
                But mentally, they are much closer to us than any Western Ukrainians.

                )))
                South Buryatia.
  • Orel 3 March 2020 20: 37 New
    • 2
    • 12
    -10
    According to N. A. Voznesensky, in the first two and a half years of the war, Soviet armor steel resources increased by 350 thousand. t, and in 1942 The production of armored steel in the eastern regions was 1,8 times higher than the production of steel throughout the country in 1940. (in 1942 armored steel was produced only in the East). {45} These data contradict the information on the production of armored steel contained in the reference book "The National Economy of the USSR in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945", where the dynamics of the production of armored steel is presented as follows (in thousand r): 1940 - 75, 1941 - 294, 1942 - 527, 1943 - 446, 1944 - 588, 1945 - 510. {46} However, here we tend to trust only data on production in 1940. The fact is that this directory, prepared back in 1959. under the heading "secret", it also included data on the production of weapons and military equipment, according to which the production of tanks and self-propelled guns, for the manufacture of which was mainly the armor plate, amounted to July 1941. until August 1945 102,8 тыс. units. {47} Most likely, the discrepancy between the primary data on the production of armored steel and the production of tanks caught the eye of either the compilers of the handbook or one of their predecessors, and the data on the production of armored steel were adjusted upward. In the work of N. A. Ascension data on the annual or total volume of production of tanks or aircraft was not given. In addition, if he wanted to distort the data on the production of armored steel in the USSR, then in his largely propaganda book, he would most likely do so in the direction of overstatement, not understatement. If we accept the production of armored steel in 1940 in 75 thousand t, then N.'s data A. Voznesensky agree perfectly with this number. Then in 1942 the production of armored steel can be determined by multiplying the production level of 1940 by 1,8, t. e. in 135 thousand so In this case, the production for the second half of 1941. and for the whole of 1943 should total 215 thousand so Since in the second half of 1941 due to the shutdown and evacuation of factories, the production of armored steel was significantly reduced, it was probably less than the average half-year production of 1942, i.e. e. less than 67,5 thousand so We estimate it at about 50 thousand. t, and production 1943 - in 165 thousand t of armored steel. Meanwhile, only in the period from July 1941 and until the end of 1943 in the USSR, according to official statistics, 53,3 thousand were released. tanks and self-propelled guns, {48} including at least 30 thousand T-34 tanks, {49} each of which required up to 20 tons of armored steel. Meanwhile, the mobilized supply of armored steel in the USSR before the war was small and did not even cover the 6-month needs of industry. {50} With this in mind, we estimate it to be no more than 50 thousand. so Lend-Lease almost did not supply armor steel. Only in 1942, the 5 short tons were delivered, or 786 metric tons of armor steel (another 5 thousand t perished on the way). {51} So in total, at the disposal of Soviet industry in the first 2,5 years of the war there should have been about 405 thousand tons of armored steel, while only for production 30 thousand T-34 tanks it could go up to 600 thousand. so Lend-lease armor supply was the most extreme means caused by its sharp deficit, since, generally speaking, a certain type of tank always requires a certain kind of armor and type of armor plate, and American armor was not very suitable for Soviet types of tanks. If we accept the data on the production of armor in 1942 from the reference book "The National Economy of the USSR in the Great Patriotic War" - 527 thousand t, then the supply of 5,2 thousand A ton of armored plates from the USA looks mysterious - such an amount of armor, which was only 11,8% of the Soviet monthly production, could not be enough to cover any deficit. It is another matter if our assessment of the production of armor in 1942 is fair, based on N.'s data. A. Voznesensky - 135 thousand so Then the armor supplied under Lend-Lease will be about 46,7% of the Soviet average monthly production in 1942, which makes American armor a significant factor in covering a possible deficit, especially when you consider that in the first half of 1942 production was lower than in the second half of the year.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 March 2020 11: 12 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Oh, mine gott! :))) I’ll try to unsubscribe in the evening in more detail
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 March 2020 18: 01 New
      • 10
      • 0
      +10
      So, let's begin, blessing :)))
      Quote: Orel
      According to N. A. Voznesensky, in the first two and a half years of the war, Soviet armor steel resources increased by 350 thousand tons, and in 1942, the production of armored steel in the eastern regions exceeded 1,8 times the production of steel throughout the country in 1940

      Shameless lies of Sokolov. Ascension did not write this. That's what he actually wrote about 350 thousand tons
      During the war economy of the USSR, smelting of armor steels in the main open-hearth furnaces was replaced instead of smelting by a duplex process, which made it possible to increase the armor steel resources by 2,5 thousand tons in 350 years of war.

      And here is what he wrote about steel growth 1,8 times
      The production of shell blanks and armor plates in the eastern regions of the USSR increased in | 1942 times in 1,8 compared with what was produced throughout the USSR in 1940.

      See what’s the matter? When Voznesensky speaks of 350 thousand tons, he does not report a general increase in the production of armored steel, but only how much production has grown thanks to the innovation - the use of open-hearth furnaces. And the same thing about 1,8 times - this is not about a general increase in armor steels, but only armor plates and shell blanks (this is not the whole armor). Sokolov, on the other hand, gives these figures as a sale not for growth, but for TOTAL PRODUCTION of steel, which is a deliberate lie. And after that - picturesquely splashes his hands
      Quote: Orel
      These data contradict the information on the production of armored steel contained in the reference book "The National Economy of the USSR in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945", where the dynamics of the production of armored steel is presented as follows (in thousand tons): 1940 - 75, 1941 - 294, 1942 - 527, 1943 - 446, 1944 - 588, 1945 - 510

      And they, the data of Voznesensky, do not contradict the data of the directory. But Sokolov needs a sensation and we read
      If we accept the production of armored steel in 1940 at 75 thousand tons, then the data of N. A. Voznesensky are in excellent agreement with this number. Then in 1942, the production of armored steel can be determined by multiplying the level of production of 1940 by 1,8, i.e., 135 thousand tons.

      Just one “small” rigging is to present the case in such a way that not the armor plate and shell blanks grew 1,8 times, but ALL the production of armored steel - and what an effect! laughing
      Well, even offhand - and how, according to Sokolov, were cast towers for tanks made? It turns out, at first the armored plates were smelted, and then - OH! WHAT WE ARE! - and melted them back, and towers were pouring from the resulting metal? laughing
      But then it’s worse, and Sokolov punctures in arithmetic
      Then in 1942, the production of armored steel can be determined by multiplying the production level of 1940 by 1,8, i.e., 135 thousand tons. In this case, production for the second half of 1941 and for the whole of 1943 should total amount to 215 thousand tons

      Everything would be fine, but Voznesensky clearly wrote about an increase in the resources of armored steel by 350 thousand tons in 2,5 years, and even if this interpretation is interpreted as an increase in ALL armored steel, then according to Voznesensky by 350 thousand tons, RESOURCE GROWS, and according to Sokolov, ISSUE 350 thousand tons. :))))
      Next, Sokolov writes
      Quote: Orel
      Meanwhile, only from July 1941 until the end of 1943 in the USSR, according to official statistics, 53,3 thousand tanks and self-propelled guns were released, {48} including at least 30 thousand T-34 tanks, {49} each of which required up to 20 tons of armored steel.

      It is very difficult to understand where the figure of 20 tons of armored steel came from on the tank, but oh well. But here's the thing - Sokolov “forgot” to mention 2 well-known nuances.
      Firstly, in the reports of military representatives, on the basis of which the production of Soviet tanks is being lumped today, the tanks produced and repaired, restored, as a rule, were not divided. This is understandable - the military representative, in general, doesn’t care, the new or restored tank in front of him, his task is to check the suitability of the vehicle “for marching and fighting”. And it is also clear that the repaired T-34 does not need 20 tons of armored steel.
      Secondly, the shortage of armor steel in 1942 really had a place to be. As a result of this, in some cases, the thickness of the armor was reduced relative to the design, and in other cases, for the manufacture of individual parts of the tanks used ordinary, non-armored steel. The question - how many tanks went "non-standard" remains open, but this is for research by real historians. Sokolov simply ignores these facts, he does not even mention them, because otherwise his "evidence base" will again crack at the seams.
      In my opinion - enough :))))
      1. frog 6 March 2020 23: 06 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Sumptuously!!!! But, alas, it is pointless for your counterpart ....
  • Dmitry V. 4 March 2020 10: 47 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Quote: ccsr
    And how did we produce almost 20 thousand tanks on the eve of the war - were they collected on their knees or something?


    20 thousand tanks have been accumulated since 1928 - 12 years of production.
    And in composition - the overwhelming majority of light-armored ones.
    The first tanks were almost assembled - on the knee from the MS to the T-26 - not high quality and low resource at the beginning.

    Do not forget that these 20 thousand pre-war tanks include: MS-1 of the first releases a little less than a thousand units (not all were withdrawn from service in 1941), T-26 about 11000 units, BT-2 600 units, BT-5 1880 units. , BT-7 4800 pcs., BT-7A 155pcs, BT-7M 790 pcs., T-28 500 pcs. - thin-armored tanks pierced by German 37 mm "beater" (T-28 was of some difficulty).
    KV-1/2 a little more than three hundred in the western districts,
    T-34 in service 1068 pcs. on June 1941. (Released 1110 in the first half of 1941).

    Considering the fact that by 1941 the PzKpfw-III (G / H) was equipped with a 50 mm KwK 38 gun with a barrel length of 42 calibers, a 30 mm frontal armor plate - they were a serious enough opponent for Soviet light tanks in direct combat
    For German anti-tank weapons, the 37 mm guns are a striking target.
    1. ccsr 4 March 2020 12: 27 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
      20 thousand tanks have been accumulated since 1928 - 12 years of production.

      Those. You acknowledge that the tank industry existed and its capabilities were not microscopic. By the way, the opponent argued that we just could not establish the production of tanks without the Americans:
      Quote: Orel
      How could we quickly set up tank production if it weren’t for American steel help?

      Although it is not clear why the opponent did not take into account that we refused shipbuilding programs at the beginning of the war, and all armored steel went to the construction of tanks.
      Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
      Considering the fact that by 1941 the PzKpfw-III (G / H) was equipped with a 50 mm KwK 38 gun with a barrel length of 42 calibers, a 30 mm frontal armor plate - they were a serious enough opponent for Soviet light tanks in direct combat
      For German anti-tank weapons, the 37 mm guns are a striking target.

      I’m no worse than you understand the advantages of German armored vehicles on the eve of the war, as well as the fact that its cost was much higher than ours. And in the end, during a long war, this became decisive for the defeat of Germany - they could not produce expensive and technologically sophisticated armored vehicles to make up for losses on the Eastern Front, because they lacked financial and industrial resources. Thanks to the cheaper cost of the armored vehicles, we not only made up for the losses, but also increased its total output.
      1. Octopus 4 March 2020 23: 08 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Quote: ccsr
        the opponent argued that we just could not establish the production of tanks without the Americans:

        Quote: ccsr
        we refused the shipbuilding programs with the outbreak of war, and all armored steel went to the construction of tanks.

        And where was the factory that before the war produced Soviet armored steel? How did alloying work for the 42nd year?
        Quote: ccsr
        the tank industry existed and its capabilities were not microscopic

        Mostly in Leningrad and Kharkov was the Soviet tank industry.
        Quote: ccsr
        I understand you no worse

        )))
        With 41-year-old treshki, the problems were not with the "Soviet light tanks", but with the T-34. Especially without BB.
        Quote: ccsr
        the cost was much higher than ours

        Where the Soviet government uprooted commodity-money relations is the defense industry. It is impossible to speak seriously about the cost of Soviet technology.

        But Soviet tanks of new types were extremely expensive.
        Quote: ccsr
        they lacked financial and industrial resources

        What did they fight before the 45th year, without financial and industrial resources, disease?
        1. ccsr 5 March 2020 10: 05 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          Quote: Octopus
          And where was the factory that before the war produced Soviet armored steel?

          Was he the only one in the country or were there several of them?
          Quote: Octopus
          Mostly in Leningrad and Kharkov was the Soviet tank industry.

          But didn’t many enterprises have been evacuated to the Urals, including in order to start producing tanks?
          Quote: Octopus
          Where the Soviet government uprooted commodity-money relations is the defense industry.

          Nothing of the kind - all technological operations and all components had a clear price, and taking into account all the costs, the cost of military equipment was scrupulously calculated, and military representatives watched it.
          Quote: Octopus
          But Soviet tanks of new types were extremely expensive.

          But during the war, self-propelled guns appeared in our country, and they were much cheaper than tanks. The fact that the cost of tanks grew unsurprisingly - even the caliber of the gun on the T-34 was increased, and this already increased the overall cost of the product.
          Quote: Octopus
          What did they fight before the 45th year, without financial and industrial resources, disease?

          On those European resources that could capture a period of their successful actions until June 22. Do not forget that cards for certain types of goods in Germany appeared already in 1939 - so it wasn’t so good already then, and it’s better not to remember about 44-45 years.
        2. Octopus 5 March 2020 10: 31 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: ccsr
          He was the only one in the country

          YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE

          Recently there was quite decent material.
          https://topwar.ru/168094-treschiny-v-brone-defektnye-t-34-dlja-fronta.html
          Quote: ccsr
          a clear price, and taking into account all the costs, the cost of military equipment was scrupulously calculated

          You are talking about a country in which the cost of HF can be halved by one piece of paper.
          Quote: ccsr
          the cost of tanks grew unsurprisingly

          The cost of tanks decreased. The T-34 of the 40th year is a real nightmare in terms of production.
          Quote: ccsr
          not so good they already

          Even in Switzerland it wasn’t so good. But not so good in different ways.
        3. ccsr 5 March 2020 10: 53 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Quote: Octopus
          YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE

          Recently there was quite decent material.

          Why not believe it? Here it is, from which it is not clear what was the reason for the appearance of defective tanks at the front:
          The People’s Commissariat of Ferrous Metallurgy didn’t agree to preserve technical specifications by Mariupol standards, in which phosphorus, in particular, should be no more than 0,035%. In early November 1941, the People's Commissar of Ferrous Metallurgy Ivan Tevosyan approved new phosphorus standards, which increased the possible content to 0,04%, and from April 4 to 0,045%. It is noteworthy that historians still do not have a single opinion on this, of course, an important factor in the quality of armored steel. Nikita Melnikov, in particular, mentions that the Novo-Tagil plant, on the contrary, by the middle of 1942 reduced the proportion of phosphorus from 0,029% to 0,024%. It seems that different scientists find different reasons for the appearance of defective T-34s at the front.

          Quote: Octopus
          You are talking about a country in which the cost of HF can be halved by one piece of paper.

          I have not heard of this, and even more so I can not imagine how this can be done really.
          Quote: Octopus
          The cost of tanks decreased. The T-34 of the 40th year is a real nightmare in terms of production.

          In mass production, the cost of any product decreases as output increases, because equipment costs and deductions for R&D cost compensation are reduced. And the analysis of defective products in order to eliminate the reasons for their appearance at the plant, allows to achieve in the future reduction of costs (deductions) for warranty repairs.
        4. Octopus 5 March 2020 11: 07 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          So heavy
          As you know, the Mariupol plant named after Ilyich could not be defended, he ended up in the hands of the enemy, and with a mass of technological equipment, which did not have time to evacuate. It is this enterprise (the only one in the country) was able to produce full-fledged armored hulls for the T-34 in compliance with all standards. In the Urals, not a single plant could offer such a thing, so the scientific team of the Armor Institute (TsNII-48) began to adapt the Mariupol practices to the realities of the evacuated factories. For the production of high-quality armor in the required GKO volumes, there was an acute shortage of thermal furnaces, so the institute developed a new cycle for hardening the armor parts. In Mariupol, the armor plate first went to hardening, then to high tempering, then again to hardening. Finally, followed by a low vacation. To speed up production, the first quenching was initially canceled, and then high tempering, which directly affects the viscosity of the armored steel, and reduces the likelihood of cracking. Also, among the necessary measures, according to experts of the Armor Institute, the requirement to load not one but four or five rows of armored plates into the thermal furnace was singled out. Naturally, it turned out much faster, but the final quality of the plates was very heterogeneous. Interestingly, the Armored Institute later decided to cancel the low tempering procedure, which reduces the residual stress of the metal, which again did not fail to negatively affect crack formation.
        5. ccsr 5 March 2020 11: 28 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Quote: Octopus
          It was this enterprise (the only one in the country) that was capable of producing full-fledged armored hulls for the T-34 in compliance with all standards.

          So there were other plants that could produce armored vehicles, albeit not of the same quality as originally planned during development. What is tragic about this, if during the war we had to put up with a certain decrease in quality due to an increase in the quantity? However, it was a question of factories that produced armored steel - as you see, not only Mariupol could do this.
        6. Octopus 5 March 2020 11: 39 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: ccsr
          it was about factories that produced armored steel

          Substandard or 20mm.
  • Yamato1980 6 March 2020 14: 09 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    But I didn’t understand what the BT series tanks and the 3,7 cm anti-tank gun of the 1936 model have to do with it. Ash pepper, that the VET created specifically against tanks will penetrate tanks released in the early 30s. The BT and T-28 tanks are quite modern and normal tanks for their time. Or the Germans immediately Tigers and Panthers appeared laughing
  • Boris Petrov-Vodkin 6 March 2020 04: 04 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    How could we quickly set up tank production if it weren’t for American steel help?
    =============
    lying again
    we supplied nickel to the USA - and it is the main alloying component of armored and corrosion-resistant steel.
    at the expense of themselves they gave in SSA
    1. Octopus 6 March 2020 18: 20 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Boris Petrov-Vodkin
      we supplied nickel to the USA - and it is the main alloying component of armored and corrosion-resistant steel.
      at the expense of themselves they gave in SSA

      The interesting thing about this statement is that every word here lies.

