Military Review

The Austrian press discusses whether Lend-Lease helped the USSR win World War II

126

Western and Russian historians cannot agree in any way in assessing the degree of influence of Western military aid (Lend-Lease) to the Soviet Union on the results of World War II. Some of them downplay its importance, others exaggerate.


The Austrian Military History Visualized channel offers its own vision of this issue, based on the statements of various experts.

The discussion boiled down to whether "Lend-Lease helped the USSR win the Second World War."

To assess the value of Lend-Lease, there are many factors to consider.

In particular, the channel draws attention to the fact that the Soviet Union produced excellent Tanks, but the quality of radio equipment and communications equipment produced in the USSR left much to be desired. Having American-made radio equipment, the Red Army was able to use both the best tanks (Soviet) and the best radio equipment (American).

But British-made tanks "Matilda" and "Valentine", which were inferior in their technical characteristics to the Soviet T-34 and KV-1, played a significant role in 1941. At that time, the USSR was in dire need of military equipment, so British supplies, even insignificant ones, were at that moment very useful.

It is also worth mentioning American trucks supplied to the USSR. In terms of its carrying capacity, the Studebaker was superior to its Soviet counterparts by about one and a half times and was more reliable in operation. In addition, the USSR received a significant number of lend-lease trucks. By the end of the war, every third truck in the Red Army was of foreign production. This was more than Germany could produce.

Do not forget that the famous Katyushas were also created on the Studebaker platform.

The volume of foreign supplies of explosives suggests that every third ammunition the Red Army received thanks to the Lend-Lease. Moreover, they were extremely necessary, because the USSR quickly exhausted its pre-war reserves in 1941, and production at that time had not yet been established. After all, then the Soviet factories for the production of ammunition had already been evacuated from the European part of the country, but had not yet been launched in a new location.

Military historian Glantz believes that without military supplies from the allies and their landing in Normandy, the war of the USSR against Nazi Germany would have lasted a year and a half longer.

From the point of view of another expert in militaryhistorical industry, Alexander Hill, lend-lease was not the reason why the USSR withstood and won:

It would be difficult and unconvincing to assert that Lend-Lease "saved" the Soviet Union from defeat in 1941. The forces of the Hitlerite coalition, for example, were stopped near Moscow by the blood of Soviet soldiers and largely with the help of weapons and Soviet-made technology.

In addition, for some reason the experts bypassed the fact that Western aid from the USSR was not free of charge.
Photos used:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/, Radomil
126 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 11 October 2020 16: 20 New
    19
    In general, a very sober assessment. YES - Lend-Lease helped win. NO - Lend-Lease didn't help us survive in 1941 and 1942.
    And yet, the supply of the Matilda and Valentine tanks, as well as the Hurricane and Spitfair fighters, has nothing to do with Lend-Lease, this is a different story. And the British tanks were quite good vehicles, the level of our KV and T-34, with their own shortcomings and their own advantages, and their unsuccessful use is more the fault of those who poorly or did not train the crews at all, and especially poorly chose the place of their application
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 11 October 2020 16: 26 New
      18
      The Austrian press discusses whether Lend-Lease helped the USSR win World War II

      I will say differently. Lend-Lease certainly helped the USSR to win the war, but he did not play a decisive role in the victory over fascism. And about this American aid (English too) we can talk for a long time and discuss this controversial phenomenon - yours and ours.
      1. Do not care
        Do not care 11 October 2020 16: 40 New
        -14 qualifying.
        In this video, perhaps the most complete answer to the question about the contribution of the Allies to the victory over Germany:

        1. svp67
          svp67 11 October 2020 16: 53 New
          12
          And who is Mark Solonin? What is his military or history education? The USSR would have won anyway, but we would have lost more territory, but we would have won anyway.
          One of his statements about tanks and their engines is already strong stupidity.
          1. nnm
            nnm 11 October 2020 17: 00 New
            12
            Colleague, twice MADE myself to listen to THIS (but other interviews). And I want to say that such "historians" like Solonin, Rezun, Solzhenitsyn ..- are worse than enemies. For they deliberately, deliberately, distort some facts, twist, interpret them so until they become convenient for them, but absolutely hiding others that refute them. This is an unambiguously meaningful action and I do not see any motives other than betrayal.
            1. Insurgent
              Insurgent 11 October 2020 17: 14 New
              +9
              Quote: nnm
              such "historians" such as Solonin, Rezun, Solzhenitsyn ..- worse than enemies.

              Call directly - worst of enemies.

              Here recourse , called Solzhenitsin an enemy, and entered into a confrontation with V.V. Putin, whose decree, when he was the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, included the works of Alexander Isaevich in the school curriculum ...
              1. Umalta
                Umalta 11 October 2020 18: 00 New
                +3
                I read Solzhenitsyn and understand that his camp life is extremely implausible, described in cardboard. I only believe Varlam Shalamov, he wrote without embellishment, so do not worry, you are not the only one who is not a fan of Solzhenitsyn.
                1. Ascold1901
                  Ascold1901 11 October 2020 22: 30 New
                  +4
                  I can advise you to read the book by V.V. Esipova "The book that deceived the world." There is just about this Scoundrel and Scoundrel Solzhenitsyn.
                2. Alex Justice
                  Alex Justice 12 October 2020 10: 08 New
                  0
                  Shalamov is a classic. Solzhenitsyn is a boring, uninteresting, tongue-tied writer. I could not master any of his books.
          2. bk0010
            bk0010 11 October 2020 18: 26 New
            +6
            Quote: svp67
            And who is Mark Solonin?
            Enemy
        2. nnm
          nnm 11 October 2020 16: 54 New
          +9
          What ???? Do you perceive corned beef as a reliable source ??? Is it the same one that has been trying to pass off a one-and-a-half-page memorandum for a year already as a plan for a Soviet attack on Germany? Did you seriously bring this here?
      2. Alexey Sommer
        Alexey Sommer 11 October 2020 16: 44 New
        +5
        Lend-lease certainly helped defeat Germany ..
        But let's look at the other side?
        And who condoned the aggression of Germany to the east? ..
        Poland? .. Be it not okay ..
        Who merged Czechoslovakia? ..
        They were all merged by the Naglo-Saxons! ...
        And if it were not for the policy of England and the United States, the war in Europe would start at 41?
        This war was about the extermination of the peoples of the USSR and Germany.
        It was provoked by the United States and Britain.
        So yes, Lend-Lease helped, but the US and Britain set the war on fire.
        And this is, on their part, a crime against humanity.
        And for this crime, they have not yet answered.
        But they will answer .. hi
        Required. You can't sit behind a puddle. stop
        A crime by the United States and Britain, too serious ..
        There will be no mercy..
        1. Vadim_888
          Vadim_888 11 October 2020 17: 35 New
          +1
          ... There will be no mercy..

          And to develop this topic? How will you implement it?
          1. Alexey Sommer
            Alexey Sommer 11 October 2020 17: 37 New
            +2
            Quote: Vadim_888
            And to develop this topic? How will you implement it?