      The USSR received about 14 thousand tons of nickel from Lend-Lease and from Britain. This is comparable to the volume of its production in the country. And no, nickel is not enough to produce quality armor.
  • Mwg
    Mwg 6 March 2020 10: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    “So, Marshal G.K. Zhukov in post-war conversations with writer K.M. Simonov said ...” - Yuz Aleshkovsky has notes by a pioneer entitled “What Grandfather Sayed at Grandma’s Intimate Moment” and with episode numbering ...
  • tihonmarine 4 March 2020 21: 54 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Orel
    There are the words of Khrushchev, who claimed that in conversations with Stalin, the latter repeatedly mentioned that if it were not for the supplies of the allies, we would have lost this war

    Khrushchev believe, do not respect yourself.
  • Boris Petrov-Vodkin 6 March 2020 04: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    what if it were not for the supplies of the allies, then we would have lost this war, who, if not Stalin, would know the real situation in the country in those years?
    =============

    lying.
  • Mwg
    Mwg 6 March 2020 10: 14 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    "There are words of Khrushchev, who claimed that in conversations with Stalin, the latter repeatedly mentioned that if it were not for the supplies of the allies, we would have lost this war, who, if not Stalin, would have known the real situation in the country in those years?" - to whom, if not Khrushchev tell what Stalin said. Yeah.
  • antivirus 3 March 2020 19: 27 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Rivalry in England and France has not been canceled.
    and the Turks?
    and the division of Iran and Bulgaria? Greece?
    Finland in whose basket will squeak ???
    how much does the Chinese Communist Party of China need to give to defeat Yapy and the Kuomintang ???
    Is there still peaceful Holland and Belgium with colonies? leave them in their colonies (Indonesia-Southeast Asia and Africa-- rubber sold in the 30s?) after a sea of ​​blood in Kursk and the Dnieper + Vistula-Oder ???
    how to compensate Mongolia for their work and assistance to the USSR in 41g ??
    Whose Korea will it be?
    How much resources do you need to go to Delhi?
  • 3x3zsave 3 March 2020 07: 13 New
    • 9
    • 4
    +5
    The LL agreement provided for supplies free of charge, subject to the return of equipment not destroyed during the hostilities. It is clear that there were dual-use goods, such as oil refining equipment. Its components are simply impossible to dismantle without destroying process chains. Here perhaps they paid for it.
  • Octopus 3 March 2020 08: 11 New
    • 19
    • 9
    +10
    Quote: Aerodrome
    helped for our gold.

    The first was noted.
  • Jack O'Neill 3 March 2020 08: 19 New
    • 13
    • 9
    +4
    "land lease" helped, of course, not to be denied, but, helped for our gold.

    They did not pay for LL gold.
    The Union paid after the war for equipment that he retained, but did not return. Indeed, according to LL, the equipment that is destroyed - is not subject to return / payment.
    1. ccsr 3 March 2020 13: 25 New
      • 11
      • 1
      +10
      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      They did not pay for LL gold.

      Yes, indeed, they didn’t pay for everything that was supplied specifically for Lend-Lease - they paid for what we refused to supply under Lend-Lease, and they paid not only with gold, but also with our resources.
      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      The Union paid after the war for equipment that he kept at his place, and did not return.

      These were the conditions of Lend-Lease, but this concerned equipment and weapons, as I understand it, and not those expendables or food stuffs.
      There is interesting evidence of F.I.Golikov, who, in his note to the head of intelligence, described the beginning of all negotiations on the supply of assistance from allies to us:
      Nevertheless, in July 1941, not a single request for the allocation of anti-aircraft guns and heavy machine guns was granted, and the British motivated their refusal by the fact that they themselves allegedly lacked these types of weapons. They did not provide aircraft. On all other points of the Soviet application, they either pulled or went forward with great creak and restrictions. In the ruling English circles, the desire to evade military supplies to the Soviet Union was increasingly evident. So, when the Soviet mission resolutely demanded concrete cases, the Minister of Aviation Sinclair and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force Portal openly stated that the Soviets should not count on the provision of a significant number of their aircraft to England. What motives have not been put forward to divert the issue from the field of practical solutions to endless discussions and discussions! One of the main arguments of the British side was that England’s production capabilities are extremely limited and that military production barely meets the needs of the English army itself, scattered across many parts of the globe. Therefore, the British advised us, we should turn to the United States of America, which can provide more military equipment, including aircraft
      1. Jack O'Neill 3 March 2020 13: 31 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        Yes, indeed, they didn’t pay for everything that was supplied specifically for Lend-Lease - they paid for what we refused to supply under Lend-Lease, and they paid not only with gold, but also with our resources.

        Gold was paid for several months for pre-Lend-Lease. Well and yes, for those goods that were not included in LL.

        These were the conditions of Lend-Lease, but this concerned equipment and weapons, as I understand it, and not those expendables or food stuffs.

        Yes, consumables were not payable.


        The Britons really had large troubles with weapons, because they left most of them in France when they retreated.
        Yes, and the planes were in no hurry to deliver us because the shaving was not enough, even taking into account LL.
      2. Alexey RA 3 March 2020 14: 57 New
        • 11
        • 1
        +10
        Quote: ccsr
        Nevertheless, in July 1941, not a single request for the allocation of anti-aircraft guns and heavy machine guns was granted, and the British motivated their refusal by the fact that they themselves allegedly lacked these types of weapons.

        Allegedly? Yes, even in 1942 they did not find a sufficient number of military vehicles to cover the most important transit point - Darwin.
        Quote: ccsr
        What motives have not been put forward to divert the issue from the field of practical solutions to endless discussions and discussions! One of the main arguments of the English side was that England’s production capabilities are extremely limited and that military production barely meets the needs of the English army itself, scattered across many parts of the globe.

        Comrade Golikov apparently does not know what “Tomahawk”, “Kittyhawk” and R-400 are. RAF at that time themselves tightly sat on Lend-Lease.
        Quote: ccsr
        Therefore, the British advised us, we should turn to the United States of America, which can provide more military equipment, including aircraft

        An absolutely logical suggestion is to refer to the source. smile
        1. hohol95 3 March 2020 15: 58 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Before the war, the British, like the Japanese, nurtured the Air Force and Navy. Neither normal tanks (with their production), nor automatic small arms (handbrake and directional tank (even the caliber was not changed) machine guns from Czechoslovakia). And Soviet intelligence in terms of the industrial capabilities of potential opponents was clearly in its infancy then!
          Only the British Air Force themselves "broke firewood" with the amount of variety of types of their aircraft!
          1. Alexey RA 3 March 2020 17: 02 New
            • 10
            • 1
            +9
            Quote: hohol95
            Before the war, the British, like the Japanese, nurtured the Air Force and Navy.

            I would say what they did with the Air Force and Navy until 1935, but I do not want to receive warnings. smile
            Until the mid-30s, the military budget of Britain allowed the armed forces only to survive. With the advent of Chamberlain, who pursued a policy "We don’t want war, but we’re ready“The empire began feverishly restoring what it had previously loved - but there was no time. Even a six-fold increase in the military budget in three years didn’t help - the money stubbornly did not want to be converted directly into projects, weapons and ammunition. And the industry was sewn up - the same Vickers, for example, thwarted the release of 133-mm station wagons, so part of the KRL Dido had to be handed over with an incomplete or even non-design GK.
            1. hohol95 3 March 2020 17: 15 New
              • 2
              • 2
              0
              ALL had enough problems! And there were problems with industry. Especially the USSR ... There is nothing to blame on the mirror ... Who was stopping them? Who created the crisis of the 30s?
              They considered themselves masters of the WORLD ...
          2. Octopus 3 March 2020 20: 36 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: hohol95
            Only the British Air Force themselves "broke firewood" with the amount of variety of types of their aircraft!

            In fact, it was in Britain that the Beaverbrook commission did a very good job in terms of aviation. This also applies to production volumes and unification (all on Merlin). Air vents are used exactly where needed (on a strike aircraft). So the mischievous was very moderate. Compare, for example, with the Germans, who have two lines of in-line engines, or the Americans, who have two lines of in-line and two lines of air, or the councils, which have two in-line and would have two air, if they had not ruined GnomRon.
        2. ccsr 3 March 2020 18: 51 New
          • 5
          • 2
          +3
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Allegedly? Yes, even in 1942 they did not find a sufficient number of military vehicles to cover the most important transit point - Darwin.

          First of all, our requests were rather modest, and dealt mainly with what the British had already received from the USA. Secondly, with the outbreak of the war against the USSR, the Germans conducted the main hostilities on our territory, so that after the flight of Hess, the British were well aware of Hitler's plans.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Comrade Golikov apparently does not know what “Tomahawk”, “Kittyhawk” and R-400 are. RAF at that time themselves tightly sat on Lend-Lease.

          And he just asked the British to share what the Americans had already put on Lend-Lease - so that the British would not have to make any extra effort. By the way, Golikov’s trip to the USA is described in detail in the book - it’s very interesting to understand why help dragged on for a long time.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          An absolutely logical suggestion is to refer to the source.

          So Golikov almost immediately and left for the USA for negotiations on Lend-Lease.
          1. Alexey RA 4 March 2020 17: 14 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: ccsr
            First of all, our requests were rather modest, and dealt mainly with what the British had already received from the USA.

            That is, what the British were just missing - since they were forced to order it in the USA. smile
            Quote: ccsr
            Secondly, with the outbreak of the war against the USSR, the Germans conducted the main hostilities on our territory, so that after the flight of Hess, the British were well aware of Hitler's plans.

            In the summer of 1942, Britain had two and a half theater-of-operations. And a third was outlined. Moreover, in limes, the reformation of the formations broken in 1940 overlapped with the explosive growth of the army (all normal countries did this before the war, but this is lime). smile
            The unusually rapid growth of the British and Indian armies (in the beginning of 1939 the first was 7, and in the second 4 divisions - by the end of 1941 there were 36 and 15, respectively) led to a shortage of qualified command personnel.
            © Evgeny Pinak
            Quote: ccsr
            And he just asked the British to share what the Americans had already put on Lend-Lease - so that the British would not have to make any extra effort

            And what then did the British themselves fight - Comrade Golikov thought about this? If limes with their "sleeps" are taken ... products like P-40 and P-400 - this suggests that they have seams with the presence of equipment in general.
            1. ccsr 4 March 2020 19: 44 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Quote: Alexey RA
              That is, what the British were just missing - since they were forced to order it in the USA.

              Actually, the battle for Britain was in 1940, and in 1941 the main air battles took place on the Eastern Front. So our request was based on the real operational situation, and was justified by the fact that anti-aircraft guns on the Eastern Front would inflict more significant losses on German aircraft.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              In the summer of 1942, Britain had two and a half theater-of-operations. And a third was outlined.

              It was about August 1941 - it was then that we were in dire need. As for the other theater of England, other armies were used there, including Anders, and it cannot be said that there were large-scale battles. So this is not an excuse for refusing us, since we opposed the main forces of the Wehrmacht.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              And what then did the British themselves fight - Comrade Golikov thought about this?

              And what, the Germans landed in 1941 on the territory of Great Britain, since you put the question like that?
              Quote: Alexey RA
              this suggests that they with the presence of technology in general seams.

              I don’t know what seam was there, but for some reason they supplied us with gold.
              1. Alexey RA 5 March 2020 11: 01 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: ccsr
                Actually, the battle for Britain was in 1940, and in 1941 the main air battles took place on the Eastern Front. So our request was based on the real operational situation, and was justified by the fact that anti-aircraft guns on the Eastern Front would inflict more significant losses on German aircraft.

                In fact, backlash in 1941 worked on two turboprop engines. And one of them was Middle-earth, where the British fought - a surprise. smile
                Quote: ccsr
                It was about August 1941 - it was then that we were in dire need. As for the other theater of England, other armies were used there, including Anders, and it cannot be said that there were large-scale battles.

                By our standards, the battles were not large-scale. And for a country with 36 divisions in the army, the North African campaign was seen on a completely different scale. And reinforcements came to Africa, including from the Metropolis.
                Quote: ccsr
                And what, the Germans landed in 1941 on the territory of Great Britain, since you put the question like that?

                But besides the Islands themselves, Britain has no other theater of operations? And you don’t need to deploy a lime army? wink
                1. ccsr 5 March 2020 11: 22 New
                  • 1
                  • 2
                  -1
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  In fact, backlash in 1941 worked on two turboprop engines. And one of them was Middle-earth, where the British fought - a surprise.

                  Have you tried to compare the number of aircraft used in these turboprops? I don’t remember where I saw a detailed analysis of aviation losses, but in two and a half months of fighting on the Eastern Front, the Germans lost as much as against the British in the whole of 1940.
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  And reinforcements came to Africa, including from the Metropolis.

                  Do you seriously believe that the fate of Great Britain depended on the fighting in Africa?
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  But besides the Islands themselves, Britain has no other theater of operations?

                  Well, if you do not want to fight against a powerful enemy in Europe, then it is easiest to imitate military operations where the enemy himself will not be very active. This explains the "concern" of the British - they did not even want to host the Poles from Anders' army, which would be useful if they were so afraid of Hitler.
                  1. Octopus 5 March 2020 11: 37 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Quote: ccsr
                    For more than two months of fighting on the Eastern Front, the Germans lost as much as against the British in the whole of 1940.

                    The newspaper Pravda carried out such analysisseems to be.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    UK's fate depended on fighting in Africa?

                    Yes, sure. This is one of the main mistakes of the Reich.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    Anders' armies did not want to host them, which would be useful if they were so afraid of Hitler.

                    Anders' army was called out from the USSR in the 42nd, if I do not confuse anything. It is not clear what you got to the bottom of it, in the 42nd the British already had a different agenda. Namely, on the one hand, to prevent the Americans from killing themselves against the Wehrmacht, on the other hand, somehow getting rid of their unhealthy brotherly love. The second after the Atlantic charter did not work out very well.
                  2. ccsr 5 March 2020 12: 08 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Yes, sure. This is one of the main mistakes of the Reich.

                    A completely wrong conclusion - it was easier for the Germans to block supplies to the UK using submarines and aircraft than to maintain ground forces in Africa.

                    Quote: Octopus
                    It is not clear what you got to the bottom of it, in the 42nd the British already had a different agenda.

                    And the fact that the decision on the Polish formations was made before June 22, you probably do not know, but it is.
                  3. Octopus 5 March 2020 13: 13 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Quote: ccsr
                    it was easier for the Germans to block supplies to the UK using submarines and aircraft

                    Germany has never blocked shipments to the UK. It has never been possible. But strategically entering the Middle East, where the Reich had many friends (more precisely, Britain had many enemies) opened up interesting prospects. For the USSR as well.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    the decision on the Polish formations was made before June 22, you probably do not know, but it is.

                    1. Of course not in the know.
                    Because
                    2. Of course not. The state of Poland for the Soviet side rose from the grave on July 30, 1941. However, not for long.
                  4. ccsr 5 March 2020 19: 50 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +1
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Germany has never blocked shipments to the UK. It has never been possible.

                    Even as it was possible if Hitler had not started a war against the USSR:
                    “Convoy battle” Of the 57 German submarines, only 26 were suitable for operations in the Atlantic, but this number was enough to as early as September 1939, launch 41 enemy ships with a total weight of 153 tons. The first victims of the “wolf pack” were British ships - the Athenia liner and the Koreges aircraft carrier. Another aircraft carrier, Ark Royal, escaped a sad fate, as torpedoes with magnetic detonators fired by a German U-39 submarine detonated ahead of time. Later, U-47, under the command of Captain Lieutenant Gunther Prien, entered the raid of the British military base Scapa Flow and sunk the battleship Royal Oak. These events forced the British government to remove aircraft carriers from the Atlantic and restrict the movement of other large military ships. The successes of the German submarine fleet forced Hitler, who until then was skeptical of the submarine war, to change his mind. The Fuhrer gave the green light to the mass construction of submarines. Over the next 5 years, another 1108 submarines became part of the Kriegsmarine.


                    Source: How many ships sank Hitler’s Wolf Packs
                    © Russian Seven russian7.ru
                    Quote: Octopus
                    But strategically entering the Middle East, where the Reich had many friends (more precisely, Britain had many enemies) opened up interesting prospects.

                    This whim did not pass even during Napoleon’s time, so one should not fantasize about the prospects in that complex region, because the Germans did not have any long-term prospects there.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Of course not. The state of Poland for the Soviet side rose from the grave on July 30, 1941. However, not for long.