            Implemented without me ..
            There is such a concept ..
            Retribution is called
            Have you heard?
            I didn’t come up with ...
            But if I need to turn on. Do not worry. hi
            You came to our land ..
            They staged a genocide here ...
            And you think you can get away with it? ...
            You are mistaken ..
            We are not Indians ..
          2. Umalta
            Umalta 11 October 2020 18: 04 New
            0
            The history of our time has already turned like this, so the implementation is not far off, in what form we will see.
        2. Siberian54
          Siberian54 11 October 2020 18: 57 New
          +2
          Forty years later, the archives for 1933-1944 of the victorious countries will be opened and our descendants and today's youth will recognize the provocateurs by sight, but for now we have to wait .. our liberal catastrophers, by the way, violated this agreement when they pulled out a secret addition to the USSR peace treaty in the media. Germany on non-aggression and the eastern borders of the Reich. ...
          1. Ascold1901
            Ascold1901 11 October 2020 22: 35 New
            +4
            “... pulled in the media a secret addition to the USSR-Germany peace treaty on non-aggression and the eastern borders of the Reich. . ". What's wrong with it? A normal and very necessary treaty for the USSR. Just, as always, the Elephant was inflated from the fly.
        3. seregatara1969
          seregatara1969 11 October 2020 21: 08 New
          +3
          Numbers alone are not enough. We can say to Nicholas II as well - he helped to win. Under Nicholas, so many military supplies were made that in May 1945 there were many more 76 mm shells. And so in many ways. There is no definite answer. Someone fought and praised the "second front", someone Mongolian sheepskin coats, someone aviation gasoline, someone an American radio.
          1. ZEMCH
            ZEMCH 11 October 2020 23: 44 New
            +1
            Nicholas II had the main problem in the shells, he could not save without being able to stock up
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 12 October 2020 15: 53 New
              0
              Quote: ZEMCH
              Nicholas II had the main problem in the shells, he could not save without being able to stock up

              Nikolai had a problem with logistics. Factories worked, steamers brought in goods - and all this was deposited in warehouses. Railway transport in 1916 was on the verge of exhaustion, and in 1917 it died - with only half of the steam locomotives in good working order and, EMNIP, a third of freight cars of the minimum estimated needs. The same warehouses of Arkhangelsk, instead of supplying RIA in WWI, became truly a gold mine, first for the Reds, and then for the Whites in the Civil.
              Second: the Bolsheviks did not actually get so many complete shots - the bulk of them were incomplete elements of the shots. They were shot right up to the post-war period.
            2. Valerikk
              Valerikk 12 October 2020 21: 46 New
              +2
              Nicholas II had the main problem in the shells, he could not save without being able to stock up

              The problem was in Nikolay himself
          2. Mwg
            Mwg 12 October 2020 16: 17 New
            0
            But it is NOT equipment that always fights, but PEOPLE !!!
          3. Siberian54
            Siberian54 14 October 2020 07: 25 New
            0
            This was in the early thirties, when the artillery programs were adopted, there were a lot of them, and in 41 there was practically no shrapnel ..
        4. Serg koma
          Serg koma 11 October 2020 22: 22 New
          0
          Lend-Lease for Hitler
          November 5 2013
          By the time the Second World War broke out, the combined contributions of American corporations to their German branches and representative offices amounted to about $ 800 million. Investments of Ford - 17,5 million, Standard Oil of New Jersey (now existing under the name Exxon) - 120 million, General Motors - 35 million, ITT - 30 million.
          For example, American companies supplied thousands of aircraft engines for the Reich aviation and, most importantly, licenses for their production. For example, the BMW Hornet engines that powered the Junkers-52, the most popular transport aircraft in Germany, were manufactured under license from the American company Prat & Whitney.
          General Motors in Germany belonged to Opel. The factories of this company stamped Reich armored vehicles, as well as almost 50% of Junkers-88 bomber power units. In 1943, the German branch of General Motors developed and began producing engines for the Messerschmitt-262 - the first Luftwaffe fighter jet.
          Oil Corporation Standard Oil of New Jersey (Exxon) supplied the Nazis with gasoline and lubricants for 20 million dollars. Until the landing of American troops in France, the tanker fleet of "neutral" Spain worked almost exclusively for the needs of the Wehrmacht, supplying it with American "black gold", formally intended for Madrid. Even in the first months of 1944, Germany re-exported 48 thousand tons of oil from Spain every month from Spain.
          Of particular value were 1100 tons of tungsten obtained during the war by Germany from the United States.
          https://topwar.ru/35451-lend-liz-dlya-gitlera.html
      3. Insurgent
        Insurgent 11 October 2020 16: 46 New
        +7
        The Austrian press discusses whether Lend-Lease helped the USSR win World War II

        And the purpose of lengthy reasoning is what?
        To find out that it definitely helped to some extent, and then, as in fact, part of the III Reich, to make claims against the United States and Great Britain, as accomplices of the USSR in their defeat in WWII?

        That the Austrians can't sit quietly ... They are digging into the past ...

        They would think about themselves, and how lucky they were that the Soviet Union turned out to be a responsible state, and withdrew troops from Austria in accordance with the treaty, and October 19 1955 the last Soviet soldier left the territory of sovereign Austria ...
        1. nnm
          nnm 11 October 2020 17: 03 New
          +1
          I didn't quite understand why you were minus ...
          1. Alexey Sommer
            Alexey Sommer 11 October 2020 17: 09 New
            +1
            Quote: nnm
            I didn't quite understand why you were minus ...

            hi
            There is a flock here that has pumped itself up on slogans and hats.
            "The site admins don't seem to think about it."
            They have patriotic nicknames and slogans too, but in fact they are enemies.
            On this and live. ) hi
            In fact, the question is for Vadim.
            You can just leave.
            Let them tumble here as they like.
          2. The comment was deleted.
      4. Pete mitchell
        Pete mitchell 11 October 2020 17: 06 New
        -1
        I agree with you
        Quote: ROSS 42
        Lend-Lease, of course, helped the USSR to win the war, but he did not play a decisive role in the victory over fascism

        But I'll tell you my opinion - such discussions should be stopped at the root: the next stage will be whiningthat without Lend Lease these reds would never have coped... And there are already a lot of these fosterlings of the discovery channel and they grow with the thought that the Union itself could not. But when you start translating everything into percentages / numbers and reminding the conversation about the fee does not stick together - they are not ready for this, but it is also impossible to convince them.
      5. lucul
        lucul 11 October 2020 19: 15 New
        +1
        And about this American aid (English too) we can talk for a long time and discuss this controversial phenomenon - yours and ours.

        The Lend-Lease Protocol was signed only on 09.12.1942 .....
        1. Serg koma
          Serg koma 11 October 2020 22: 50 New
          +2
          Quote: lucul
          Lend-Lease Protocol was signed only 09.12.1942 .....

          A little educational program on Lend-Lease (and protocols) until 1942. wink
          Lend-Lease - UK
          On January 2, 1941, Oscar Cox, an employee of the Ministry of Finance, prepared the first draft of the Lend-Lease Law. On January 10th, this bill was submitted to the Senate and House of Representatives. On March 11, the Law was approved by both chambers and signed by the President

          And Lend-Lease - USSR
          As for the USSR, Roosevelt and Churchill made a promise to supply it with the materials necessary for the war immediately after Germany's attack on the Soviet Union, that is, on June 22, 1941. On October 1, 1941, the First Moscow Protocol on the supply of the USSR was signed in Moscow, the expiration date of which was determined on June 30. The Lend-Lease Law was extended to the USSR on October 28, 1941, as a result, the Union was granted a loan of $ 1 billion.





          On July 12, 1941, it was signed “Agreement between the governments of the USSR and Great Britain on joint actions in the war against Germany". From the Soviet side, the document was signed by J.V. Stalin and V.M. Molotov, from the British side - by the British Ambassador to the USSR, S. Cripps. On August 16, 1941, an agreement was concluded with England on turnover, credit and clearing. It provided for the provision of a loan to the Soviet Union in the amount of £ 10 million as well as the supply of British tanks, aircraft and other types of weapons.


          The first British tanks (20 "Matilda" and "Valentine") arrived in Arkhangelsk with the PQ-1 caravan on October 11, in total, by the end of 1941, 466 tanks arrived in the USSR, of which 187 were Matilds.
          Second protocol, hi known as "Washington" was signed "ONLY" 09.12.1942 g
    2. nnm
      nnm 11 October 2020 16: 50 New
      +2
      I agree. In its essence, the article is not very odious and meaningful. And it ends with the correct conclusion of the author:
      And I believe that most people can agree with Mark Harrison's statement: “Without him [Lend-Lease], the war would have been harder for everyone. The Western allies would have to kill more and suffer more casualties. The Russians would kill less, but their losses would be greater. "

      Yes, there are constant delusions or ignorance of Western authors, such as the enormous importance of vehicles under Lend-Lease, when they are silent about the fact that Soviet-made transport during mobilization was so redistributed in favor of the Armed Forces that it was simply possible for the union to redistribute forces to other problems. And until 43, it was the pre-war models of vehicles that prevailed among the troops.
      Correctly, the article talks about the problems of the USSR with gunpowder.
      Strange statistics about the importance of British tanks near Moscow. But we must look at the real numbers. Maybe they classified our 34s as light tanks. The Britons have a slightly different classification.
      But apart from being paid for, nothing is said about the fact that the USSR received 6 times less under Lend-Lease than Britain. And about how after the war we were forced to destroy or hand over the remaining samples.
      1. Vadim_888
        Vadim_888 11 October 2020 17: 38 New
        0
        ... how after the war we were forced to destroy or hand over the remaining samples.

        the Americans actually offered to buy them out, they did not need them
        1. nnm
          nnm 11 October 2020 18: 33 New
          +4
          You are wrong, colleague. On the contrary, the USSR wanted to buy many samples, but the USA refused. The same jeep were loaded onto a ship and simply sunk into the sea.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 12 October 2020 16: 00 New
        0
        Quote: nnm
        Strange statistics about the importance of British tanks near Moscow. But we must look at the real numbers. Maybe they classified our 34s as light tanks. The Britons have a slightly different classification.

        Or maybe they counted all the tanks with armor of 60 mm or more. And then the "light" Valentine was practically a mini-KV in armor protection. smile
    3. Insurgent
      Insurgent 11 October 2020 17: 22 New
      +4
      Quote: svp67
      Harrier fighters

      No. No. No.
      There was no such plane. Was Hawker Hurricane "Hurricane", with a capricious engine and weak, purely machine-gun, rifle-caliber armament.
      1. Vadim_888
        Vadim_888 11 October 2020 17: 42 New
        0
        ... There was no such plane. There was a Hawker Hurricane "Hurricane"


        Don't forget to add the Bell P-39 Aircobra
        On which Pokryshkin flew, the article on VO was dedicated to
        1. svp67
          svp67 11 October 2020 17: 59 New
          +1
          Quote: Vadim_888
          Don't forget to add the Bell P-39 Aircobra

          No, this plane has already been supplied under Lend-Lease
      2. Reviews
        Reviews 11 October 2020 17: 51 New
        -1
        Quote: Insurgent
        Quote: svp67
        Harrier fighters

        No. No. No.
        There was no such plane. Was Hawker Hurricane "Hurricane", with a capricious engine and weak, purely machine-gun, rifle-caliber armament.

        The fact that these modifications were delivered to us does not give reason to forget that "Harry" also has cannon modifications - 4x20. And we converted machine-gun into cannon.
      3. svp67
        svp67 11 October 2020 17: 58 New
        0
        Quote: Insurgent
        There was no such plane.

        Moreover, such a fighter still exists.

        But you are right, we did have Harikeins
    4. Insurgent
      Insurgent 11 October 2020 17: 27 New
      +6
      Quote: svp67
      British tanks were quite good vehicles, the level of our KV and T-34


      This video clearly demonstrates that almost until the end of the war analogs KV (heavy tank), neither Britain nor the United States had.
      And only the appearance of "Pershing" interrupted this lag.

      1. svp67
        svp67 11 October 2020 18: 06 New
        +3
        Quote: Insurgent
        This video clearly demonstrates

        This video only proves that its author is not well versed in tanks.
        They certainly had an analogue of the KV, the Churchill tank, and in some aspects it surpassed our KV, especially in armor protection.
        And at the expense of "Matilda" so it is enough to look at the degree of her booking, to understand a lot, it is almost identical to our KV
        1. Insurgent
          Insurgent 12 October 2020 07: 55 New
          0
          Quote: svp67
          They definitely had an analogue of the KV, it was the Churchill tank, and in some aspects it surpassed our KV, especially in armor protection.


          Is this THAT that Winston Churchill was extremely critical of, even with a joke, as having even more flaws than he himself has?

          Well, something, and "Crocodile" in terms of combat characteristics to be equated with KV, this is blasphemy ...
          1. svp67
            svp67 12 October 2020 10: 07 New
            0
            Quote: Insurgent
            Well, something, and "Crocodile" in terms of combat characteristics equate to KV, this is blasphemy