                    I don’t know where you get the information from, but before July there was a resolution:
                    On June 4, 1941, a decision was made by the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU (B.) on the creation by July 1, 1941 of the 238th Infantry Division of the Central Asian Military District of the Red Army consisting of 10 people from Poles and people who know the Polish language. The formation of the division was entrusted to the Burling group, but before the German attack on the USSR they did not manage to form the Polish division.
                  5. Octopus 5 March 2020 23: 27 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +1
                    Quote: ccsr
                    The formation of the division entrusted to the Burling group

                    )))
                    What did Burling's band have to do with Anders? You initially dug up to Anders, not to the Polish Army. This is how to combine Vlasov and Zhukov, excuse me.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    so do not fantasize

                    In fact, they tell you how the British understood the situation. Listen to you, so they, together with the USSR, occupied Iran purely on reflexes.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    September 1939 to sink 41 enemy ships with a total weight of 153 tons

                    The trouble is sadness.
                    The figure you highlighted means that in September the British lost about 200 railway freight wagons, 7 wagons per day. What, in fact, do you see a problem for the second or third world economy?
                  6. ccsr 6 March 2020 12: 34 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +1
                    Quote: Octopus
                    What did Burling's band have to do with Anders? You initially dug up to Anders, not to the Polish Army.

                    And the fact that this question was raised long before Germany attacked the USSR. Anders only continued the work begun, but refused to fight on the territory of the USSR, so they were sent to the British, in the hope that they would be used for the war in Europe. But the British simply did not intend to fight against the Germans in the European theater of war, which is why the Poles left the devil knows where.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    In fact, they tell you how the British understood the situation.

                    We know their "understanding" - especially after the Munich conspiracy and the use of Anders' army after the outbreak of war.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    What, in fact, do you see a problem for the second or third world economy?

                    The fact that England had practically no resources of its own, and without external supplies they would quickly become crowded. And in 1942 it was so obvious that they did not even hide it.
                  7. Octopus 6 March 2020 18: 29 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: ccsr
                    that this question was raised long before Germany attacked the USSR.

                    What question was raised? By whom? Comrade Beria invited the guests of his organization to give out weapons of the hull level and to ensure communication with London? What are we actually discussing?
                    Quote: ccsr
                    even the Poles from Anders' army did not want to host, which would be useful if they were so afraid of Hitler.

                    What else is Burling, hello?
                    Quote: ccsr
                    so the Poles left the devil knows where.

                    In Italy they left him. And what is the question for the British? Why the hell did they get Anders in Britain in '43?
                    Quote: ccsr
                    England had practically no resources

                    How interesting.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    without external supplies, they would quickly get short

                    And what prevented external supplies? Loss of the mentioned 200 rail cars? So in the 40th year the British more or less dealt with this problem.
                  8. ccsr 6 March 2020 20: 00 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: Octopus
                    What are we actually discussing?

                    The duplicity of the British government in World War II.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    And what is the question for the British? Why the hell did they get Anders in Britain in '43?

                    In fact, Stalin insisted that the British and Americans open a second front in Europe in 1942 - that would be useful to the Poles for this.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    And what prevented external supplies?

                    Germany's submarine fleet in the first place.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    So in the 40th year the British more or less dealt with this problem.

                    I examined Golikov’s memoirs, which cover a later period, affecting our participation in the war against Germany and the supply of weapons to us.
                  9. Octopus 6 March 2020 20: 44 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: ccsr
                    The duplicity of the British government in World War II.

                    What does duplicity mean? The British have their own war and they are at war.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    In fact, Stalin insisted that the British and Americans

                    You never know what Comrade insisted. Stalin. The British also had time to insist. Two years earlier.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    Germany's submarine fleet in the first place.

                    And how did he interfere? Alternatively again?
                    Quote: ccsr
                    I examined the memoirs of Golikov

                    What is the matter of Golikov to the British, and to the British to Golikov?
                  10. ccsr 6 March 2020 20: 50 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +1
                    Quote: Octopus
                    What does duplicity mean? The British have their own war and they are at war.

                    Why then did the ardent anti-communist Churchill enter into an alliance with Stalin?
                    Quote: Octopus
                    The British also had time to insist. Two years earlier.

                    At the 1939 talks, or something that they tore off?
                    Quote: Octopus

                    And how did he interfere?

                    Drowned the ships and convoys of the allies, sailing to England.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    What does Golikov care about the British

                    In fact, he was the head of the Soviet delegation, so he was directly related to the negotiations.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    and the British to Golikov?

                    Here I agree - they looked at us like savages, however they also looked at all the others. Snobbery is not a Russian invention ...
                  11. Octopus 6 March 2020 22: 09 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: ccsr
                    Why then did the ardent anti-communist Churchill enter into an alliance with Stalin?

                    They got common enemies, no?
                    Quote: ccsr
                    At the 1939 talks

                    No, what are you. Open a second front is Churchill's favorite subject in correspondence with temporary detention facilities. 40th and early 41st years.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    Drowned the ships and convoys of the allies, sailing to England.

                    You already decide. Reich Reality Yesdrowned but no, did not interfere. The English merchant tonnage continuously grew year by year (with local crises) even before Liberty.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    direct relation to the negotiations.

                    Negotiations on the subject of what? Deliveries to the USSR? Where did the British tell him that a crocodile is not caught, coconut does not grow?
                    Quote: ccsr
                    ardent anti-communist Churchill entered into an alliance with Stalin

                    Quote: ccsr
                    Here I agree - they looked at us like savages

                    Snobbery is not snobbery, but the issue of supplying the metropolis was not discussed with Golikov. A question was discussed with him, what resources, including tonnage and escort ships, can remove from the metropolis and transfer (for needs) of the USSR.
                  12. ccsr 7 March 2020 10: 15 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Open a second front is Churchill's favorite subject in correspondence with temporary detention facilities. 40th and early 41st years.

                    Well, why didn’t they open at least in 1942, since there were common enemies?

                    Quote: Octopus
                    He discussed the question of what resources, including tonnage and escort vessels, can be removed from the metropolis and transferred (for needs) of the USSR.

                    So the fate of Europe was then decided on the Eastern Front, including Britain, which is why for the sake of their own salvation, the British were obliged to help us - this is obvious.
                  13. Octopus 7 March 2020 11: 12 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Quote: ccsr
                    Well, why didn’t they open at least in 1942, since there were common enemies?

                    Because in the 40th, it was a question of an attack by the Red Army in the Balkans, where the British were at war at that time. In 42nd, the British had two other fronts - in Africa and on the TO. Comrade Stalin wants a second front with the British - let him come to Tunisia and open it.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    So the fate of Europe was then decided on the Eastern Front,

                    The fate of Europe at that time was already decided in a completely unexpected place - the headquarters of IJN. So Churchill is much calmer about what is happening than in the 41st.
                  14. ccsr 7 March 2020 17: 42 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Because in the 40th it was about the strike of the Red Army in the Balkans,

                    How could we strike after concluding a treaty with the Germans in 1939? And from a military point of view, after the Finnish one, when the facts of our unpreparedness for a big war were revealed, only the political mad man began a war against the best army in the world.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    The fate of Europe at that time was already decided in a completely unexpected place - the headquarters of IJN.

                    How can you confirm this?
                  15. Octopus 7 March 2020 21: 33 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: ccsr
                    How could we strike after concluding a treaty with the Germans in 1939?

                    Lord God, a treaty, what a disaster!
                    09.08.1945.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    when the facts of our unpreparedness for a great war were revealed, only the political madman Mong began a war against the best army in the world.

                    Well, OK, they waited until the Reich knocked out all the husks from Europe and could no longer be distracted by anything. And as the army showed itself, there is something to remember.

                    However, this is the future business. We settled on the thesis that in those days when the second front was interesting to Churchill, he was not interested in Stalin and vice versa. It happens.

                    Quote: ccsr
                    How can you confirm this?

                    Why should I confirm this? It's about Vinnie.
                    No American will think badly of me if I openly admit that it was my greatest joy to have the United States on our side. I could not predict the course of events. I do not pretend that I accurately appreciated the military power of Japan, but at that moment I knew that the United States was participating in the war and that they would fight to the death, putting all their strength into this struggle. So in the end we won! Yes, after the French attack, after the threat of invasion, in the face of which, apart from the air force and naval forces, we were almost unarmed, after a deadly battle with the enemy’s submarine fleet - the first battle for the Atlantic, won with such great difficulty, after 17 months of fighting alone and 19 months during which I was responsible for the country in such an extremely tense atmosphere, we won the war. England will live; Great Britain will live; The Commonwealth of Nations and the Empire will live. No one could say how long the war would last and how it would end, and I did not care about that at that moment. As more than once in the long history of our island, we will come out of the war, although tormented and maimed, but survived and with victory. We will not be wiped off the face of the earth. Our story will not come to an end. It is possible that even we personally will be able to avoid death. Hitler’s fate was decided. Mussolini's fate was decided. As for the Japanese, they will be powdered. Everything else depended solely on the proper use of our overwhelming powers. The forces of the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and now the United States, inextricably linked, in my opinion, exceeded the strength of their opponents twice or even three times. No doubt, it takes a long time to win. I expected that we would have to suffer terrible losses in the Far East, but all this will only be a passing stage. Together, we could defeat anyone in the whole world. We were faced with many more disasters, immeasurable losses and misfortunes, but there was no longer any doubt that the war would end.


                    Mr. Churchill, of course, is a little more optimistic than it should be - the States were then an economic giant with the brains of a five-year-old child. A severely unhealthy five year old child.

                    But if the So in the end we won! - certainly not the time to smack a fever.
                  16. ccsr 8 March 2020 12: 33 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: Octopus

                    Lord God, a treaty, what a disaster!
                    09.08.1945.

                    It will not work - Japan was put forward an ultimatum before the war, but she refused to execute it, that’s what she paid for.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    We settled on the thesis that in those days when the second front was interesting to Churchill, he was not interested in Stalin and vice versa. It happens.

                    But then Hitler attacked us - why climb into the loop yourself? Remind you when the Americans entered the war against Hitler?
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Why should I confirm this? It's about Vinnie.

                    These are pathetic statements, and by the way, they did not affect the activity of the British in 1941-1943, so the propaganda chatter cannot be supported by military successes in Europe.
                    Since April 12, Anglo-French units began to land in Norway. A total of four English, French and Polish brigades were sent there. The Allies were not going to throw significant forces into battle for the sake of Norway. Any hopes for the success of the Allies would be if they acted quickly. But while they understood the situation, they set goals, figured out relations with the Norwegians, gave orders, counter orders, the Germans managed to strengthen. 23, April, the English brigade collided with the Germans marching south from Oslo. Unable to withstand the German attacks, the British fled.

                    https://topwar.ru/139224-operaciya-vezeryubung-zahvat-norvegii-i-danii.html
                  17. Octopus 8 March 2020 13: 15 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: ccsr
                    It will not work - Japan was put forward an ultimatum before the war

                    No Japanese ultimatums have been advanced.
                    1. In April of the 45th, Molotov notified Japan that the agreement of April 13th of the 41st did not exist. Not terminated - the text of the agreement did not imply termination until April 46th - and did not exist. Comrade Molotov (more precisely, of course, Comrade Stalin) made the former non-existent. At one time there was such a debate about the omnipotence of God.
                    2. In July of the 45th in Potsdam the governments of Britain, the USA and China, but not the USSRpresented an ultimatum to Japan.
                    3. On August 8, Molotov notified the Japanese ambassador about the entry of the USSR into the war. An hour later The USSR began military operations.
                    Schmogora agreements, khe-khe.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    But then Hitler attacked us - why climb into the loop yourself?

                    Well, you see. Hitler already attacked, the second front in the East, and so against himself opened, thanks comrade. Hitler. What does Churchill have to do with it? He has his own affairs.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    Remind you when the Americans entered the war against Hitler?

                    March 11 1941 year.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    did not affect the activity of the British in 1941-1943,

                    No effect. Rather, they even reduced it.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    military success in Europe.

                    What other military successes in Europe? Why do they need Churchill at that moment?
                    Quote: ccsr
                    From April 12, Norway began to land

                    What did you recall April of the 40th year? What does this have to do with the 42nd?
                  18. ccsr 8 March 2020 13: 35 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: Octopus
                    No Japanese ultimatums have been advanced.

                    Learn the story:
                    On July 26, 1945, anti-Japanese coalition allies: China, the United States, and England advanced Japan's surrender terms in a document called the Potsdam Declaration. In the event of failure, the Allied powers threatened Japan with "quick and complete destruction." On July 28, 1945, Japan officially renounced the terms of the ultimatum. On August 6, 1945, in accordance with the threat stated in the Potsdam Declaration, the United States detonated an atomic bomb over Hiroshima. On the evening of August 8, 1945, the USSR, fulfilling the decisions of the Yalta Conference of the Allied Powers of 1945, declared war on Japan and on August 9 began military operations.


                    Source: https://fishki.net/2692532-2-sentjabrja-1945-goda-v-902-po-tokijskomu-vremeni-japonija-podpisala--akt-o-kapituljacii.html © Fishki.net
                    There was an ultimatum, the USSR had allied commitments, the allies in principle agreed to participate in the war in Japan in Yalta. What then did the Japanese hope for a miracle?
                    Quote: Octopus
                    March 11 1941 year.

                    This is in your virtual world, but in real Germany Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941, and before that, the Americans did not fight Hitler:
                    It should be emphasized that since the spring of 1941, and to a certain extent earlier, the United States has pursued a policy openly hostile to Hitler Germany. In modern terms, the USA waged a "cold war" against Germany - they themselves did not fight. but provided effective assistance to those who fought with Germany.


                    Quote: Octopus
                    What did you recall April of the 40th year? What does this have to do with the 42nd?

                    Moreover, attempts to land in Europe were made even before Hitler attacked the USSR, i.e. without us, they understood that it was more convenient to smash the Germans on the continent, and not in Africa.
                  19. Octopus 8 March 2020 14: 04 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: ccsr
                    Learn the story:

                    If you carefully read your own text, you will find out that the ultimatum of Japan was put forward by the countries with which it fought, and not by the "neutral" USSR.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    USSR allied obligations

                    1. You never know what the USSR had allied obligations.
                    2. And how did the USSR in February 45 subscribe to allied commitments, having a non-aggression treaty with Japan valid until April 46?
                    3. What kind of sick person Roosevelt needed to be in order to agree on something with the USSR, seeing how he fulfills his agreements. However, here I sit on my favorite skate.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    in real Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941, and before that the Americans had not fought with Hitler:

                    In the real world, Americans were very inept people. They called themselves neutrals, supplying the British with weapons and volunteers. On March 11, they began to do this not even on credit, but for free. That is, they entered the war.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    US waged "cold war" against Germany

                    Not even always cold.

                    By the way. And what at that time, in the spring of the 41st, did the peace-loving Soviet Union do?
                    Quote: ccsr
                    Moreover, attempts to land in Europe were made even before

                    The Norwegian operation is not an attempt to land in Europe, but an attempt to disrupt German landing. This slons is different. The landing in Norway did not contribute to the transfer of war to German territory.
                  20. ccsr 8 March 2020 14: 23 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: Octopus
                    If you carefully read your own text, you will find out that the ultimatum of Japan was put forward by the countries with which it fought, and not by the "neutral" USSR.

                    The Japanese government did not know about the allied relations of the USSR with these countries?
                    Quote: Octopus
                    2. And how did the USSR in February 45 subscribe to allied commitments, having a non-aggression treaty with Japan valid until April 46?

                    This Treaty did not take into account that Japan’s ally Germany would declare war on June 22, i.e. the Japanese themselves fell for their cunning game.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    In the real world, Americans were very inept people.

                    Well, all the more so, we should not bother with morality when they refused until 1944 to fight against Hitler in Europe, who declared war on them in 1941.

                    Quote: Octopus
                    And what at that time, in the spring of the 41st, did the peace-loving Soviet Union do?

                    He was preparing to repel German aggression and followed the negotiations of Hess in England.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    The Norwegian operation is not an attempt to land in Europe, but an attempt to disrupt German landing. This slons is different.

                    Yes, drop this verbiage - this is a war and everything connected with it should be taken seriously, and not make-believe.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    The landing in Norway did not contribute to the transfer of war to German territory.

                    This is why the British did not need such a bridgehead to move the hostilities away from their shores and deploy units there for an attack on Germany? So it was important for them to fight in Africa, but in Europe it made no sense - so what is your "discovery" to understand?
                  21. Octopus 8 March 2020 14: 52 New
                    • 1
                    • 2
                    -1
                    Quote: ccsr
                    The Japanese government did not know about the allied relations of the USSR

                    Quote: ccsr
                    This treaty did not take into account that Japan’s ally, Germany, will declare war on June 22

                    This contract was actually executed by both parties from April 41st to August 45th. All the circumstances you mentioned did not interfere with this at all. But in August the situation changed.

                    Comrade Stalin needed to get into China as much as possible. He managed at the last moment, jumped into the outgoing train. Thanks to Doodle Truman for Comrade Mao from all the Chinese children, how many of them there did not have time to abort.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    until 1944 they refused to fight against Hitler in Europe,

                    The Allies returned to Europe (ground forces) on September 3, 1943. Front line Kharkov (just taken from the Red Army) - Oryol - Smolensk - Novgorod.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    Well, especially since we should not bother with morality,

                    So "we" did not bother, frankly. But after the war, and still the Soviet / Russian state is very fond of talking about morality in relation to those events. The Allies also loved, completely out of proportion, but the Allies in 75 years had other topics of conversation, more or less successful, but Russia did not. And this is the main trouble.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    Prepared to repel German aggression

                    Well, Churchill was preparing for the whole 42nd year, what's wrong?
                    Quote: ccsr
                    it’s a war and everything connected with it should be considered seriously, and not make-believe.