            Blasphemy is not enough to know the history of your people.
            On March 22, five Churchill tanks of the 50th Separate Guards Heavy Breakthrough Regiment under the command of Captain Belogub's Guards, in accordance with the combat order of the 374th Rifle Division headquarters, attacked the enemy in the direction of the road fork 400 to the east of the lake. White.
            By combat order, the attack was scheduled for March 22, 1943 at 8:30 am. The signal for the attack of the infantry was the time of the movement of tanks through its battle formations. At the appointed time, the Churchillies went on the attack, but the infantry did not go forward, since the command of the 374th Rifle Division canceled the operation, but the tankers were not notified of this. Tanks broke into German positions, where four vehicles were hit by artillery, and only one returned to its original position.
            From 11.00:22 on March 25 to 1943, 50, the tanks were in this area - the crews sat in the tanks and fired from their seats. Every night submachine gunners of the 4th department. guards the heavy breakthrough regiment delivered ammunition and food to the tankers, and left before dawn. During this time, the Churchillies destroyed an artillery battery, 105 bunkers, an ammunition depot and up to two infantry platoons. Captain Belogub's tank kept the enemy's XNUMX-mm battery under fire and made it impossible to move it to another location.
            Despite repeated requests from the commander of the 50th department. guards a breakthrough tank regiment, the headquarters of the 374th Infantry Division did not advance the infantry to the line occupied by tanks. The Germans repeatedly offered the crews of the destroyed tanks to surrender, to which the tankers responded with "powerful artillery and machine-gun fire." Due to the fact that the radio communication between the tankers and the infantry was carried out in plain text, the Germans learned that a group of tanks was commanded by Guards. captain Belogub. On March 25, 1943, they invited him to abandon the tanks and retreat to their own. Belogub refused. Then a white cross was displayed in front of his tank - a sign that German soldiers would bury the Soviet commander. After that, heavy artillery fire was opened on the tanks, after which the infantry went into the attack. The tankers fought back for several hours. When they ran out of shells and cartridges, they fought back with grenades, throwing them out through the left side hatch (the upper hatches and the starboard hatch were jammed by enemy artillery fire). Captain Belogub asked to call fire on his tanks in order to sweep away the advancing enemy infantry, but even this artillery of the 374th Infantry Division could not do - the shells were not delivered on time! At this time, two Churchills, repaired by the forces of the 50th Separate Guards Breakthrough Tank Regiment, and an infantry platoon of the 374th Infantry Division, came to the aid of the tankers. They managed to hook a tractor on Belogub's tank and evacuate it to the rear (the crews of the other three destroyed tanks withdrew with the infantry).
            Without assessing the tactical literacy of the battle, we can say that the life of the tankers (and the crews that sat in the tanks for three days did not lose a single person killed) was saved by the Churchill's armor, which the German artillery could not penetrate in three days.
            In addition, our tankers noted that British tanks supplied under Lend-Lease had "viscous" armor. It was also noted that due to this, when an enemy shell hit without breaking through the armor itself, the crew did not receive injuries from fragments of the armor itself, which broke off from the underside. These of our tankers liked them.
            Quote: "The armor of the tanks showed exceptional durability. Some of the vehicles had 17-19 hits with shells of 50 mm caliber and not a single case of penetration of the frontal armor. On all tanks there were cases of jamming of towers, masks and the incapacitation of guns and machine guns."

            And this is the spring of 43, when the Germans solved the problem of destroying our tanks, either the T-34 or the KV, with the help of 50-mm and 76-mm cannons.
            In the summer of the 43rd, the heavy tank brigade near Prokhorovka, in the Churchills, suffered the least combat losses.
            Noting the low quality of the engine and chassis, and many more design flaws, nevertheless, our tankers noted that the armor of the tank is beyond praise, as well as the view from the commander's seat and one tank company (which is FIVE tanks) is enough to break through any enemy defense. in spite of his artillery resistance. And this is the 43rd year estimate. The KV tank at this time did not receive such an assessment.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 12 October 2020 16: 12 New
            0
            Quote: Insurgent
            Is this THAT that Winston Churchill was extremely critical of, even with a joke, as having even more flaws than he himself has?

            It's just that history did not preserve Klim Voroshilov's opinion about the tank of the same name. smile
            However, as an option - this opinion was not missed by the censorship. For the suspension and transmission alone, designed for a load of 40 tons and placed in a 47-50-ton tank, are already causing bad emotions.
    5. tol100v
      tol100v 11 October 2020 18: 07 New
      0
      ote = svp67] Overall, a very sober assessment. [/ quote] Yes, without this help it would be bad! But what does Austria have to do with it!? (Which supplied weapons to the Fascists?)
      1. svp67
        svp67 11 October 2020 18: 13 New
        +2
        Quote: Tol100v
        But what does Austria have to do with it!? (Which supplied weapons to the Fascists?)

        Weapon ?????? Yes, their soldiers fought in whole divisions on our front, the Brest Fortress alone is worth something.
        Are they now trying to rethink? Well, I think they are trying to understand from the experience of that war whether we can survive without Lend-Lease now, if that ...
      2. faiver
        faiver 11 October 2020 19: 20 New
        +5
        Austria did not supply weapons to the Nazis, Austria was part of the Third Reich
    6. chenia
      chenia 11 October 2020 18: 35 New
      +3
      Quote: svp67
      NO - Lend-Lease didn't help us survive in 1941 and 1942.


      Definitely. Until the summer of 1943 (Battle of Kursk), we received only 6% of the LL (and for the entire war 26% of the total LL). And the Kursk Bulge is already the crunch of the Wehrmacht ridge.

      Quote: svp67
      YES - Lend-Lease helped win

      Yes, we got the remaining 20% ​​for finishing off Germany (and even Japan), which helped us a lot.

      It is impossible to make LL and Victory dependent. The Britons received (in the spring of 1943) almost 40% of the LL, not very successfully fought with 4,5 (four and a half) divisions of the Wehrmacht. And here it is obvious that LL is not a determinant of victory (something else had to be had).

      I completely agree with your definition. So that we need to thank the Yankees for this (we will not be like the other ungrateful ones). But so that it would be clear that LL helped, and did not determine the Victory.
    7. fiberboard
      fiberboard 11 October 2020 18: 52 New
      +1
      If you use tanks as comrade Timoshenko used them, in 1942 in the Kharkov direction, then no tanks will be enough.
      1. svp67
        svp67 11 October 2020 18: 57 New
        0
        Quote: fiberboard
        If you use tanks as comrade Timoshenko used them, in 1942 in the Kharkov direction, then no tanks will be enough.

        I'm afraid that before 44, most of our military leaders had big problems with this.
    8. lucul
      lucul 11 October 2020 19: 13 New
      0
      NO - Lend-Lease didn't help us survive in 1941 and 1942.

      So it almost did not exist in those years, as such a massive lend-lease went only after the summer of 1943. Since the lend-lease protocol was signed only on 09.12.1942.
    9. Puler
      Puler 12 October 2020 15: 17 New
      0
      On the basis of the open sources, we can conclude that, for example, a small and poor Mongolia provided assistance more productive than many ... and Mongolia provided assistance almost immediately at the beginning of the war, and not like other countries, joined the winning side. My Grandfather was warming himself at the front in a Mongolian sheepskin coat.
  2. tatra
    tatra 11 October 2020 16: 37 New
    0
    Those who squeal that without the Lend-Lease the USSR would not have won are American lackeys who want to take the deserved Victory from the Soviet people and give it to the American people. And none of them has ever counted - what percentage of what was produced in the USSR for the Great Patriotic War was lend-lease, it always rips out only individual deliveries. And the historian Pykhalov calculated - 10%.
    1. nnm
      nnm 11 October 2020 16: 56 New
      +3
      Dear Tatra, fortunately there is no hint of such a statement in the original Austrian article.
    2. Vadim_888
      Vadim_888 11 October 2020 17: 46 New
      -2
      ... ... And none of them has ever counted - what percentage of what was produced in the USSR for the Great Patriotic War was Lend-Lease,


      There is such a proverb - "The road is a spoon to dinner", so Lend-Lease was this notorious spoon hi

      Or do you think the USSR lost a few people and it was necessary to ditch more?
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 12 October 2020 16: 32 New
      0
      Quote: tatra
      Those who squeal that without the Lend-Lease the USSR would not have won are American lackeys who want to take the deserved Victory from the Soviet people and give it to the American people.