                    Seriously obstructing the German landing is the task of the fleet. The fleet fell in love with this task. There's nothing you can do. Further fluttering is simply pathetic.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    This is why the British did not need such a bridgehead to move the hostilities away from their shores and deploy units there for an attack on Germany?

                    Because Britain is closer to Germany than Norway. And even closer is the whole France at that time with the best, as they thought of themselves, ground army of the world. Nothing to transfer anywhere. Your cap.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    So it was important for them to fight in Africa, but in Europe it made no sense - so what is your "discovery" to understand?

                    Exactly. In Africa, they could restrain the Axis, but they could not overpower the landing operation in Europe. The Americans, of course, boasted, but not from a great mind. Fortunately, in Tunisia they were briefly explained what they really were (but Eisenhower and Marshall did not understand) Opening this is just for you.
                  22. ccsr 8 March 2020 17: 50 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: Octopus
                    This contract was actually executed by both parties from April 41st to August 45th. All the circumstances you mentioned did not interfere with this at all. But in August the situation changed.

                    This distorted - during this time Germany managed to attack the USSR and declare war on the United States, and at the same time was an ally of Germany. Yes, and Japan distinguished itself - it attacked an ally of the USSR, so that the de facto USSR could consider itself morally free from the obligations of an agreement with the Japanese. I understand that you really want to attribute insidiousness to the USSR, only this trick will not work for you - you demand highly moral behavior from Stalin after we ourselves have faced the fact of the total destruction of our people. It is interesting who, in your opinion, was conducting a highly moral policy at that time, so that it would be a guideline for Stalin, especially after the Munich agreement.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    But after the war, and still the Soviet / Russian state is very fond of talking about morality in relation to those events.

                    At that time, we behaved in the standards of the morality that the West imposed on us - if Munich is not enough for you, you can still recall how they threw Poland after Hitler’s attack.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Because Britain is closer to Germany than Norway. And even closer whole France at that time with the best,

                    That's why they did not want to start with France - they were afraid that the Germans would tear it to shreds.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Your cap.

                    What does this mean, enlighten.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Exactly. In Africa, they could hold back the axis,

                    No need to tell tales to us - you yourself do not believe in this nonsense. And if you believe, then I remind you that there is such a term -
                    SHOULDER OF A CARRIAGE. the distance between points of loading and unloading, in a cut, the transport of material means by transport of one link of the rear is carried out.

                    If you prove to me that it was shorter in Africa than in Europe, then I will believe in your fantasies.
                  23. Octopus 8 March 2020 19: 43 New
                    • 1
                    • 2
                    -1
                    Quote: ccsr
                    This distorted - during this time Germany managed to attack the USSR and declare war on the United States, and at the same time was an ally of Germany.

                    So what? Have you heard anything about the clouds of American bombers that covered the skies of Japan in the 42nd? There are less than 1000 km to Tokyo.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    de facto the USSR could consider itself morally free of contract obligations with the Japanese

                    The de facto USSR was morally free of anything.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    you really want to attribute insidiousness to the USSR

                    Not at all. Soviet power was always honest with itself and others. As for morality, the Soviet government was, so to speak, neutral. She never had any morality. If someone wanted to lie to themselves about this, this is not the fault and not the problem of the Soviet regime.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    I wonder who, in your opinion, was conducting a highly moral policy at that time.

                    Absolutely nobody, including Mahatma Gandhi. Chamberlain, by the way, was the last relatively decent person in this whole batch.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    you can also recall how they threw Poland after the attack of Hitler.

                    Are you talking about Western Ukraine and Western Belarus?
                    Quote: ccsr
                    That's why they did not want to start with France

                    So the Martians appeared.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    If you prove to me that it was shorter in Africa,

                    Why should I prove something to you? Take an interest in the strength and supply of Rommel in Africa and the strength and supply of the same Rommel in France.
                  24. ccsr 9 March 2020 10: 45 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: Octopus
                    The de facto USSR was morally free of anything.

                    Those. Do you remove all claims against Stalin? I'm glad you finally comprehended this truth.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    She never had any morality.

                    This is a lie - the help of Spain, Mongolia, China refutes your statement.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Absolutely nobody, including Mahatma Gandhi. Chamberlain, by the way, was the last relatively decent person in this whole batch.

                    Gandhi generally did not play a role for Europe at that time, and it is better not to recall Chamberlain after Munich.

                    Quote: Octopus
                    Are you talking about Western Ukraine and Western Belarus?

                    No, about September 1939.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Why should I prove something to you?

                    Of course, you can never prove that the longer the sea route, the cheaper it was for the belligerents, especially when the enemy could influence the transportation.
                  25. Octopus 9 March 2020 16: 32 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: ccsr
                    Those. Do you remove all claims against Stalin?

                    Of course. He spoke on another occasion. As soon as I mutated from liberals to Russophobes, to Comrade. Stalin sharply warmed up.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    help from Spain, Mongolia, China

                    )))
                    North Korea was forgotten, Finland and further all of Eastern Europe.

                    The rule is simple. Who was able to fight back from the help of the Soviet Union and personally Comrade. Stalin, to fight back at all costs, even at the cost of the fascist dictatorship - he remained a normal country. The rest are out of luck. The exception is Yugoslavia. They threw Stalin, but nothing good happened. Socialism kills on its own, even without Comrade. Stalin. But it is better with Stalin.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    Gandhi generally did not play a role for Europe.

                    What does Europe have to do with it?
                    Quote: ccsr
                    but Chamberlain after Munich is better not to remember.

                    Chamberlain is the best British prime minister in at least 50 years, from the 10s to the 60s.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    No, about September 1939.

                    The Soviet Union did not declare war?
                    Quote: ccsr
                    Of course, you can never prove

                    Well, you are not aware that the Germans, and not the British, had problems with the supply in Africa. This is Rommel and ruined, in the end.
                  26. ccsr 9 March 2020 16: 59 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: Octopus
                    As soon as I mutated from liberals to Russophobia,

                    Isn't that the same thing?
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Socialism kills on its own, even without Comrade. Stalin.

                    Tell the Chinese and Vietnamese Communists about this.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    What does Europe have to do with it?

                    We are talking about her.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    The Soviet Union did not declare war?

                    And this too - is it not strange for the allies of Poland?
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Well, you are not aware that the Germans, and not the British, had problems with the supply in Africa.

                    I am aware that the Germans drove the British across Africa until 1943, and only events on the Eastern Front made them abandon this.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    This is Rommel and ruined, in the end.

                    Rommel destroyed the Eastern Front - he demanded more and more forces and means to make up for the losses of German troops, which is why the hostilities in Africa had to be stopped.
                  27. Octopus 9 March 2020 21: 56 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Quote: ccsr
                    Isn't that the same thing?

                    Not at all.
                    Liberalism (with all the differences in its understanding) suggests that the phrase
                    We believe for obvious truths that all people are created equal, that some inalienable rights have been given to them by their Creator, including life, freedom and the right to happiness, that governments have been established to ensure these rights, and they use their power with the consent of the governed, - that if any government impedes the achievement of these goals, then the people have the right to change or destroy it and establish a new government on such grounds and principles, organizing its power in such forms that should best ensure to make him safe and happy. Prudence indicates that long-established governments should not be replaced on the basis of unimportant and transient reasons; and, according to this, experience shows that people are more likely to tolerate evil while it is tolerable than to restore their rights by destroying the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long series of abuses and violence, invariably pursuing the same goal, reveals a desire to subjugate them to complete despotism, then it is their right, then it is their duty to overthrow such a government and establish new guarantees for protecting their future security.

                    applies to Russians too. As you understand, this does not at all combine with the idea of ​​the Sovereignty of the Russian State and Stalinism as the highest manifestation of this sovereignty. State sovereignty from citizens.

                    At the same time, the idea that among Russians there are many superfluous, and who is not superfluous - to enclose with barbed wire so as not to scatter, goes well with Russophobia. Russophobia allows a much more positive attitude towards Stalinism and other higher manifestations of the Russian spirit in the field of state building.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    Tell the Chinese and Vietnamese Communists about this.

                    The Chinese Communists were reformed into capitalists, moreover, of such a Dickensian plan in the 70s, Vietnamese - and in the early 90s. Even Kim is not the same.
                    China and Vietnam have not yet billed Russia, the successor to Russia for their happier childhood, but daddies are lying, let's see how what's next.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    And this too - is it not strange for the allies of Poland?

                    You are right, have shown cowardice. For rotten democracies, this is characteristic. Of the conditional democrats, Roosevelt actively wanted to get into the war; Unfortunately, he was the least aware of what to do.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    I am aware that the Germans drove the British across Africa

                    Shitty, frankly, drove. For some reason, gasoline ran out all the time. And at the time of Rommel’s reversal towards the end of the Germans in Nalchik and Pyatigorsk, I would not talk about any problems in the East.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    Rommel destroyed the Eastern Front - he demanded more and more strength

                    Blau had absolutely no influence on Rommel. His problems were mainly related to the very equipment that you are so worried about from the English side.
                  28. ccsr 10 March 2020 16: 53 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Not at all.
                    Liberalism (with all the differences in its understanding) suggests

                    For me it doesn’t mean - I’m a materialist and I don’t take words about the creator.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Russophobia allows you to be much more positive

                    I despise Russophobia in any form, that’s why I don’t share your “positivism”.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    The Chinese Communists were reformed into capitalists, moreover, of such a Dickensian plan in the 70s, Vietnamese - and in the early 90s.

                    Have you heard anything about Lenin’s NEP? But you cannot call him anti-Marxist - he is the founder of the creation of a new state.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Shitty, frankly, drove. For some reason, gasoline ran out all the time. And at the time of Rommel’s reversal towards the end of the Germans in Nalchik and Pyatigorsk, I would not talk about any problems in the East.


                    I believe that this was a great stupidity of the Germans trying to capture such territories. As for the Rommel group, the Battle of Stalingrad was the reason for curtailing the actions of the African Corps - I see no other serious reasons.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    His problems were mainly related to the very equipment that you are so worried about from the English side.

                    Supply problems have always worried commanders since the campaigns of Alexander the Great. And it is strange to think that the Germans had no idea what the African campaign would cost them. But the British also sided with this, so that they could redirect their efforts to the European continent.
    2. Nikolai Korovin 9 March 2020 00: 36 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      On the contrary. The German landing was an improvisation aimed at breaking English. Improvisation was a success. The brave Britons who were about to occupy Norway with complete comfort were taken by surprise.
  • Nikolai Korovin 9 March 2020 00: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yes, Vice Admiral Drax insisted particularly strongly that consent is a product with Warsaw's complete non-resistance.
  • Nikolai Korovin 9 March 2020 00: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    [/ quote] In Italy they left him. [quote]

    In Iran, he carried out guard service, and only ended up in Italy in 1944. They really didn’t want the clandestine gentlemen to really fight the Germans - they sniffed in 1939 what it was.
  • Nikolai Korovin 9 March 2020 00: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The trouble is sadness. Something with arithmetic is somehow not very. 153 879/60 = 2564,483 (3).
    That is, more than 2500 cars, if we are talking about gross tons, which makes sense to talk about in this case. But even if this is the total displacement - still no less than 1000 wagons. That is, not 7 cars, but a decent shaper somewhere in 33 cars. In addition, not all cargo can be loaded 60 tons into a wagon.
  • Octopus 9 March 2020 00: 46 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Nikolai Korovin
    The trouble is sadness. Something with arithmetic is somehow not very.

    You’re right, I’ve lost zero, I’m guilty.
    Does that make a big difference?
    Quote: Nikolai Korovin
    it's about gross tons

    No. About net tons in a proportion of 2/3 to VI.
    Quote: Nikolai Korovin
    decent shaper somewhere in 33 wagons

    Two shippers if we load 50 tons into a wagon.
    So what is the tragedy?
    Quote: Nikolai Korovin
    Really didn’t want the clammers to really fight the Germans

    Presenting cowardice from the couch to people who fought offline is always relevant.
    Quote: Nikolai Korovin
    The German landing was an improvisation aimed at breaking English.

    It happens often. Kristobal Hozevich was the first.
  • mvg
    mvg 8 March 2020 18: 03 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    but over two months of fighting on the Eastern Front, the Germans lost as much as they did against the British in the whole of 1940.

    This is fundamentally wrong. More than once statistics were cited. More planes fought on the Western Front. And the losses are correspondingly higher.
  • Alex_59 3 March 2020 15: 59 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Quote: ccsr
    England is extremely limited and that military production barely meets the needs of the English army itself, scattered in many parts of the globe.

    And there is. After Dunkirk, the English army was supplied from overseas. And that was not enough.
  • Alex_59 3 March 2020 15: 58 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Quote: Jack O'Neill
    The Union paid after the war for equipment that he kept at his place, and did not return.
    And not for everything that was left at home they paid in full. For example, cars were deliberately hidden from the army into the national economy, and sent to the depths of the country. A lot of "Fords" and "Studebakers" destroyed by documents during the Second World War, were really stolen in Altai and Siberia, where they worked on collective farms and in production even in the 60s.
    In a sense, such actions have a moral justification, but not legal. Heavily affected country needed equipment even after the end of the war. Moreover, the Americans did not need all this junk. For example, Americans took torpedo boats in the Far East by act, brought them into neutral waters and drowned. It turns out it was cheaper than taking them back to the US and taking them for metal. Trucks were driven right into the port to a press brought from the United States - choked into briquettes and loaded into ship holds in this form for shipment to metal. The British Clemson class destroyers were also reluctant to take, and immediately after returning to their homeland they were carved into metal.
  • Boris Petrov-Vodkin 6 March 2020 04: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Even as I paid.
    Two thousand tons of gold transferred to England and the USA
    The entire 41st and 42nd year of supply went for gold, then LL turned around.
    1. Octopus 6 March 2020 18: 32 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Boris Petrov-Vodkin
      The whole of the 41st and 42nd year

      LL has been extended to shipments since October 41st, EMNIP. And who told you that the USSR was forbidden to purchase anything other than LL from the capstran countries?
  • Malyuta 3 March 2020 08: 30 New
    • 20
    • 11
    +9
    Quote: Aerodrome
    "land lease" helped, of course, not to be denied, but, helped for our gold.

    It was for gold that the Americans did nothing for free.
    By 1973, 3 payments totaling $ 48 million were made. 3 obligatory payments were made: 12 million dollars on October 18, 1972, 24 million dollars on July 1, 1973, 12 million dollars on July 1, 1975. By agreement with the United States, the balance - 674 million - should have been paid by 2001. In 1990, under a new agreement, the Soviet side pledged to pay $ 674 million by 2030 - taking into account inflation, only $ 100 million from the 1946 model.

    After the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Federation signed bilateral agreements with the former republics on the “zero option”, according to which the Russian Federation assumes all the debts of the USSR. In exchange for this, the former republics of the Soviet Union refused to share the assets of the USSR. So, on the second of April 1993, the Russian Federation assumed the debts of the USSR, including commitments under Lend-Lease. Debts were divided into government debts (Paris Club) and debts to banks (London Club). The US Lend-Lease debt was finally paid and closed as part of the settlement with the Paris Club on August 21, 2006.
    1. Varyag_0711 3 March 2020 09: 03 New
      • 12
      • 22
      -10
      Malyuta
      It was for gold that the Americans did nothing for free.
      I will support a colleague. It’s always funny for me to hear about the screams of “free Lend-Lease”. So I want to ask, but did not try to turn on the head? The United States crawled out onto the world Olympus only thanks to two world wars, and to a greater extent precisely thanks to WWII. The question is, due to what?
      Do people who truly believe in "free land lease" have no brains at all? How, in what way, capitalist production will develop if it works for free, or rather at a loss?
      Let's imagine the situation with the same stew (in our common people there is a "second front"). So, in order to produce stew, an American farmer must raise a herd of gobies. Then these bull-calves should be hammered, skinned and sent for further processing. To pack stew you need a metal can, someone must produce it too. All this costs money and not a little money.
      And now attention QUESTION: AND WHO PAYED ALL THIS? Or are American farmers, can manufacturers, cattle slaughterers, carriers, after all, so dumb altruistic capitalists that they will work for free ?!
      Someone whining here about the "free land lease" can give me a clear answer, who paid for this whole gesheft? And how, in what way did the USA from a third-rate country turn into a superpower if it worked exclusively at a loss? And also tell me where in the United States came the world's largest gold reserve?
      I believe that I can hardly wait for a clear answer, so the questions asked by me are purely rhetorical.
      1. Octopus 3 March 2020 09: 28 New
        • 16
        • 10
        +6
        Quote: Varyag_0711
        Someone whining here about the "free land lease" can give me a clear answer, who paid for this whole gesheft?

        You see, in your understanding, the word "free" has the meaning of a soviet subbotnik.
        Naturally, the American taxpayer paid. More precisely, our old friend is an American public debt.

        LL - supplies for the light of the US government. More precisely, the president’s right to dispose of the US military’s mobile reserve. Roosevelt, however, very quickly outplayed the conditions from the mobile reserve to new supplies.

        The taxpayer was explained that he paid with money instead of blood, bought Russian and Chinese cannon fodder. So everyone is more or less satisfied.
        Quote: Varyag_0711
        answer me, where did the largest gold reserve in the world come from in the USA?

        He came from a war-torn Europe. Unexpectedly, right?
        1. Diana Ilyina 3 March 2020 09: 44 New
          • 11
          • 21
          -10
          Octopus
          You see, in your understanding, the word "free" has the meaning of a soviet subbotnik.
          Naturally, the American taxpayer paid.
          "Good girl" fool , just brilliant. good Excuse me, I have a question for you, as an economist to an economist, please tell me, but where did the American taxpayer take the money to pay for freebies for others? The fact is that from the example given by the Varangian, the American farmer is the American taxpayer. That is, according to your undoubtedly "authoritative and ironic logic", the American farmer, not only did he raise bull-calves for free, but he also paid taxes for this ?! And where did you get the money for this? On credit? Who? Who in kapmir will lend explicit bankruptcy? Do you even have the beginnings of economic education? Have you heard anything about: money - goods - money? With the goods in this scheme it is more or less clear, but WHERE IS MONEY Zin ?!
          He came from a war-torn Europe. Unexpectedly, right?
          So he took it straight and “came” from nothing to do ?! laughing laughing laughing
          1. Octopus 3 March 2020 11: 15 New
            • 16
            • 4
            +12
            Quote: Diana Ilyina
            just brilliant

            Thank you.
            Quote: Diana Ilyina
            where did you get the money to pay for freebies for others?

            Earned. He created, excuse me, the added value, part of which he added to the overall budget boiler. From this boiler military expenses were paid. Mainly own, a couple of percent - Soviet LL.
            Quote: Diana Ilyina
            Who in kapmir will lend explicit bankruptcy?

            Bankrupt is the USSR? Well, Roosevelt gave, for example.
            Quote: Diana Ilyina
            not only did he raise bulls for free, but also paid taxes for it ?! And where did you get the money for this?

            Why on earth is it "free"? He sold (or rather, sold a producer of canned goods) to his government for dollars. The government fed them American soldiers or non-American soldiers. It doesn’t matter to him anymore. Your cap.
            Quote: Diana Ilyina
            WHERE'S THE MONEY

            Taxes + consuming savings (loans) + issuance of cash surrogates (payment by bills) + additional printing of money (inflation tax). American money, I emphasize.
            Quote: Diana Ilyina
            So he took it straight and “came” from nothing to do ?!

            What else should he do? The factories remained mainly in America, but you have to live, at least during the war, even after the war.
            1. Diana Ilyina 3 March 2020 13: 15 New
              • 5
              • 17
              -12
              Octopus
              Earned.
              How is that? To make money, you need to produce something and SELL and get PROFIT for it. And what profit can there be if, as you say, everything was delivered “for free”? Do not find contradictions? I repeat the question, WHO PAYED FOR THE BANQUET?
              Bankrupt is the USSR?
              Excuse me, do you even know how to read? Where did I write that the USSR is bankrupt? I meant a farmer who would surely go bankrupt if he supplied his products "for free." No need to flip my words.
              Why on earth is it "free"? He sold (or rather, sold a producer of canned goods) to his government for dollars.
              And where do you think any government takes money? State money is primarily tax revenues. Taxes are a part of the profit received by the state from taxpayers. To pay taxes, you need to make a profit. To make a profit it is necessary to SELL the product, and not give it "for free."
              Sit down, you count on the economy ...
              However, to whom fool Am I explaining this to the pro-American troll? laughing
              1. Octopus 3 March 2020 14: 19 New
                • 13
                • 3
                +10
                Quote: Diana Ilyina
                However, to whom I explain it all

                For a person reading with marked difficulty, you have too much self-conceit.

                Take to read where the money comes from. Well, that is, ask someone to read to you.
                https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Lend_Lease_Act,_11_March_1941
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 March 2020 17: 09 New
                • 6
                • 4
                +2
                Quote: Diana Ilyina
                I repeat the question, WHO PAYED FOR THE BANQUET?

                They already answered you quite correctly - the American taxpayer paid.
                Quote: Diana Ilyina
                Taxes are a part of the profit received by the state from taxpayers.

                And then the US government placed an order for military equipment, paid for them from the taxes you mentioned, and transferred them to the USSR and England. What is difficult to perceive?
              3. Korax71 3 March 2020 20: 13 New
                • 3
                • 4
                -1
                As an economist, you can see the dynamics of the development of US government debt during the WWII period, they entered the war with 80% of GDP, ended with almost 120%.
        2. Den717 4 March 2020 13: 39 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          Quote: Octopus
          More precisely, our old friend is an American public debt.

          This is the oldest friend of the public debt - not a taxpayer at all. This is a working printing press, whose products became a loan from the Fed to the US government, which subsequently paid for the production of products for LL. And in the opposite direction, the USA received everything that could be cut off from countries bearing all the hardships of the war prepared by the very same USA. Bottom line: the total US income from paid in one way or another by the warring countries many times exceeded the expenses incurred by the United States for L-L. At the end of the war, the United States owned 75% of the world's gold reserves. The war is a profitable business for them, in which the United States was brilliantly able to present itself to the world as the main fighter for peace and an assistant to the victims of aggression.
          1. Octopus 4 March 2020 15: 10 New
            • 3
            • 5
            -2
            Quote: Den717
            This is a working printing press.

            Agitation is better to save for another time. At the time of the gold standard, this worked a little wrong.
            1. Den717 4 March 2020 17: 10 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              Quote: Octopus
              At the time of the gold standard, this worked a little wrong.

              But do not tell me? At the same time, comment on the growth of inflation during the years of the largest deployment of military production.
      2. mmaxx 7 March 2020 18: 22 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        After Marshall’s plan after the war, the United States "deposited" the gold of all of Europe.
        Therefore, Comrade Stalin abandoned the Marshall plan for the Sov. Union. Now the liberda considers him a cannibal for this - he did not let people live.
    2. Alexey RA 3 March 2020 15: 02 New
      • 10
      • 4
      +6
      Quote: Malyuta
      By 1973, 3 payments totaling $ 48 million were made. 3 obligatory payments were made: 12 million dollars on October 18, 1972, 24 million dollars on July 1, 1973, 12 million dollars on July 1, 1975. By agreement with the United States, the balance - 674 million - should have been paid by 2001. In 1990, under a new agreement, the Soviet side pledged to pay $ 674 million by 2030 - taking into account inflation, only $ 100 million from the 1946 model.

      100 million dollars of 1946. Plus another 48 million dollars. With the total cost of the "Soviet" Lend-Lease at 11 billion dollars.
      The United States received notable profits, which is already there. laughing
  • Whalebone 5 March 2020 11: 44 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    For the hundredth time, read the terms of the Lend-Lease. Maybe it’s all the same?
  • Same lech 3 March 2020 06: 36 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    The more aluminum accumulates on our berths, the less you will build Mustangs and Fortresses!

    The original thought ... smile this is something new.
    1. Aerodrome 3 March 2020 06: 50 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: The same Lech
      The more aluminum accumulates on our berths, the less you will build Mustangs and Fortresses!

      The original thought ... smile this is something new.

      so that’s why American securities are being bought up ... wassat
    2. In general, I was dumbfounded when I caught the author’s thought!
    3. Vladimir_2U 3 March 2020 09: 21 New
      • 10
      • 1
      +9
      Quote: The same Lech
      Original thought

      So original that even some sort of chicaned! Book level
      Recommended by the Editorial and Publishing Council of the State University - Higher School of Economics
      from the HSE is very low, and the author of the article turned on her. Yes, and such an author write in:
      Soviet aircraft factories both produced aircraft with wooden cladding, and continued to produce them until the end of the war. It is quite obvious that the domestic aviation industry was physically unable to process and use such volumes of light metals as intended
      just a shame. Not many Soviet bombers were, with a few exceptions, metal, so the author forgot about aircraft engines that were produced by hundreds of thousands, and not to know that the V-2 was mainly made of aluminum alloys, it’s excusable to the author of the HSE book Natalia Butenina, but not to the permanent author IN.
      1. Yamato1980 6 March 2020 14: 41 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Well, as far as wooden planes are concerned, the author is to some extent right. In the USSR during the war, only one plant could fully and fully produce all-metal aircraft; basically, there were not enough qualified specialists. Well, during the Second World War no one would even have thought what would reduce the production of airplanes, for the reconstruction of factory lines on all-metal equipment. Well, yes, this is the cost of pre-war time.
        1. mmaxx 7 March 2020 18: 28 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          It should be understood that aluminum planes without press equipment and the production of tooling for stamping are not made. Not everything can be beaten out with a mallet. Metal-cutting equipment is necessary, a tool. War is not the best time for such a technical rearmament. Maybe the Americans couldn’t (they needed it) or didn’t want to supply it. Something was supplied. Cincinnati Press saw equipment. His people praised. But the modernizers were ditched krivoruky. They could not establish later.
  • Vol4ara 3 March 2020 10: 38 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Quote: Tlauicol
    Oleg, want to say that Stalin, loading orders for the American economy, wanted to weaken them in this way? "so that they get less"? Somehow naive request
    and about the growth of supplies by the year 44 ... is also naive. This is not a pizza to order

    This is not even naive, but stupid. Americans probably buy rocket engines so that we don’t fly into space, but we don’t stand still, we hit the German auto industry, they must be there on bicycles in Germany
  • Alexey RA 3 March 2020 15: 40 New
    • 8
    • 4
    +4
    Quote: Tlauicol
    Oleg, want to say that Stalin, loading orders for the American economy, wanted to weaken them in this way? "so that they get less"? Somehow naive

    Yeah ... especially if you know that already in 1943 the volume of deliveries to the USSR was determined not by the production capabilities of the USA, but by the transportation capabilities of the routes. Our representatives had to work in the role of Procrustes, cramming a list of offers of goods on Lend-Lease and our Wishlist in the box of cargo capacity of transports. smile
  • Eug
    Eug 3 March 2020 06: 03 New
    • 4
    • 7
    -3
    It is very likely that the policy of loading the industry of today's obscure ally with orders that did not give him the opportunity to develop was a "signature" feature of Soviet foreign trade organizations. This is also stated by Yu.I. Mukhin in the materials on the economic part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. We looked at the situation in perspective ... Who was the initiator of this approach - there is no doubt.
    1. frog 3 March 2020 08: 46 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      Sorry, is this the same Mukhin who invented a nonexistent quote for a non-existent Japanese billionaire? Not at all for the purpose of sketching))) For the sake of clarification, for the Mukhins we may well not even have twenty at all .....
      1. Korax71 3 March 2020 20: 17 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Most likely it was the one whose Yeltsin died in 96, and instead a double, was a very ambiguous uncle wassat
        1. frog 3 March 2020 21: 02 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          So I know wink But does the remembered one know? repeat
  • apro 3 March 2020 06: 07 New
    • 6
    • 7
    -1
    The conclusion follows from the article. The Reds foresaw complications with the Anglo-Saxons. And directed efforts toward a future confrontation. It is reasonable. Especially if for money. A lease is not a help but a commercial operation.
  • Deck 3 March 2020 06: 13 New
    • 14
    • 8
    +6
    Mismanagement, sloppiness - this is our secret strategic plan for all time! Well done author. It would be interesting to know the secret, but formidable for enemies, plans for the modern plundering of the country
    1. Snail N9 3 March 2020 06: 41 New
      • 6
      • 9
      -3
      Yes, with modern plans for theft, it’s just that, it simply “flows” (“Lend-Lease”) only in the “other” direction. Miracles-twists of the "thinking" of our "successful managers" from the state are constantly putting rewards — what else would be done at a loss, to the detriment of Russia and at a loss to foreign "sworn partners". For example, from the last “such” thing, which simply, so casually, by the Russian media is, is the Central Bank of the United Kingdom sold a huge gold pool, and the sale was made at the peak of the decline in the price of gold, that is, the price of gold suddenly (strange, thus) at the stock exchanges fell and at that moment Russia sold Britain gold. The wonders of "successful" entrepreneurship are on the face. These miracles of entrepreneurship from the Central Bank are echoed in the same “miraculous” manner by the notarized defenders of everything and everything, if it concerns the actions of the authorities, for example, some “experts” explain this sale of gold by .... that they were “disposed of” in this way "surpluses" resulting from the percentage overfulfilment of the notorious "budget rule". What time! The "surplus" turns out to be disposed of, moreover, at a price convenient for the UK at that time ......
      1. carstorm 11 3 March 2020 07: 48 New
        • 9
        • 6
        +3
        Lord ... well, where is the accusation of a bloody regime ... And I don’t care that the topic is different. The main thing to insert. Let me explain to you on the fingers. We always sold gold. Every year. In 2019, for example, the stock of gold in the Central Bank's depository was increased by a quarter, to $ 110 billion, which was a record. Meanwhile, the demand for gold in the foreign market is growing, and the Central Bank itself set a discount for purchases from May 2019, so the export of gold from the country was stimulated. This is the so-called commercial gold, not bullion from government vaults. Last year, production increased, and in London, our companies could trade balances from previous years. What does the Central Bank have to do with it? Well, do not stick around in topics you don’t understand.
        1. Snail N9 3 March 2020 08: 29 New
          • 5
          • 8
          -3
          The Central Bank established a "discount", yeah. Recently it was written that the Central Bank sold dollars and bought gold on the foreign market, supposedly reducing dependence on the dollar, and then gold jumped in price, and now you see, it sells with a “discount” when gold in price falls. But we saw such "strange discounts" before - at one time the Central Bank bought up Treasuries with a yield of 1,5-4,5% per annum, depending on the maturity and sold Russian government bonds with a yield in dollars from 3,5-7,5, XNUMX% per annum, depending on maturity. Then the "experts" explained such high rates on Russian securities, "the need to link Western investors with a new for them, the Russian securities market" .....
          1. carstorm 11 3 March 2020 08: 36 New
            • 4
            • 3
            +1
            this information is on the website of the Central Bank. This measure is introduced to align the price conditions for the sale of the precious metal. From May 1 of this year, the Central Bank will introduce a discount on the purchase of refined gold. This was reported on the website of the regulator. As noted, such a measure will be taken in order to align the price conditions for the sale of the precious metal. “The discount price will be set for the purchase price of refined gold, which is currently determined daily based on the price of the morning auction LBMA Gold Price,” the Central Bank said in a statement. According to the regulator, during the year the value will gradually increase. Earlier, the head of the Moscow Exchange, Alexander Afanasyev, proposed using Russian gold as an alternative to investing in the American dollar. In short, this is the strengthening of the ruble. Outflow of money from exchangers to gold.
            1. Snail N9 3 March 2020 09: 12 New
              • 3
              • 8
              -5
              Well, yes, they all understood it exactly "for aligning the price conditions for the sale of a precious broom", but why .... yes
              1. carstorm 11 3 March 2020 09: 44 New
                • 4
                • 2
                +2
                listen. I'm not going to argue with you about topics that you only read in some tabloid newspapers. I’m just pointing you to your lies on the topic - For example, from the last “one” that simply, so to speak, in Russian media it’s - selling the Central Bank of the UK’s huge gold pool, and the sale was made at the peak of the decline in gold prices, that is the price of gold suddenly (so strange) on the exchanges fell and at that moment Russia sold UK gold. This is an outright lie, and you simply mislead people with this lie. The Central Bank did not sell anything. And there were sales of commercial gold. what I pointed out to you. You can translate the arrows as much as you like and turn on sarcasm as you like. Only this will not change the fact of your lies.
  • Nitarius 3 March 2020 06: 16 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    thanks .. interesting thoughts! know for previously knew about the future of our later relationship)!
    1. Aerodrome 3 March 2020 06: 33 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Nitarius
      thanks .. interesting thoughts! know for previously knew about the future of our later relationship)!

      with the Anglo-Saxons, there cannot be others. just a story.
  • Amateur 3 March 2020 06: 42 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    Facts taken from the book “Lend-Lease. The deal of the century. "

    Butenina N.V. Lend-Lease: Transaction of the Century. - M .: GU HSE, 2004.

    Everything published by the HSE requires careful study, as it is not always unambiguous.
  • Edward Vashchenko 3 March 2020 07: 13 New
    • 17
    • 0
    +17
    The problems of studying Lend-Lease often lie in the plane of the lack of its detailed study.
    In no case without encroaching on exotic hypotheses, I wanted to draw attention to one detail related to a superficial consideration of the issue.
    A detail is engines and diesel engines.
    “The Allies supplied the Soviet fleet with a large number of marine engines and generators. They were equipped with more than one third of all combat boats of the fleet. ”
    - writes cap. 1 rank retired, since n Krasnov V.
    Diesel is one thing, and the “engine” on the ship is different, you should imagine this huge thing, a giant crankshaft, etc.
    From the text it follows that the ships were built on the heights of 70 pcs., And
    “As a result, during the war years the USSR“ substantiated ”the need to obtain 7784 units. ship engines! "

    How do you imagine that? Is the ship construction project interconnected with the engine, or is it the Lego constructor, all interchangeable?
    Another thing is if 7784 units include motors, generators, etc.
    And so there are crazy "myths" about the Russian sloppiness, on the one hand, and the Lend-Lease, on which the "victory" of the USSR is built.
    1. old_pferd 3 March 2020 07: 26 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      The first link in the search - there were 1300 diesels.
      https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/tehnologii-lend-liza-i-sovetskiy-vmf-1941-1945-gg
    2. Alex_59 3 March 2020 09: 23 New
      • 5
      • 3
      +2
      Quote: Edward Vashchenko
      Is the ship construction project interconnected with the engine, or is it the Lego constructor, all interchangeable?