      But those who argue that they would have coped without Lend-Lease never say - at what cost such a victory would have been given to us.
      Quote: tatra
      And none of them has ever counted - what percentage of what was produced in the USSR for the Great Patriotic War was lend-lease, it always rips out only individual deliveries.

      Right. Because the USSR basically took what it didn’t produce / didn’t produce much, or that, instead of which it could produce something else, also needed for the front.
      How to compare the "shaft" of the same "lorry" and biaxial "Zakhar" (others have not been produced since November 1941) with the Lend-Lease 6x6? Or will we again compare in cost? But even 10 binoculars will not replace radar. smile
  3. Virus-free crown
    Virus-free crown 11 October 2020 16: 38 New
    +4
    Military historian Glantz believes that without military supplies from the allies and their landing in Normandy, the war of the USSR against Nazi Germany would have lasted a year and a half longer.

    I agree with that ...

    But ... the USSR would have won the war anyway ... another question is how much harder it would have been for us to win ... but ... would have won anyway ...
    1. Siberian54
      Siberian54 11 October 2020 19: 08 New
      0
      In a catastrophe, someone thought: without the landing in Normandy, Berlin would have fallen in September, and the state of Petain by January 1946.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 12 October 2020 16: 37 New
      +2
      Quote: Corona without virus
      But ... the USSR would have won the war anyway ... another question is how much harder it would have been for us to win ... but ... would have won anyway ...

      At what cost is the main question.
      In real history, in 1945, the USSR lost its main advantage - mobresource. The human resources were practically exhausted to the bottom: where divisions were recruited in 1942, in 1945 the battalion was scraped with difficulty. Not because of a good life Zhukov and Konev were forced to storm Berlin in divisions of 4-5 thousand people. (one third of the state).
      Quality also fell - more than half of the 1945 recruits were diagnosed with dystrophy. In the recollections of the Far Easterners about the time before the Manchurian operation, one constantly encounters "the new call had to be fattened up first."
      1. Virus-free crown
        Virus-free crown 12 October 2020 16: 56 New
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Quote: Corona without virus
        But ... the USSR would have won the war anyway ... another question is how much harder it would have been for us to win ... but ... would have won anyway ...

        At what cost is the main question.
        In real history, in 1945, the USSR lost its main advantage - mobresource. The human resources were practically exhausted to the bottom: where divisions were recruited in 1942, in 1945 the battalion was scraped with difficulty. Not because of a good life Zhukov and Konev were forced to storm Berlin in divisions of 4-5 thousand people. (one third of the state).
        Quality also fell - more than half of the 1945 recruits were diagnosed with dystrophy. In the recollections of the Far Easterners about the time before the Manchurian operation, one constantly encounters "the new call had to be fattened up first."

        Whoa !!! I don’t deny that American stew (not to mention everything else) helped our people cut our losses!!! good But ... "The enemy will be defeated! Victory will be ours!" soldier
  4. Lontus
    Lontus 11 October 2020 16: 41 New
    10
    The contribution of Honduras was decisive.
    How long the Nazis would have resisted without him is now impossible to figure out.
    History has no subjunctive mood.

    In December 1941, Honduras declared war on Germany, Italy and Japan, about which the then President of the country, Tiburcio Carias Andino, sent a telegram to "Don Jose Stalin".
    Honduras supplied sugar to the USSR, ships flying Honduran flags as part of northern convoys came to Murmansk, sharing all the hardships and dangers with American and British ships along the way. In 1942, the ship "Contessa" supplied the American troops fighting in French Morocco.
    In the Atlantic, the Honduran Air Force carried out aerial patrols to ensure the safety of the Panama Canal. And it was precisely combat patrolling, more than once American pilots, on a tip from Honduran pilots, flew out to destroy German submarines. There were also losses, in August 1942 the plane, led by pilots Francisco Martinez and Armando Murillo Diaz, did not return to the base in Toncantina.

    How long the Nazis would have resisted without them is now impossible to figure out.
    The story has no subjunctive mood
  5. Magic archer
    Magic archer 11 October 2020 16: 42 New
    +5
    Here on the resource there was a series of articles about Land Lisa. There were many interesting facts. I've learned for myself about bearings that were not produced in the USSR and without which the equipment is a dead weight. Yes, the same stew! So help was needed. Well, about what is not free, they often "forget" about it.
    1. mat-vey
      mat-vey 11 October 2020 16: 50 New
      +2
      Quote: Magic Archer
      I've learned for myself about bearings that were not produced in the USSR

      The first state bearing plant (GPZ-1) was established in 1932.
      During the Great Patriotic War, the plant was evacuated, but continued to produce bearings in places of evacuation (Kuibyshev, Saratov, etc.). After the war, the plant restored its capacity in Moscow. In the places of evacuation, production facilities for the production of the same products remained (Samara - GPZ-4, Saratov - GPZ-3 [1], Tomsk - GPZ-5, Yekaterinbug - GPZ-6).
      1. Vadim_888
        Vadim_888 11 October 2020 17: 50 New
        0
        ... (Samara - GPZ-4, Saratov - GPZ-3 [1], Tomsk - GPZ-5, Yekaterinbug - GPZ-6).

        How many of these factories are alive now?
        And yes, do not compare our bearings with American ones, the quality is not at all right, (as an engineer say)
        1. mat-vey
          mat-vey 11 October 2020 17: 53 New
          +2
          Quote: Vadim_888
          How many of these factories are alive now?

          How many were there in 1913?
          Quote: Vadim_888
          And yes, do not compare our bearings with American ones.

          So there is still something to compare?
          Quote: Vadim_888
          as an engineer I say

          And you only compare your bearings with amerskie? And with the Soviet as? On military acceptance?
        2. ZEMCH
          ZEMCH 11 October 2020 23: 56 New
          +1
          You are right, balls were then "square" and now
  6. Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 11 October 2020 16: 42 New
    +2
    Of course it helped. Who's arguing here ?!
    But - iron / iron plus food, and people - people! ..
    For some reason it has become fashionable to forget about this. Just a minute ...
    1. Vadim_888
      Vadim_888 11 October 2020 17: 53 New
      -1
      ... But - iron / iron plus food, and people - people! ..

      Every soldier saved by Lend-Lease is a property of society, so he was also important
      1. Petrol cutter
        Petrol cutter 11 October 2020 18: 01 New
        +1
        People died in thousands. The Germans, the partners, made friends. What kind of individual soldier here would be considered by anyone?
        On the battlefield, my life is not worth a dime.
        To strangle such partners.
        And partners amerikosy- brought their industry out of the impasse and earned money. On someone else's blood.
  7. ximkim
    ximkim 11 October 2020 16: 46 New
    0
    History is the king of sciences. In short .. in the next war of a geographical scale, there will be no help from Western countries (Lend-Lease). I hope that the leadership of the Russian Federation understands this. Although..
  8. Svarog
    Svarog 11 October 2020 16: 50 New
    +1
    In addition, for some reason the experts bypassed the fact that Western aid from the USSR was not free of charge.

    Of course, help was needed, but it would not have affected the results .. And we also paid for such "help", in fact, you can also bill the assistants, for the fact that the Red Army freed them from the Nazis.
  9. Beringovsky
    Beringovsky 11 October 2020 16: 54 New
    +4
    It would be difficult and unconvincing to assert that Lend-Lease "saved" the Soviet Union from defeat in 1941. Hitler's forces coalitions, for example, were stopped near Moscow with the blood of Soviet soldiers and largely with the help of Soviet-made weapons and equipment.

    Here's the key word - Coalition... Read EU (with Brexit wassat )
    How long the Second World War lasted without Lend-Lease, it already smacks of an alternative history. Well then, in order of delirium, I propose to discuss the question of how long Germany would have stood within the borders of the beginning of 1938. That is, alone, without a "coalition". So to speak one on one.
    1. cniza
      cniza 11 October 2020 17: 41 New
      +4
      They shyly hide the fact that almost all of Europe fought against us ...
      1. Siberian54
        Siberian54 11 October 2020 19: 15 New
        0
        And who in Europe then did not fight against us, explain? About the Swedes, throughout the war they were supplying their metal products and transshipping American supplies to the Reich.
        1. cniza
          cniza 11 October 2020 20: 54 New
          +1
          Somewhere I agree with you, but Great Britain did not fight for sure ...
          1. Siberian54
            Siberian54 12 October 2020 14: 00 New
            0
            So now Great Britain left the European Reich - only the allies of the Third Reich remained there ... The EU now is those who, as they could, put off our victory ..
            1. cniza
              cniza 12 October 2020 14: 32 New
              +1
              But she shits alone no less than the whole of Europe.
              1. Siberian54
                Siberian54 12 October 2020 14: 47 New
                0
                But how else ... They put such a stain on their royal family in 1917, when, based on tactical considerations of the moment, they framed the family of their king's "brother" for destruction ...
                1. cniza
                  cniza 12 October 2020 15: 32 New
                  +1
                  For a long time before that, they were all tainted by the most do not spoil ...
  10. saniajan
    saniajan 11 October 2020 16: 59 New
    +1
    And why are they silent about the no less help they rendered to Hitlerite Germany, about the fact that they successfully traded with the Nazis for almost the entire war?
    1. cniza
      cniza 11 October 2020 17: 40 New
      +1
      But from this they want to disown, but we know that ...
  11. tatra
    tatra 11 October 2020 17: 04 New
    0
    The fact that we, both supporters and opponents of the USSR, have been discussing everything that happened under Soviet rule for 30 years almost every day is a consequence of the monstrous catastrophe that happened to the country and people in the post-Soviet period. The enemies of the communists who seized the republics of the USSR were unable to give the country and the people either normal power, or a normal system, economy, ideology, history of their country, normal heroes and great people.
    1. Vadim_888
      Vadim_888 11 October 2020 17: 56 New
      -3
      ... ... Enemies of the communists who seized the republics of the USSR

      Was Yeltsin a Communist?
      Gaidar was not a Komsomol member?
      Chubais was not a Komsomol member?
      Where did the party gold go?
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 12 October 2020 16: 42 New
        0
        Quote: Vadim_888
        Was Yeltsin a Communist?
        Gaidar was not a Komsomol member?
        Chubais was not a Komsomol member?

        These are the wrong bees and they are making the wrong honey! ©
        The truth is, I wonder if they remained in the ranks of the CPSU by the 80s the right bees? And who is to blame that they are almost gone? Where did they all go - under the wise leadership of the native party? wink
  12. Alien From
    Alien From 11 October 2020 17: 16 New
    +1
    Lend Lease does not give them rest. Did he help? Yes. But the key role behind the steadfastness of our soldier !!!
    1. cniza
      cniza 11 October 2020 17: 38 New
      +3
      And the work of our rear ...
  13. boris epstein
    boris epstein 11 October 2020 17: 23 New
    +2
    "Do not forget that the famous Katyushas were also created on the Studebaker platform."
    "Katyushas" BEFORE the deliveries of "Studebakers" and "Chevrolet", and then they were installed on the GAZ-AAA (BM8-48), ZiS-6 (BM-13-16), on the chassis of light tanks, on armored trains, on armored boats and river monitors, RS-82 were suspended under the wings of bombers and attack aircraft, and sometimes they were even launched from the ground (the launch frame was brought up by a truck, placed on the ground and the RS-30 was launched).
    Yes, supplies were important, especially cars, amphibious vehicles, armored personnel carriers, gunpowder, food, transport ships, Boston bombers, Aircobras and Kingcobras.
    "The military historian Glantz believes that without military supplies of the allies and their landing in Normandy, the war of the USSR against Nazi Germany would have lasted a year and a half longer." I will continue his quote: and with great losses for the USSR.
    But this is a sober view of Lend-Lease.
    1. cniza
      cniza 11 October 2020 17: 38 New
      +2
      Quote: boris epstein

      "The military historian Glantz believes that without military supplies of the allies and their landing in Normandy, the war of the USSR against Nazi Germany would have lasted a year and a half longer." I will continue his quote: and with great losses for the USSR.
      But this is a sober view of Lend-Lease.


      Unfortunately, there are few of them in the West, thanks to him for his sober assessment ...
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 12 October 2020 17: 15 New
      0
      Quote: Boris Epstein
      Yes, supplies were important, especially cars, amphibious vehicles, armored personnel carriers, gunpowder, food, transport ships, Boston bombers, Aircobras and Kingcobras.

      High-octane gasoline and components for its production. Aluminum. Copper. Gunpowder and equipment factories. Four-wheel drive vehicles.
      This is perhaps the most important of the supplies.
      High-octane is not only fuel for LL aircraft engines, but also mixed gasoline for ours (before the war, the planned deliveries of the domestic B-78 for the Air Force were to be less than a quarter of the needs of peacetime).
      Aluminum is a departure from wood and a lighter aircraft structure.
      Copper and gunpowder - this is the transition to a massive 85-mm caliber in armored vehicles, which was delayed before the war due to the lack of copper for the casings. Here are the LL machines, which have expanded the bottlenecks of the tank industry and made it possible to switch to the production of T-34-85.
  14. cniza
    cniza 11 October 2020 17: 36 New
    +1
    Military historian Glantz believes that without military supplies from the allies and their landing in Normandy, the war of the USSR against Nazi Germany would have lasted a year and a half longer.


    Yes, and our fighters would have been killed more, so help helped, but we paid for it in full ...
  15. Vadim_888
    Vadim_888 11 October 2020 17: 58 New
    0
    In all the comments I did not see the main thing - how many human lives of Soviet citizens were saved by Lend-Lease hi
  16. ccsr
    ccsr 11 October 2020 18: 03 New
    +2
    In addition, the USSR received a significant number of lend-lease trucks. By the end of the war, every third truck in the Red Army was of foreign production. This was more than Germany could produce.