      This is a lego constructor. A motor is selected approximately equal in class, size and power, with a similar layout, the transmission and frame are adapted for it. And all - it is quite possible to put an analogue. And given wartime and the level of technology, I won’t be surprised that all of this, without approving changes to the ship’s design, was adjusted locally right at the factory.
      All these marine engines were put on boats, motobots, barges and other marine warfare supplies. Therefore, there was no point in doing something aesthetically and engineeringly verified. It works, pulls - and okay. This barge can live less time than it was built. Why are there ideals. Will reach the enemy shore, drop the landing and all. There may stay. An engine is needed for one flight, so if it shakes with vibration and makes noise, the crew will not tire very much. At least for him, this is far from the most important problem in those conditions.
      And these boats and barges were riveted at least 1300 with 2500 engines.
      1. Edward Vashchenko 3 March 2020 11: 41 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        Excuse me,
        Are you making these conclusions speculatively or is there data?
        I agree that the motors in such numbers went to small craft.
        But for large - Lego does not happen, therefore, ship repair - a "piece" business.
        Therefore, the motor - to the engine of discord.
        I saw more than one repair of medium-sized vessels in different shipyards, when they were still in our country laughing - It’s definitely not “Lego”, you won’t be able to adjust it.
        1. Alex_59 3 March 2020 12: 42 New
          • 9
          • 0
          +9
          Quote: Edward Vashchenko
          Are you making these conclusions speculatively or is there data?

          I am an engineer, though from a different industry, but I have wound up in different factories and have an idea. Therefore, I just understand "how they had it" in a convulsive mood, for a person who knows production, this is not difficult. I'll tell you a secret, even in the aircraft industry in the 21st century, some things are done by fitting in place. laughing
          And of course, we are talking exclusively about small ships. Kaptsov - he was born for great and large-scale ideas, therefore he thinks of battleship-cruising scales, but the war at sea in the Great Patriotic War was fought by and large by small boats. Therefore, 7000 motors - you need to understand which motors. No need to rummage through the archives to understand that 90% of this abundance is engines from 70 to 1500 hp. That is, engines for every little thing, and never even for watchmen, not like destroyers or cruisers. I can still assume that it is permissible to replace the engine on torpedo boats, minesweepers and MOshkas was documented by issuing the corresponding design documentation. But at all tenders and landing barges of project 165, I think everything was much more primitive. But there were also all kinds of motorbots, motor longboats, motor boats - this is generally not subject to accounting, they are not even referred to as independent objects. And what engines could they put in 43-44 years? Almost certainly, too, of the 7000, it is something weak, the size of a small car the size of a car engine. However, after all, even Kerch and Nikolaev were taken on these babies, I’m not talking about the rivers.
          1. Edward Vashchenko 3 March 2020 14: 52 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            here at all tenders and landing barges of project 165, I think everything was much more primitive. But there were also all kinds of motorbots, motor longboats, motor boats - this is generally not subject to accounting, they are not even referred to as independent objects.

            I absolutely agree.
            And here we have no contradictions with you, of course I also wrote that these “motors” are not for large ships and vessels.
            Only now they didn’t abandon the equipment, there weren’t so many of them, for example, the Eltigen landing, the watercraft were partially cut off and could not move away, and they were not scattered about them.
            1. Alex_59 3 March 2020 15: 07 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Quote: Edward Vashchenko
              Only now they didn’t abandon the equipment, there weren’t so many of them, for example, the Eltigen landing, the watercraft were partially cut off and could not move away, and they were not scattered about them.

              This is what I had in mind when I said that she had less to live than she was collected. Not that they were scattered, but that it would be destroyed during or immediately after the landing.
              1. Edward Vashchenko 3 March 2020 15: 13 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +4
                Yes! Yours faithfully hi
          2. fuxila 3 March 2020 15: 57 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            To this I can add that, perhaps, not all ordered marine engines were designed for installation on ships. After all, they can be used anywhere, for example, in combination with a generator, a quite decent power station is obtained. On my railway car was a D12 diesel engine, which was also installed on ships, as well as diesel locomotives, military equipment, etc.
          3. Alexey RA 3 March 2020 16: 32 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Quote: Alex_59
            I can still assume that it is permissible to replace the engine on torpedo boats, minesweepers and MOshkas was documented by issuing the corresponding design documentation. But at all tenders and landing barges of project 165, I think everything was much more primitive. But there were also all kinds of motorbots, motor longboats, motor boats - this is generally not subject to accounting, they are not even referred to as independent objects. And what engines could they put in 43-44 years?

            If you look at the memoirs of those who served in the "small fleet", then from the second half they constantly mention the "Packard" engines - capricious (that is, requiring regular maintenance according to the instructions) low-power (that is, giving exactly as much as is written). And there it is constantly said that there are no other motors.
            As for the quantity, for example, each minesweeper, the "stotonnik", required three imported diesel engines. Each BMO - two gasoline "Packard".
    3. bubalik 3 March 2020 10: 09 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Another thing is if 7784 units include motors, generators, etc.


    4. Deck 4 March 2020 21: 57 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      A detail is engines and diesel engines.


      Curious - how does one differ from the other, and in turn from the engine?
  • Plantagenet 3 March 2020 07: 22 New
    • 7
    • 3
    +4
    “I must say that since the second half of the 42 year, food has improved: the Americans began to send food, and a stew appeared in the dining room on Ilyinka. That's what the American stew saved us then! After the baland and millet porridge - stew, heavenly bliss! They called her “Second front”: after all, neither in the 42, nor in the 43 were the allies even opened the second front, which we were all waiting for - so, but at least we had an American food supply. I felt that I had the strength I am increasing every day; although I was thin as a skeleton, I began to appear on my cheeks there is a blush - the young body took its toll. Of course, all the same, there wasn’t enough food, malnutrition was constant, but there was already a turning point for the better. "

    Georgy Ilyich Mirsky “Life in three eras”
  • Carib 3 March 2020 07: 37 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    This relationship was all 30 years. When the equipment was supplied only for grain, for hunger. To at least somehow restrain the development of a competitor. Even gold was not needed. The memory was too close, and therefore they bought everything to copy the latest scientific achievements.
  • Amateur 3 March 2020 08: 03 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    The book "Lend-Lease. Deal of the Century ”by Natalya Butenina is most likely a revised abstract of her dissertation.
    I was able to calculate the dynamics of inflation in
    countries of the former allies for the period from 1945 to 2002. Over the past 58 years, the average annual growth rate of inflation was 4%, and in general, using the formula for accumulation taking into account compound interest for calculations, it can be established that this indicator increased by 9,726 times.

    Some quotes
    that of the 50 marine diesels delivered as part of one of the orders, only three were installed on Soviet ships under construction. The rest just rusted in warehouses.
    taken directly from the book, but where the author got them from is not clear, there are no references to sources, although she very carefully makes references to reliable sources. Most likely it is "homemade."
    But
    As a result, during the war years the USSR "substantiated" the need to obtain 7784 units. marine engines!
    I didn’t find it at all in a book (I read quickly). (I would be grateful to Mr. Kaptsov if he indicates the page number or at least the chapter).
    http://militera.lib.ru/research/butenina_nv01/index.html
    In general, both the book and the article are a typical HSE product.
    1. Edward Vashchenko 3 March 2020 08: 20 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      As a result, during the war years the USSR "substantiated" the need to obtain 7784 units. marine engines!
      I didn’t find it at all in a book (I read quickly). (I would be grateful to Mr. Kaptsov if he indicates the page number or at least the chapter).

      What are you talking about!
      Wrote above: 7784 ship engines! The engines, as it were, are “bundled” with the design of the ship or ship, and not by themselves, like Lego motors. And the size of the engines? Did the author see the opus? That they only needed about 3000 ships, depending on the size of the engine.
    2. Vladimir_2U 3 March 2020 08: 59 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      Unfortunately, many types of equipment, such as aviation, had no domestic counterparts. So, the famous pilot A.I. Pokryshkin only flew the domestic MiG-1942 for the first year of the war (until mid-3), while the rest of the wartime he spent in the cockpit of the American fighter “Aerocobra”
      The level of the author of the book is low, from the word at all. Is it like that, the Union Air Force didn’t have cannon fighters? And the author of the article leaned on a book
      Recommended by the Editorial and Publishing Council of the State University - Higher School of Economics
  • Octopus 3 March 2020 08: 19 New
    • 6
    • 5
    +1
    Kaptsov decided to go to Ryan Samsonov. The battle of two Yakazun.

    1. Comrade Stalin really defended the peaceful state of the workers and peasants from the capitalist encirclement. The Nazis of Germany, the imperialists of the United States, the White Guard disadvantages of Finland - there wasn’t much difference to him, the question of priority.
    2. The order that was under Stalin, the author greatly underestimates. Aluminum flooring is fie and grind.
    1. Snail N9 3 March 2020 08: 40 New
      • 5
      • 3
      +2
      In fact, the armament supplied by the USSR by the Allies was, although important, but still a secondary side of Lend-Lease. The supply of machine tools (especially for precision machining), equipment, alloy steels and additives, as well as tools for processing metals and alloys, etc. was of enormous importance. Much of the equipment supplied to the USSR was either not produced at all, or literally, in single amount. And of course, motor transport, without it would be very difficult, especially at the final stage of the rapid advance of the Red Army. A significant number of large-caliber anti-aircraft machine-gun mounts delivered by the Americans, finally, at the very end of the war created the possibility of directly covering the convoys of troops from German air raids.
      1. Octopus 3 March 2020 09: 38 New
        • 7
        • 7
        0
        Quote: Snail N9
        In fact, the armament supplied by the USSR by the Allies was, although important, but still a secondary side of Lend-Lease

        The topic of the importance of LL for the USSR is still completely separate. The main side of LL, in my opinion, was that the Allied economy plugged numerous holes and imbalances in the Soviet economy, of which even in peacetime there was a demon. Unfortunately, the praised Gosplan did not always cope with identifying bottlenecks and setting priorities. Whatever you take, everywhere in the Soviet economy are some kind of splinter.

        It is scary to think about how the mobilization of the Soviet economy could take place without the insurance of LL.
  • Sergey Averchenkov 3 March 2020 08: 22 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Some kind of stupidity.
  • Aviator_ 3 March 2020 08: 23 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Finally, the sources mention the trade in Lend-Lease help. This is not about the domestic “black market”, although this moment existed from the first day of the program. The Americans were especially outraged that the USSR secretly resold the materials and equipment supplied to it to third countries of the world.

    From this place more details pzhlst. To whom and when did the USSR sell Lend-Lease aid?
  • Undecim 3 March 2020 08: 32 New
    • 15
    • 0
    +15
    Another conspiratorial draft from Kaptsov, who obviously decided to compete with Samsonov in throwing at the fan.
  • Alex_59 3 March 2020 08: 40 New
    • 14
    • 0
    +14
    As a result, during the war years the USSR "substantiated" the need to obtain 7784 units. marine engines!

    Is it worth explaining that the domestic shipbuilding industry was in stagnation during the war years. The number of warships built (completed from pre-war reserves) of the main classes was only 70 units. And the number of ships and boats built was estimated at only a few hundred.
    I vskidku counted 1332 boats and small warships built in 1942-1945 and which used at least 2500 engines, mainly Lend-Lease, because since 1942 they switched almost exclusively to them. Hint to the author - on many ships 2 and 3 engine propulsion systems. That is, a third of the engines went to work. Agree, it doesn’t look so sensational - well, yes, the Soviet side greatly overestimated the potential need for engines, but the supply does not pull in a pocket. What if you had to land in Japan? Or would the war in Europe last until 1946? Then at least 2000 engines would have easily been eaten up (given that production growth accelerated). And about the "stagnation of the shipbuilding industry", the author has a concussion from a salvo of guns of a battleship, because of which he does not notice boats and landing barges (suddenly equipped with engines!).
    See a hundred steps forward! The highest leadership of the USSR did not have the slightest doubt about how bad relations with the Allies would develop after the victory over Germany.
    I would like to bring a bearded anecdote here. "You should not look for complex theories, explain sloppiness, incompetence and insanity that is easily explained by the most ordinary Jewish conspiracy."
  • smaug78 3 March 2020 09: 05 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Oleg Kaptsov - epigon of the folk conspirator Samsonov laughing
  • Naz
    Naz 3 March 2020 12: 20 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Where are the sources, Oleg? Or is it all based on books of pseudo-historians?
  • boris epstein 3 March 2020 12: 37 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    About aluminum. There were large admixtures of magnesium and manganese in the duralumin of the USA and Germany, so the American duralumin was not used with the Soviet aircraft industry. tanks.English Tetrarch and the American lightweight M3 Stuart were at the level of our T-70, even weaker than the Soviet critics T-26 and BT, with whom we started the war and who were lost by the end of 1942. Or the American Lee-Grant with 76 mm a cannon in an onboard sponson and a 37 mm cannon in a tower. His Soviet tankers called it "a mass grave for seven." The English Churchillies were heavily armored, the Valentines also had strong frontal armor, and the Matildas were also well armored. But the main disadvantages of British tanks: a weak gun against German tanks, low-speed, low cross-country ability on Russian roads and snow. Kromveli and Comet were better in this sense, but the gun remained weak until the end of 1944. Then they created a 75-mm gun, which successfully fought with the German T-IV. And put it not only on their tanks, but also on the 7th Sherman-Sherman-Firefly modification. On Soviet wooden planes. What about delta wood? And it was harder to set fire to than the American duralumin. The English bomber Mosquito and the torpedo bomber Swordfish were also solid wood. And they fought the whole war. On account of the swordfish, damage to the Bismarck screws and the sinking of the Italian battleships in Taranto. About payment. And with what did the cruiser Edinburgh sunk by a German submarine go to England (they refused to escort him as secular destroyers)? Gold bullions were taken from him by Soviet and Norwegian divers in the 80s; vehicles of all types and armored personnel carriers not produced in the USSR were especially valuable in Lend-Lease. Food, fuel, explosives, rails, rolling stock of railways, 95-mm anti-aircraft guns. But there were few shells for them. It was necessary to make corrections in determining the volumes of Lend-Lease. In 1943-1944, England kept part of the American Lend-Lease intended for the USSR to prepare Overlord. 2500 tanks, armored personnel carriers, trucks, and landing barges. Yes, this was agreed upon with the USSR, but we did not receive them and it would not be superfluous with us either. And how much is lost in sunken transports! Out of 35 PQ-17 transports, only 7 have reached! Aircobra and kingcobra were also complaints. Yes, powerful weapons and high speed. But the location of the engine in the center wing, behind the pilot’s armored back. Soviet pilots died or were injured when leaving the wrecked car. At the expense of fuel and ammunition, the alignment was broken and they broke into a flat corkscrew. In any case, they were not in service with the British and American aircraft. For this reason. About technology. The USSR gave the United States the composition of rocket fuel for RS-132 shells. The Germans failed to repeat it. At the end of 1944, the Americans produced 52-barrel launchers and hung RSs under the wings of their attack aircraft.
    1. Yamato1980 6 March 2020 15: 03 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Well, delta wood was not used for good life on airplanes, not good for life at all, but you present it as some kind of achievement. The USSR could not work qualitatively with aluminum, which is necessary for the production of aircraft, therefore they found a replacement in the form of a wood delta, and the fact that it is heavier and, as a result, subsidence of the performance characteristics of aircraft began, had to be put up with for the sake of output volumes.
      The meaning of the “good” and “bad” tanks among the British comes from the fact that they were divided into infantry and cavalry tanks and the technical characteristics were laid in them based on the range of tasks where they were to be used.
      And why did the Germans have to repeat the RS-132, they had their own multiple launch rocket systems and they arranged them.
    2. mmaxx 7 March 2020 18: 44 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Delta wood is fiercely heavy. From a good life you can’t do this.
      There is still one thing to understand. I saw a book of the 30s. In it I read how to choose a tree for airplanes. In general, there was a lot of wood for the plane. Nowadays, it was necessary to stick a screw on the gyro for the first time, until you bought it, picked up a brand one. We decided to do it ourselves at the factory. Raised materials on how to do this in science. In general, on a two-bladed propeller a meter and a half long, wide, you understand, generally not at all, it took 2,5 cubic meters selected pine trees.
      This is the case for delta wood. There, all these heterogeneities are removed. And it turns out a composite with more or less homogeneous properties. In general, our aircraft in the war developed according to very cruel laws. Well, the king-priest did not leave us anything on this part.
  • Undecim 3 March 2020 12: 40 New
    • 17
    • 1
    +16
    Kaptsov, to the extent that he has lost respect for readers, that when he generates his sketch, he doesn’t bother with links to documents, he doesn’t even bother to compare dates.
    For example, take the "statement" How did they fight without Lend-Lease explosives and aluminum at the beginning of the war, breaking the ridge of the Wehrmacht near Stalingrad?
    The battle of Stalingrad is the period from mid-July 1942 to February 1943.
    The first (Moscow) Lend-Lease supply protocol was signed in September 1941 for the period from October 1941 to June 1942.
    1. Undecim 3 March 2020 12: 43 New
      • 15
      • 1
      +14
      Let's look at the fourth page of the specified protocol.
      1. Undecim 3 March 2020 12: 59 New
        • 17
        • 1
        +16
        As you can see, in September 1941, the USSR orders 4000 tons of aluminum and 500 tons of duralumin each month, excluding the 5000 tons that were delivered in September. The Americans say that 5000 tons are ready for shipment, and 2000 tons per month of aluminum and 500 tons of rolled metal will be shipped.
        1. Undecim 3 March 2020 13: 13 New
          • 18
          • 1
          +17
          Now let's see the fourth (Ottawa) protocol for the period from June 1944 to July 1945.