    It seems that everything is written correctly, but for some reason they always "forget" to indicate how many captured cars were at that time in the Red Army, which we had already in 1941. If you look closely at some of the military photographs, you will be surprised to see that there are not only American trucks flashing, but also German, Italian and French ones. In the fifties and sixties of the last century, there were still many German captured cars in private use - one of my front-line neighbors had such an Opel, and he drove it. There were German trophy motorcycles - I saw these too. As for the American radio stations that we installed, this really happened. But I knew Colonel V.M. Tarasov, who during the war served as a sergeant in the Air Force Research Institute, where they specially developed adapter devices for connecting German radio stations to the on-board network and antennas of our aircraft and an installation site for their fastening. So he constantly went to the front as part of teams of installers, and they not only re-equipped individual aircraft, but re-equipped entire squadrons and regiments with German radio stations, which, by the way, were better than American ones, especially those that worked in the HF and VHF bands at the same time. So sometimes it is not worth associating all equipment and weapons only with Lend-Lease, but simply assessing from the point of view of real situations that arose during the war, including with captured equipment.
  17. Pavel Patrashov
    Pavel Patrashov 11 October 2020 18: 04 New
    -1
    Do not forget that the famous Katyushas were also created on the Studebaker platform.
    The author is a liar, or rather an agent of influence ...
    1. Petrol cutter
      Petrol cutter 11 October 2020 18: 22 New
      0
      Hello, arrived! ...
      Does the GAZ AAA platform tell you something?
  18. Pavel57
    Pavel57 11 October 2020 18: 06 New
    -2
    Without Lend-Lease, it would have been more difficult to win. How the war would have developed, and what the victory was, no one can reliably say.
  19. Andrea
    Andrea 11 October 2020 18: 08 New
    +2
    Again they find out that the primary is the egg or the chicken.
    If at least one life was saved, then it’s not in vain. And the topic of significance is meaningless, the United States fulfilled an allied duty, and not very disinterestedly.
    And, the Austrians, like the Germans, should keep quiet in a rag. Formally, Germany started the war, but Austria had already become part of it by that time and accepted the Anschluss with delight!
  20. Kerensky
    Kerensky 11 October 2020 18: 09 New
    -1
    The point is that the History Building is being rebuilt. This is a normal process. We receive new batches of "building materials" that still need to be processed and "embedded". We have to "take out" some elements of a purely propaganda nature. And they have already settled down .. Different "foremen" walk with different "roulettes" and wear different drawings of "contractors". I repeat, this is normal. The best contractor of the USSR "quit", "contractor" Russia is in no hurry to "give out material from its warehouses" (open archives). No matter how you, my dear colleagues, treat Rezun-Suvorov, he is right - try to go to TsAMO at your leisure and take some "read" business there.
    What am I all for? When you need it "there", they will chew the whole truth for you, but for now we collect grains from the bourgeoisie ..
  21. alpamys
    alpamys 11 October 2020 18: 17 New
    +1
    I recently heard the numbers that even rails with steam locomotives were supplied to the USSR, 50% of the steam locomotive fleet during the war was supplied under lend-lease, and this is already a mega-weight aid, without them they would not have been pulled out.
    1. Petrol cutter
      Petrol cutter 11 October 2020 18: 35 New
      0
      Quite possible. Although this is not accurate.
      The process itself - no one claims about the absence / uselessness of help.
      Speech for what. You sent me one hundred tanks / planes / whatever.
      Who will fly, ride, walk on them ?!
      I have stupid people run out!
      Or, they went to Vtaku and surrendered.
      What is the use of the tanks and aircraft you supplied to me? There is no one to exploit them ...
    2. Crimean partisan 1974
      Crimean partisan 1974 11 October 2020 21: 16 New
      0
      50% of the steam locomotive fleet during the war was supplied under lend-lease, ...... where did you dig up such nonsense? well, name a series of American steam locomotives in the USSR during the Second World War ... come on, I'm waiting
      1. alpamys
        alpamys 11 October 2020 21: 57 New
        0
        Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
        50% of the steam locomotive fleet during the war was supplied under lend-lease, ...... where did you dig up such nonsense? well, name a series of American steam locomotives in the USSR during the Second World War ... come on, I'm waiting

        on one of your Russian TV channels it was announced
        1. Crimean partisan 1974
          Crimean partisan 1974 12 October 2020 08: 28 New
          0
          on one of your Russian TV channels it was sounded ........ in a pancake ,,. is it not rain by chance? I generally forgot TV when I last watched it ... because advertising pouring out of the box and all nonsense does not stand up to any criticism ... this does not convince
      2. faiver
        faiver 11 October 2020 23: 43 New
        +2
        Series "E", series "Sha"
        1. Crimean partisan 1974
          Crimean partisan 1974 12 October 2020 08: 35 New
          0
          Series "E", series "Sha" ...... that is, according to your opinion, about 400 steam locomotives of series E and W are 50 percent, ... what are you? make fun !!!! this is the background of only 16 SD and FD that have been lost and a bit more remaining in the ranks ..... you are not friends with arithmetic at all ... but in vain .... you wouldn't print any nonsense
          1. faiver
            faiver 12 October 2020 11: 56 New
            +2
            this is you kidding, during the war years in the USSR 802 steam locomotives were produced, purchased under Lend-Lease in the states of 1900 units, plus diesel locomotives, plus electric locomotives, tie up the partisan hi
  22. Seaflame
    Seaflame 11 October 2020 18: 38 New
    +2
    Yes, Lend-Lease helped, brought Victory Day closer, and therefore saved the lives of many soldiers of the Red Army. Thanks to the allies, although the overwhelming amount of help was not free, their sailors risked and often died in northern convoys, in that war we were brothers in arms in the fight against Nazism. But this did not play a decisive and fateful role in the outcome of the war. Nevertheless, my deepest respect to the British and American sailors who participated in those convoys.
    1. Crimean partisan 1974
      Crimean partisan 1974 11 October 2020 21: 23 New
      +2
      Yes, lend-lease helped, brought Victory Day closer, and therefore saved the lives of many soldiers of the Red Army ....... or rather distanced it ... if you remember about the northern convoys that practically perished despite the huge funds allocated for their protection from the outside THE USSR,...
  23. for
    for 11 October 2020 18: 41 New
    0
    It helped to some extent, but they certainly helped themselves.
  24. Spring fluff
    Spring fluff 11 October 2020 18: 42 New
    -1
    After the phrase that the help was not free of charge, you can not read further. Any honest writer would have written differently. Lend Lease was free. Payment was only for deliveries that were sent before the conclusion of the Lenleese contract. It was very short at the beginning of the war. Lend Lease is free. So honestly write. What is presented by the screamers as payment is a condition - what was not used in the war must be returned or paid after its end. So the USSR paid only for what was not spent, but the USSR itself did not want to return it after the war.
    1. ZEMCH
      ZEMCH 12 October 2020 00: 04 New
      +1
      Read the agreement in the public domain, talk such nonsense, shame yourself on this forum)))
  25. gvozdan
    gvozdan 11 October 2020 18: 45 New
    +1
    Remembering Lend Lease, we must not forget about the supply of oil from America to Germany via Spain. And about how Europe and America fed this Hitler, and did not stop him with little blood on March 7, 1936.
  26. high
    high 11 October 2020 19: 32 New
    +1
    Suffice it to recall the opinion of Marshal Zhukov:
    “... The Americans drove us so many materials, without which we could not form our reserves and could not continue the war ...
    Received 350 thousand cars, but what kind of cars! ..
    We had no explosives, gunpowder. There was nothing to equip cartridges.
    The Americans really helped us out with gunpowder and explosives.
    And how much they drove us to sheet steel.
    How could we have quickly set up the production of tanks, if not for American help with steel.
    And now they present it as if we had it all in abundance ”.
    http://russian-bazaar.com/ru/content/8825.htm
    1. poquello
      poquello 11 October 2020 22: 31 New
      -1
      Quote: alta
      Suffice it to recall the opinion of Marshal Zhukov:

      some rotten stuff
      On the eve of the 60th anniversary of the Victory, an interesting document came out of the pocket - report of the chairman of the KGB Semichastny First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee Khrushchev. About the Marshal of the Soviet Union, four times Hero of the Soviet Union, the former deputy of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of Stalin - that is, about Zhukov. The report outlined the words of Zhukov about American aid during the Great Patriotic War, apparently said in a narrow circle:
      “... The Americans drove us so many materials, without which we could not form ...