          As you can see, the USSR orders 87200 tons of aluminum in all forms, that is, duralumin is also included in this figure. and silumin.
          It turns out 7300 tons per month in 1945 against 4500 in 1941. Four-year growth of 62%. Given the growth in the production of tanks and planes in the USSR (and aluminum is also tank engines), the United States does not get any "ruin", especially against the background of American production.
          The author sucks the sensation out of the finger.
          1. Undecim 3 March 2020 13: 40 New
            • 20
            • 0
            +20
            I see the minus. Given that a person will not deliver an adequate minus here, this may be either the author or the consequences of factors from the sphere of interests of specialized specialists.
            1. Yamato1980 6 March 2020 15: 07 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Do not worry so much. This is most likely Diana and others like them try laughing And the data is valid yes
  • svp67 3 March 2020 12: 51 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    I read it and now I'm sitting and thinking, what was it?
    “Ballistic gunpowder” and explosives were very necessary for us, due to the loss of several large industries in the USSR.
    Ship engines ... seriously, but I don’t see much crime either. According to the same Lend-Lease, a lot of American-built ships were delivered, namely 202 torpedo boats, 60 patrol boats of the RPC type, 34 minesweepers of the AM type and 43 type of the YMS (UMS). The numbers are not small. And who said that we did not reserve these engines for them? For example, the Americans did not supply spare parts and engines to tanks and aircraft, our specialists had to deal with "technical cannibalism" ...
    With aluminum, the story is of course “dark,” I don’t exclude that we really looked at the prospect, while it was possible to receive and store it “in reserve”, before the war we were “presented” with all kinds of “embargoes” ... It’s great after the war and fit ...
    The author just remembered about “Kingcobra”, and if you read Loza’s memoirs “Tanker on a foreign car”, he describes the moment when, upon arrival to the Far Eastern Front, they in the bare steppe, on a perfectly camouflaged tank storage base, accepted new ones already prepared for battle , and it was a rather painful and long process, the Sherman tanks, the latest modifications ... That is, they were accumulated there, well aware who they would have to clash with after defeating Germany ...
    1. frog 3 March 2020 16: 02 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Vegetable with him, with the author ..... But gunpowder can all be "ballistic"?
      1. svp67 3 March 2020 16: 07 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: frog
        But can all gunpowder be "ballistic"?

        He is the most ... "smokeless"
        1. frog 3 March 2020 16: 10 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Duc, like "smokeless" we ourselves did a lot? There is a slightly different difference, because it is cordial and in general - it seems like they are not ballistic ... However, these things are the nuances wink
          1. svp67 3 March 2020 16: 13 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: frog
            Duc, like "smokeless" we ourselves did a lot?

            In the first year of the war, they lost a lot ... both the production and the capacities for its production ....
          2. hohol95 4 March 2020 11: 52 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Judging by this photograph, it was not very possible to make the powder “smokeless”.
            1. frog 4 March 2020 12: 05 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              What a glorious pepelats !!! But do not tell me what kind of chassis he has?)
              1. hohol95 4 March 2020 12: 11 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +4

                STZ-5 "STALINETS".
                1. frog 4 March 2020 12: 19 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Presumably, a photo from Novomoskovsk?
                  And about the gunpowder .... We took up ballistics in the 30s, EMNIP. And they were made just for the MLRS. They, of course, are included in the "smokeless" gunpowder, but, as we see wink , smokelessness is a relative concept ....
                  1. hohol95 4 March 2020 12: 30 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    There are descriptions of the fact that such smoke support for shooting RS was reduced when using components and gunpowder obtained on L-L! At the same time, the Americans “blocked” part of the requests for components and gunpowder with ready-made ammunition (shells for tank guns), and limited themselves to that. Although it was requested precisely the gap and their components.
                    1. frog 4 March 2020 12: 39 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      Yes easily !!)) As for exactly what we requested for l-l and what they gave us ..... Although it was profitable for them themselves, they don’t drop a gift horse anywhere, alas .... So here just sigh. High-octane gasoline was sent - and then bread .... Yes, and somewhere I read that mortar gunpowder was either imported or produced with imported components ..... Alas, to us .....
                      On the other hand, given what happened after the revolutions and civil wars, it could have been much worse.
                      1. hohol95 4 March 2020 13: 47 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        We will not get down with a dispute, which was before the First World War. But it was clearly weaker than other participating countries and mobilizing industry for the needs of the army and navy proved to be an impossible task. The revolution and the civil situation made things worse.
                      2. frog 4 March 2020 19: 25 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        So what is the dispute here ?? So, a statement of fact, no more ....
              2. Yamato1980 6 March 2020 15: 09 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                In common "tadpole" laughing
  • Alexey RA 3 March 2020 17: 25 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Quote: svp67
    “Ballistic gunpowder” and explosives were very necessary for us, due to the loss of several large industries in the USSR.

    If we take the data of the same Vernidub, then even in 1944, 44% of the needs for gunpowder were covered by Lend-Lease. And for some of the components for the production of gunpowder, the proportion of LL reached 100%.
    Quote: svp67
    Ship engines ... seriously, but I don’t see much crime either.

    And there is nothing to see. There wasn’t enough GAM for everyone - so we had to make a small fleet on “packards” and imported diesels. MBK, BMO, "Stotonniki", TCA and SKA - in series of tens and hundreds of buildings.
  • Engineer 3 March 2020 14: 44 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    La-7, say how you did it and did it from wood? And you take, redesign it from aluminum every new part, build a prototype, test for strength, make drawings, equipment, stop production at the plant to start production from another material using the new technology for this plant. Or maybe build a new plant? But the war will wait ... Does the T-34 production experience teach you anything? And yes, almost all of the aluminum went to the production of bombers, if that. Therefore, no one was engaged in the design of La-7 from aluminum.
    1. Alex_59 3 March 2020 15: 28 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: Engineer
      Therefore, no one was engaged in the design of La-7 from aluminum.

      I was engaged. And what's more, the La-7 made of aluminum. It was called La-9. But they did it only in 1946. Which again testifies in favor of the adequacy of the Soviet leadership. That's right - they did not turn off the production of wooden La-7s, they were needed here and now. But, everyone perfectly understood that there was a problem and solved it in the background. And if the war dragged on, maybe La-9 would have been done a year earlier and he would have fought the Germans in the whole 46th. Made from obtained American metal.
      1. mmaxx 7 March 2020 18: 48 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        To do and to do are two different things. No one bothered to engage. And during the war it is necessary to do what is necessary.
    2. ccsr 3 March 2020 19: 12 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Engineer
      La-7, say how you did it and did it from wood? And you take, redesign it from aluminum every new part, build a prototype, test for strength, make drawings, equipment, stop production at the plant to start production from another material using the new technology for this plant.

      You have absolutely correctly described the essence of the problem - during the war, you need to make up for losses in the first place, and then everything else then. By the way, the Germans tried in the second half of the war to replace aluminum with wood in their aircraft, but they did not succeed - it turns out that the use of wood in the Soviet aircraft industry is in itself unique in terms of technology, i.e. not everyone could do it. I do not see a big problem with this technical solution during the period of propeller aviation - it was caused simply by a lack of resources.
    3. Yamato1980 6 March 2020 15: 10 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Wildly plus wink
  • BAI
    BAI 3 March 2020 15: 12 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Lend-Lease aluminum then went widely into business in the production of the first jet aircraft. Very backfired Americans in North Korea.
    1. svp67 3 March 2020 16: 08 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: BAI
      Lend-Lease aluminum then went widely into business in the production of the first jet aircraft.

      and the production of "unlicensed copies" of B-29
  • Maks1995 3 March 2020 15: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And the Lend-Lease begins ..... h))))

    Such an unexpected side, did not know.

    Although, it’s beautiful - they give it, take it. Aluminum, engines, tar and electrics.

    But what happened after with the reserves, for example, engines, is not described in any way ....
    1. boris epstein 4 March 2020 16: 07 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Have you installed a lot of engines? They were installed on ships and boats. But the consumable engine, it happens that it breaks down (and spare parts were not sent to them), is damaged in battle, burns down. There are no statistics on how many of them went to replace, but I think not one hundred.
  • Dmitry V. 3 March 2020 15: 41 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    But someone wondered if this help was used directly for the war with Germany.

    Actually, the USSR was preparing for the next war with Japan, no one expected its quick surrender, and for landing on the islands a huge amount of landing means will be needed (hence a large number of ship engines).

    Explosives were not enough - American artillery gunpowder was better.
    Explosives never happen.
  • KVK1 3 March 2020 15: 43 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    where would I find such a lender? what
    Thus, from the total volume of US Lend-Lease deliveries of $ 10,8 billion for the surviving equipment, according to the United States, it was necessary to pay $ 1,3 billion, or about 12%. As a result, the USSR, and then the Russian Federation, of the amount of $ 1,3 billion was recognized, and then partially paid $ 722 million [43] [44], that is, 6,5% of the total cost of supplies received by the USSR. It should also be borne in mind that the amount of debt was not indexed taking into account inflation, and in 2015 prices, the cost of deliveries under the lend-lease amounted to $ 160 billion [55]

    take a loan, and after 70 years, give 6.5% of the taken (excluding inflation) yes
    1. Alexey RA 3 March 2020 17: 42 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: KVK1
      take a loan, and after 70 years, give 6.5% of the taken (excluding inflation)

      Not just to take on credit, but to collect goods worth 11 billion, agree to pay 1,3 billion - and as a result, actually pay 120-130 million (in 1946 prices). smile
      722 million is in the 90s dollars, which are much cheaper than the 40s dollars.
    2. Amateur 3 March 2020 19: 54 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      where would I find such a lender? what

      Yes bullshit. Anyone will take you. Only you will need to win the world war and pay for it 20 million of your citizens killed. angry
  • Dmitry V. 3 March 2020 16: 09 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    In the prewar years, it did not have the largest and one of the most technically equipped armies in the world.

    Dissenting opinion of the author?
    Look at the composition of modern weapons for 1941 - light tanks MS-1, BT-2, BT-5, BT-7, T-26 - the vast majority of the Red Army tank fleet. As with modern aircraft: the Yak-1 LaGG-3 MiG-1 / MiG-3 make up hardly a fifth of fighter aircraft. The rest of the I-16 of different years of release, I-153, I-15.
    As they would say now - 15-20% of modern technology in 1941.

    It was not bad with artillery, but compared in quantity - for example, in the British infantry division the full-time staff had 72 units of the Ordnance QF 25 pounder (25-pound howitzer guns). Each of the three regiments of the division had 24 guns consisting of three eight-gun batteries.

    The Red Army Infantry Division: in June 1940 a howitzer regiment was added - the 122 mm howitzer (M-30) division, the third mixed division was removed to the light artillery regiment. The number of 122 mm howitzers in the division increased 32 pcs M-30. The number of divisional 76 mm guns (F-22, F-22USSV, etc.) decreased and became equal to 16 pieces. In the state of April 1941 for rifle divisions, these numbers have not changed
    That is, even the Red Army infantry divisions, re-equipped with new art systems, were more than twice as inferior in terms of fire support to the full-time British division, even if we counted part of it from 12 pieces of corps 122 A-19 guns (model 1931/37) or 152 mm ML- 20 samples (1937).
    That is, well, it’s not at all drawn to the “most technologically equipped army” - they strove for this, but did not have time before the war.
    1. 1970mk 5 March 2020 10: 17 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      Look at the composition of modern weapons for 1941 - light tanks MS-1, BT-2, BT-5, BT-7, T-26 - the vast majority of the Red Army tank fleet. As with modern aircraft: the Yak-1 LaGG-3 MiG-1 / MiG-3 make up hardly a fifth of fighter aircraft. The rest of the I-16 of different years of release, I-153, I-15.

      You are so funny))))) The enemy, Germany, had more "modern weapons"? For tanks, the bottom of the T-4 with a 75mm stub was about 400 pieces, the rest was generally "something." Or is the T1, T-2 or 38t better than the BT-7 or T-26? We only have 34-k 1000pcs + about 600KV ... Or you need to have 20t. tanks like T-34 was? The same thing on airplanes ... The new models were comparable with the entire number of German air forces. The militarization is complete! Are you not enough?
      1. hohol95 5 March 2020 11: 35 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Is quantity or quality of equipment important to you?
        But at the same time, is the quality of the interaction between the combat arms, the quality of the supply of ammunition, fuel and lubricants and spare parts important?
        And you forget about the level of training of personnel.
        Pz. 38 (t) is compared only with BT-7. He exceeded the T-26 in many respects.
        But the PZ.35 (T) (all in the 6th Panzer Division) was a "relative" of the T-26.
        1. 1970mk 5 March 2020 15: 07 New
          • 1
          • 4
          -3
          Is quantity or quality of equipment important to you?

          Are you there again? Quality? Amount? Only, as you say "little", there were so many new tanks that they could just drive through ALL the German tanks and not notice it! And all the tanks, more than in the whole world then, at times.
          The same for airplanes.
          Strange peaceful policy in fact)))
          Another thing is that military crews are not up to par. that’s the whole point.
          Morality, do not repeat from time to time "as we had little new technology. In the whole world there was less of it!
          1. hohol95 5 March 2020 15: 26 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Find in my comment the word - LITTLE EQUIPMENT. As you will find - with me KVASS BARREL!
            The question is - why didn’t French and British tanks pass through to Berlin in 1940?
          2. hohol95 5 March 2020 15: 48 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Did Great Britain have enough warships?
            Why did they take 11 WWII destroyers from the Americans in exchange for bases in the Atlantic Ocean?
      2. boris epstein 5 March 2020 11: 54 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        All is correct. The five-year rearmament in the USSR was supposed to end on December 31, 1942. In addition to the tanks, the serial production of the Il-2, Pe-2, Pe-8 was planned, cruisers of the Komsomolets type, destroyers of the Ognevoy type, battleships of the Soviet Union type, submarines of all types were on the stocks. , minesweepers, did not manage to adopt the ZiS-3 divisional cannon (they released it "underground" until January 1942), the serial production of PPSh had just begun, the latest Polikarpov fighter had not yet been tested. Germany was no better. Their 37-mm anti-tank guns were powerless against the KV and T-34, as the anti-tank Germans used the Soviet divisional cannon F-22 and their 88-mm anti-aircraft guns. Heavy tanks were only in the projects (Rheinmetall does not count, only 6 of them were produced). Hitler knew about the Soviet five-year rearmament and was in a hurry to attack, especially since Canaris and the Abwehr did not always provide him with reliable information due to the fact that Canaris worked for the UK. "If I knew that Russia has 20 tanks, I would never attack," - Hitler. Although the number of Soviet tanks is also a big question. The real figure is 000. And Germany didn’t have 13500, as they say now, but taking into account the Czechoslovak and captured French and English, about 4500. And not all Soviet tanks were on the western border. On June 8000, 22 were in the Far East against the millionth Kwantung Army. Another 4000 from the Central Asian and Transcaucasian HE were introduced to Iran in August 2000 to provide the southern Lend-Lease route. And Britain needed Germany’s attack on the USSR like air. Yes and not only it. The USA swelled a lot of money into German industry, continued to supply Germany and during the war (through Portugal and Spain). The USA expected to push the USSR and Germany together, and then finish off the weakened winner. Number failed. The USSR emerged from the war, albeit with devastation, but with a powerful victorious army.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • ser56 3 March 2020 16: 52 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    "Can you imagine that under such conditions they could just forget about the oil refinery or the mountains of aluminum dumped on the quays?"
    No problem... request I recommend the author to read Novikov’s memoirs, deputy. the People’s Commissar of Arms, who wrote a lot of interesting things ... and how he intercepted coal echelons ... there was one more mess, including Lend-Lease - they said to write papers - that’s what they ordered, it could have slipped by an order of magnitude .. request
  • ser56 3 March 2020 16: 59 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Quote: boris epstein
    Out of 35 PQ-17 transports, only 7 reached

    something new ... "Of the 35 transports, only 11 reached Arkhangelsk. 2 vessels returned to Iceland."
  • NF68 3 March 2020 17: 32 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The bulk of these deliveries did not fall on the hardest period of 1941-1942, when the threat of a shortage could really arise from the loss of capacities and enterprises in the western regions of the country. Not! The main Lend-Lease deliveries were 1944-1945, when the evacuated industry was at its peak, and Soviet rear workers set labor records.


    The USA and the BI in the 1941-1942s didn’t have much to supply the USSR with everything necessary because labor records in the USA also became possible only closer to the middle of 1943. And BI without the help of the United States already from the second half of 1941 would have been unable to defend its convoys and territory on its own.
  • Tests 3 March 2020 23: 05 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    I don’t understand anything! The conference "Lend-Lease and Globalization" was dedicated to the 60th anniversary of Victory. On it N.V. Butenina in her speech “Adopting the Lend-Lease Act and its Role in US History” clearly described how the law was adopted and how the USA and the USSR worked on it. From 11.06.1942/01.10.1941/10,53, the law on Lend-Lease was postponed from XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX. in relation to the USSR, from the date of signing the First (Moscow) Protocol. The remaining XNUMX million dollars of the USSR should be paid by barter or gold. By the end of the war, this amount was almost all written off.
    In total, from June 22.06.41, 01.10.41 to October 6, 613,3, materials worth 1939 million 1940 thousand dollars were delivered to the Soviet Union. It included deliveries of: a) ship mechanisms for orders of 833,4-150. for $ 379,6; b) 10,5 sets of marine searchlights "Sperry for 834,7 thousand; c) 407,9 thousand air bombs for 1000 thousand; d) cartridges for aircraft machine guns 287 thousand; e) 5 automatic Thompson with cartridges for 388,8 thousand; f) aircraft engines, aircraft propellers and other equipment for 65 thousand; g) telephone cables and wires for XNUMX thousand dollars.
    Among the materials sent on the basis of reverse Lend-Lease, i.e. from the USSR to the USA, it included gold, timber, furs, fish, caviar, which, however, were also commercial exports of the USSR. Among the services provided to the allies were the provision and maintenance of ships arriving at northern and Pacific ports, and the partial supply of allied forces in Iran.
    At the same conference, also Muscovites G.A. Kumanev and L.M. Chuzavkov in his speech “The Soviet Union and Lend-Lease 1941 - 1945” indicated that from June to August 41 of the USSR received only 128 tons of materials purchased in cash. The 2nd month of a heavy war was left behind, and the United States supplied its eastern ally with only the tools and industrial equipment that it had previously purchased. In addition to gold, the Soviet Union handed over to the United States stratigic raw materials: manganese, chromium, platinum, asbestos, tungsten, etc.
    The story of a visit by one of the US officers to a Soviet shipyard where only 3 engines were installed on hunters and 123 rusted, while Mikoyan requested an additional 1944 engines for 50, and the Allies wished to install these engines on landing barges, day “D” was approaching - completely not new. It is not new that Lend-Lease received was sold to Poland, Mongolia, Afghanistan, and the Chinese Communists, and not to the Communists in East Turkestan, but I don’t know about Tuva.
    Mrs. Butenina quoted in 2005 a 1997 book by Mikhail Suprun, Lend Lease and Northern Convoys of 1941-1945.
    Mikhail Nikolaevich wrote that, according to two protocols, 8 ship engines were delivered to the USSR. A large number of engines were sent to the national economy: the construction of river vessels, trawlers, to provide irrigation systems in Central Asia, the restoration of locks.
    Dear bubalik (Sergey) a few months ago, in the material on Lend-Lease, the tables were very interesting, which we sent to the allies. I was then struck by the number of seeds of Kok-Sagyz - 25 kg in 1942 !!! In 1941 we sent 10 tons of buckthorn bark, 22 tons of beeswax, 100 tons of licorice root!
    Turbines for the restoration of the Dnieper - it's a land lease. 1526 cranes and excavators according to the Ottawa and London protocols came to us. For the whole of 1945, the USSR manufactured 13 cranes and excavators ...
    So, dear author, the hypothesis voiced by you does not stand up to criticism.
    In general, already commentators "V.O." It was said earlier that while we and allies are not going to make any documents - do not understand what was and how it was received, what and how they paid, what was on lend-lease, what was on credit, what was clearing, they worked simultaneously and simultaneously.
  • Tests 3 March 2020 23: 30 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    ser56 (Sergey), dear, I can assume that in modern studies the vessels that arrived in Severodvinsk (Molotovsk) are considered separately from the vessels that reached Arkhangelsk. Although during the war, Molotovsk is one of the districts of the Arkhangelsk Commercial Sea Port, as is Savings, Moseev Island, Left Bank, Bakaritsa. From 01.12.41 tankers went only to Molotovsk, which means that out of 11 civilian vessels “Azerbaijan” and “Donbass” they definitely went to the berths of Molotovsk. Well, a couple of transports could go to Molotovsk to unload and stand in repair at Sevmash. That's the number 7 ... The British tanker of the Navy "Gray Ranger" had its place in the PQ-17 warrant - also, 90%, went to Molotovsk. Although he could go to the Left Bank or Bakaritsa, Keg-island and Bakaritsa already had air defense regiments on the Hurricanes, there was a training center for armored forces on Bakaritsa - Red Army fighters learned to ride on allied tanks and armored personnel carriers.
  • NordUral 3 March 2020 23: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But an interesting thing is strategic planning.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Mikhail3 4 March 2020 09: 47 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Well yes. In America, there were no experts in economic planning, no one considered anything, no one understood what the damned Stalin ordered, he was unquestioningly dumped ... Nonsense.
  • Kostadinov 4 March 2020 10: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Far In
    Rather, having the opportunity to obtain high-tech products and equipment in which the Soviet Union was refused in the vast majority of cases even for gold before the war,

    Someone refused, but there is no other. Until the summer of 1941, equipment was received from Germany. Then from the USA. The main thing is that it did not beat a united front against the USSR.
  • DWG1905 4 March 2020 15: 43 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    An interesting article, however, is superficial. About the posts. In 1996, while studying the RSAE, he talked with his grandfathers as it seemed to me then, their opinion up to 30% of the production of B and VT is a subscript. For tanks, this is the offset as newly released tanks that underwent major repairs at serial plants, repaired captured tanks (but probably not many). It is possible to ascribe, but B and BT must be put in the troops, how to put more than physically is? Then the postscripts must be disposed of, such as they died in battle, this is also a problem. Therefore, the question is muddy, you can attribute consumables, but tanks and planes are difficult. To do this, an all-out conspiracy is needed from Beria to Molotov to the rank and file of the deputy head of the regiment or battalion.
    For armored steel, this is the cutting at repair plants of tank hulls that cannot be repaired and, accordingly, the secondary use of rolled metal. The RSAE is quite aware of this issue. Imported armor steel (rolled) went mainly to light tanks T-60, T-70, T-80, SU-76. Weigh them.
    The fact that in many positions LL was critical for us is beyond doubt.
    More about LL at the end of the war they asked to put naval radar, the Americans refused. The fact that using our moment, we tried to overcome everything that is possible, is undoubted. And it is right.
  • bondxnumx 4 March 2020 16: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    They did it right!
  • Pavel57 4 March 2020 16: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Strange logic in the author. The theme of Lend-Lease even on this site has repeatedly arisen. But then, to pay gold for unnecessary material for the first time. It is more likely that order accounting and material distribution was far from ideal.
    La-7, unlike La-5, was already aluminum at its core.
    And the fact that Stalin was preparing for a confrontation with the Allies is not a secret.
    At different stages of the war, the value of supplies was different - first equipment and weapons, then technology and materials, and then food. You can find a link where we have already discussed this.
    My opinion is that without Lend-Lease, for us the war would have been even more sacrificed and could have ended in a completely different way, and not there.
  • Tests 4 March 2020 17: 12 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    DWG1905 (Alexander), dear M.N. Suprun in the book Lend-Lease and Northern Convoys 1941-1945 Moscow, St. Andrew's Flag 1997 on p. 320 writes: "Therefore, the supply of radars in accordance with Soviet applications continued to increase. In 1944-1945, compared with the first war years they were enlarged fivefold.2182 locators, including 373 sea and 580 aircraft, were delivered to the USSR during these years, and, along with the already well-known modifications, more advanced ones began to arrive in the Soviet Union.Of the fifty basic varieties of locator systems, half delivered to the USSR, half arrived at the end of the war, including the well-proven American Mark artillery radars, which were armed with most of the largest US ships, the British GL fire control radars, and the Canadian REX fire correction systems. " The author gives a link to the RSAE.F.413Op.9.D.562.L.19-20,30; D.548.L.123
    1. bubalik 7 March 2020 12: 24 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      hi
      In 1944-1945 Compared to the first war years, they were increased five times. 2182 locators, including 373 marine and 580 aircraft, were delivered to the USSR during these years.

  • place 4 March 2020 17: 18 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Gold began to pay far not immediately. Initially, it was assumed that assistance was provided free of charge, but with the return of property and unused equipment in the postwar period.
    The Americans had foreseen in advance that the USSR did not use everything ....... It was naive to believe that they were straining their last efforts to send anything to the USSR.

    But the leadership of the USSR acted reasonably, trying to snatch as much as possible. Since "return later" - we always have time. And maybe-return money, not in kind. It depends on which is more convenient.

    THIS IS HOW TO WORK WITH THE IMPERIALISTS! Not that the current tribe at the present time ..... very many managed to build against themselves. Despite the complete absence of differences in ideology.
    1. 1970mk 5 March 2020 10: 10 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      You confuse ... it was paid for the first deliveries ... then no.
  • Kostadinov 4 March 2020 18: 46 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    There is evidence from Zhukov that if it weren’t for the products of the chemical industry according to Lend-Lease, it would have been impossible to produce many types of steel, explosives, gunpowder and much more, chemical production was mainly in Ukraine and suffered very seriously,

    Until Lendlis, the USSR didn’t produce explosives, gunpowder and steel. The Red Army was armed with bows and axes. But the Germans wrote fairy tales about some 20 thousand tanks and another 20 thousand aircraft by the first day of the war, when there was still no lendlize.
    it is possible to have 99 percent and million tons of everything in the world, but not be able to produce 1% of complex chemicals without which finished products - shell, armor, bullet, fuel, explosives - will not work.

    You can not have 90% of everything in the world and still produce both a shell and armor and a bullet and an explosive. Of course, quality will not be the best, but enough. But you can always do without your 1% “complex substances themselves” and find some substitute for them.
    There are words of Khrushchev who claimed that in conversations with Stalin, the latter repeatedly mentioned that if it were not for the supplies of the allies, then we would have lost this war, who, if not Stalin, would know the real situation in the country in those years?

    Khrushchev said that Stalin led the fighting around the globe, and that’s what he claimed at the party congress.
    Khrushchev as a source of information about Stalin is like Hitler about Jews, Nixon about Marxism-Leninism, or Pinochet about Aliende.
    1. Alexey RA 5 March 2020 11: 25 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Until Lendlis, the USSR didn’t produce explosives, gunpowder and steel.

      Produced. Including in Mariupol, Leningrad, Shostka and other places that find themselves in the occupied territory or on the front line.
      Quote: Kostadinov
      You can not have 90% of everything in the world and still produce both a shell and armor and a bullet and an explosive. Of course, quality will not be the best, but enough.

      That's just to pay for this ersatz armor with cracks and ersatz shells that crack on the armor or are inferior in power to normal, will have to be soldier’s blood.
      In the report “Defeat of the Armor of German Tanks” (July 1942, NII-48), the difference between a normal projectile and an ersatz is clearly visible:
      5. A high-explosive steel grenade is most effective in case of firing on the sides of the tank during its oblique movement ...
      6. Fragmentation grenade of steel cast iron can only be used when firing at the tank’s tower "to blind" ...

      Quote: Kostadinov
      But you can always do without your 1% “complex substances themselves” and find some substitute for them.

      And we already passed it. Remind you how in the USSR for three years they tried to make a caliber projectile without tungsten, and what did it lead to?
      Manufactured prototypes 45 mm. and 76 mm. armor-piercing armor-piercing shells modeled on the Komissan company were tested at Sofrinsky Artillery range with the following results:
      1. Due to the large reduction in weight, a significant gain was achieved in the initial speed: for 45 mm. anti-tank guns - up to 1010 mtr / sec. and for the 76 mm regimental gun arr. 27 g. - up to 550 mtr / sec.
      2. However, such an increase in the initial velocity did not increase armor penetration: for example, 45 mm. gun at a distance of 200 mtr. did not pierce 50 mm. stove (a dent was obtained);
      3. An explanation of this phenomenon should be sought in the fact that the core should be made of a special alloy similar to that used by the Germans (about 75% tungsten, 2% cobalt and 4% carbon), otherwise it, being made even of high-carbon tool steel with vanadium additive , crumbles into the smallest pieces upon impact with the armor.
      At the same time, some employees of the UVNA and Artcom GAU began to insistently demand the reproduction of German shells, the cores of which are made of the above alloy. NII_24 objected to this, arguing that:
      1) we do not have tungsten reserves and therefore, even if favorable results are obtained, such shells will not have further practical introduction into production;
      2) the manufacture of such cores can only be carried out on grinding wheels, i.e. on equipment that is available in a few factories.

      ... head of the special laboratory of the Institute, Comrade V. Raskin at the same time explained at what price the alloy would be obtained. And the price is as follows. To produce just one core for a 76 mm projectile requires such an amount of alloy that will deprive at the same time 30 aircraft industry machines it will be victorious for the entire service life of these cutters!
      © Director of NII-24 Averchenko,
      Chief Designer of NII-24 Matyushkin

      Given the fact that the mass production of sub-caliber shells began exactly at the time when the Tyrnauz plant was just recovering - guess where the tungsten came from? wink
  • Prisoner 4 March 2020 20: 29 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    What can I say? No fools were in power in the USSR. Not fools at all. They knew how to think for the future and in a big way.
  • Tavrik 4 March 2020 23: 30 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    so part of the KRL "Dido" had to be handed over with incomplete or even non-projected Civil Code.

    It was such a thing ... a cruiser with a main caliber of 114 mm. Toothless Horror.
  • 1970mk 5 March 2020 10: 08 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    The very importance of Lend-Lease in the fight against fascism was significant, but not decisive. And this should not be the reason for any speculation about the contribution of the Allies to our Victory.

    Of course it’s not decisive .. You bet that if it weren’t for deliveries we would definitely win, but we would have lost another ten to fifteen million people dead and killed ..
  • Karislav 5 March 2020 11: 06 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    also boast ?? our braces are on .. and the neighbor is called !!! “But the bureaucracy was not new to the Union. It was not difficult for our representatives to provide any necessary reports and forms for any selected period of time. And to report on any work done. As a result, during the war years the USSR“ substantiated ”the need to obtain 7784 ship engines! "
  • Kostadinov 5 March 2020 11: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: 1970mk
    The very importance of Lend-Lease in the fight against fascism was significant, but not decisive. And this should not be the reason for any speculation about the contribution of the Allies to our Victory.

    Of course it’s not decisive .. You bet that if it weren’t for deliveries we would definitely win, but we would have lost another ten to fifteen million people dead and killed ..

    Lendlis and the Second Front accelerated the defeat of Germany after 1943. And the ratio of losses since 1944 on the Eastern Front has already beaten completely different. So 10 million killed and died additionally by the Red Army meant about 10 million more killed by the Wehrmacht and its allies. But this is already implausible. The Wehrmacht, after 5 million to kill them, and so capitulated, and of these, less than half a million in the West. So the USSR could play the war a little later, advancing more slowly and exterminating the Germans further from Germany. With this, Soviet losses could have been a bit more, but German losses could have grown a million more.
    In other words, Lendlis and the Second Front reduced German kill in the first place.
  • Protos 5 March 2020 12: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Plantagenet
    George Ilyich Mirsky

    "In the 1990s, he worked at the American Peace Institute as a visiting scholar. He was engaged in research on the topic “Interethnic Relations in the Former Soviet Union as a Potential Source of Conflict” (MacArthur Foundation grant). He gave lectures at 23 universities in the USA, taught regular courses at Princeton, New York, American universities, and at the University of Hofstra.
    His writings on the subject “Army and Politics in Third World Countries” have become classic. His professional interests were Islamic fundamentalism, the Palestinian problem, the Arab-Israeli conflict, international terrorism, and the countries of the Middle East.
    He often acted as a guest expert at the Ekho Moskvy radio station. "

    Judging by this there aspen count on a dude cried back in the 80s yes
    Another traitor like Rezun am
  • Kostadinov 5 March 2020 12: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Produced. Including in Mariupol, Leningrad, Shostka and other places that find themselves in the occupied territory or on the front line.

    Something lost, something remained, much evacuated. In the end, if you consider the presence in the beginning, Soviet production, trophies and the presence in the end, then the addition of land-lease will be no more than 10-20% for both fuel and ammunition and everything else. These 10-20% could replace or do without them. For example, to reduce the production of heavy aerial bombs and much more, from which it only hit a little.
    That's just to pay for this ersatz armor with cracks and ersatz shells that crack on the armor or are inferior in power to normal, will have to be soldier’s blood.

    And what is your proposal - surrender? If there is a will to fight, then we use what we have. With this tactic will be different depending on the available resources. If there are no good sub-caliber armor-piercing shells, we will do more cumulative.
    In the report “Defeat of the Armor of German Tanks” (July 1942, NII-48), the difference between a normal projectile and an ersatz is clearly visible:
    5. A high-explosive steel grenade is most effective in case of firing on the sides of the tank during its oblique movement ...
    6. Fragmentation grenade of steel cast iron can only be used when firing at the tank’s tower "to blind" ...

    For these grenades, the main job is not the extermination of German tanks. And for the main purpose, a ersatz grenade made of steel cast iron and an ersatz explosive (amatol) is quite suitable.

    Quote: Kostadinov
    But you can always do without your 1% “complex substances themselves” and find some substitute for them.
    And we already passed it. Remind you how in the USSR for three years they tried to make a caliber projectile without tungsten, and what did it lead to?

    It led that they were exterminating quite successfully German tanks without tungsten. The usual full-caliber and cumulative shells did their job without tungsten. German tanks were also hit by shells and shells and mortars and pt mines and they were thrown during the retreat so that it didn’t come to tungsten. Here is a good example for which you thank you.
  • vaay 5 March 2020 12: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The answer is obvious. Suppliers paid for the victory with goods, and we with lives. And after the war, you need to raise the country, the hands of those who have not returned from the front? Where to get everything you need if those who could have done it were killed ....