      Zhukov also terribly lisped with an English accent, said that the Americans provided the USSR with contact of the third type with the Martians and telepathic communication with Stirlitz
  27. Aleks2000
    Aleks2000 11 October 2020 19: 38 New
    0
    Why are Honduran experts always bypassed?
    Australia is, and Honduras is not ???

    And: "Western aid to the USSR was not free of charge." - somehow it is not clear. Everyone was bypassed how much, when, on what conditions ...
  28. Time traveller
    Time traveller 11 October 2020 19: 38 New
    +1
    Few people pay attention to the fact that the USSR received up to 40% of artillery powder under Lend-Lease. And this is more important than tanks and aircraft.
    Well, about the fact that Russia can be defeated only through "internal strife", that is, revolution, was pointed out by Clausewitz, following the results of the Patriotic War of 1812. And he confirmed it after World War II Fuller. The reason is the huge territories and the critical attitude of the population towards foreign invaders. As a result - extended communications of the enemy, lack of forces and means, partisan movement. I would also add - the moral decay of the enemy in the conditions of Russian reality.
  29. Old Horseradish
    Old Horseradish 11 October 2020 20: 13 New
    -2
    The video of Mark Solonin is interesting.
    But why isn't the most important question actually being discussed?
    The fact that the civil war unleashed in 1918 continued in the USSR.
    This is where the main reasons for the course of the Second World War lie.
    Including the reasons for the delivery of Lend-Lease.
    1. for
      for 11 October 2020 23: 30 New
      -1
      Quote: Old Fuck
      This is where the main reasons for the course of the Second World War lie.

      And what are the reasons for 1812? Almost all our soldiers have the same retreat to the capital, then the offensive to the capital (enemy).
  30. Ascold1901
    Ascold1901 11 October 2020 22: 41 New
    0
    Many people are of the opinion that the allies helped "for nothing." They say they "supplied". They sold first, and then delivered. And the first deliveries of English Matildas and Valentines were on account of the Credit, which the USSR impudently gave. Who doubts look at the translation of the words "Lend-Lease".
  31. Pavel57
    Pavel57 12 October 2020 00: 02 New
    0
    Quote: alpamys
    I recently heard the numbers that even rails with steam locomotives were supplied to the USSR, 50% of the steam locomotive fleet during the war was supplied under lend-lease, and this is already a mega-weight aid, without them they would not have been pulled out.


    The war was long, at first there was not enough weapons, then equipment and materials. Then came the food. Already in several topics all this has been discussed. You can kick yourself in the chest with a heel and blindly believe that you would have won against someone you love. But at what cost, and could then on equal terms withstand the collective West.
    1. Siberian54
      Siberian54 12 October 2020 14: 16 New
      +1
      Lend lease and just purchases from allies4% of the total cost of the war..In four of the 20,000 items of supplies, assistance was substantial - high-octane gasoline for their aircraft and tanks, aluminum, high-quality gunpowder for their weapons, and vehicles, but the main supply of transport was the second half of 43 and beyond.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 12 October 2020 17: 36 New
        0
        Quote: Siberian54
        Lend lease and just purchases from the allies-4% of the total cost of the war.

        We put the shovels with the excavator and get average temperature in the hospital, including the morgue. ©
        Quote: Siberian54
        Four of the 20,000 supply items received substantial-high-octane gasoline for their aircraft and tanks.

        For our planes. The very ones to whom the native people's commissariat of the fuel industry before the war generously poured less than a quarter of the high octane from the needs of peacetime with a generous hand - could no longer. And gasoline for which during the war was produced, including at Lend-Lease factories, with the help of Lend-Lease components, or by mixing LL high-octane with our gasoline.
        By the way, our gasoline tanks also ran on aviation gasoline - B-70.
        Quote: Siberian54
        high quality gunpowder, for THEIR weapons

        Didn't their weapons also receive ammunition from LL? If we ourselves produced ammunition for their weapons, then we would not have suffered with armor-piercing for our three-inches. " wink
        Yes, by the way, according to the dependence of the USSR powder industry on imported components: here are Vernidub's data on the% of imported materials in the total production of gunpowders:
        Ethyl alcohol: 1943 - 78%, 1944 - 78%, 1 quarter of 1945 - 45%.
        Glycerin: 1943 - 100%, 1944 - 60%, 1st quarter 1945 - 80%.
        Ethyl alcohol: 1943 - 62%, 1944 - 40%, 1 quarter of 1945 - 30%.
        Quote: Siberian54
        but the main supply of transport is the second half of 43 and onwards.

        Exactly under 10 Stalin strikes.
    2. Siberian54
      Siberian54 12 October 2020 14: 36 New
      +1
      About 2000 steam locomotives delivered. Why? the impression is that it’s like in a joke: to bulo! about 8,000 steam locomotives stood in stock (according to the Soviet tradition, which was formed at that time, they were used as a "spare parts warehouse"), for 41 years, 12,000 new and about 14,000 "old-light" "which were mainly used in front-line transportation ..
  32. Pavel57
    Pavel57 12 October 2020 15: 08 New
    -1
    Quote: Benzorez
    Hello, arrived! ...
    Does the GAZ AAA platform tell you something?

    And what was the output of GAZ when the plant was bombed by the Germans?
    1. mat-vey
      mat-vey 13 October 2020 14: 24 New
      0
      Quote: Pavel57
      Quote: Benzorez
      Hello, arrived! ...
      Does the GAZ AAA platform tell you something?

      And what was the output of GAZ when the plant was bombed by the Germans?

      "The devastating raids of enemy aircraft in the summer of 1943 did not break the automobile plants. Under the leadership of the plant director IK Loskutov (1900 - 1982), in a hundred days and nights, they restored 50 buildings and structures, repaired 9 thousand pieces of equipment. During the Great Patriotic War. war GAZ produced: 176221 vehicles; tanks - about 12000; self-propelled units - more than 9000; mortars - 24000; automobile engines - 232000; shells for the Katyusha rocket launcher - 30000. "
  33. Radius
    Radius 12 October 2020 18: 15 New
    0
    [quote = nnmThe same jeep were loaded onto a ship and simply drowned in the sea. [/ quote]
    Damn, what a pity!
  34. Pavel57
    Pavel57 14 October 2020 10: 22 New
    -1
    Quote: Benzorez
    Hello, arrived! ...
    Does the GAZ AAA platform tell you something?

    How much GAZ AAA was produced during the war? Thousand 20.