Military Review

The national economy of the USSR could not stand the test of war?

40
The national economy of the USSR could not stand the test of war?

In the last twenty to twenty-five years, the myths that the national economy of the Stalinist USSR was ineffective and did not stand the test of the Great Patriotic War, that the Soviet Union saved the aid of the Western allies, have become very popular. Thus, the memory of our fathers and grandfathers, mothers and grandmothers, through whose work the USSR became a superpower and won the most terrible war of all history humanity.

Studying the history of the development of industrialization in the Soviet Union, the fact that the Soviet leadership in advance began locating productive capacities, especially directly connected with the military-industrial complex, in the regions of the Soviet Union that were unattainable for the air forces, immediately struck. First of all, such enterprises were built in the Urals and in Siberia. In addition, the Soviet government tried to duplicate the construction of the most important factories key to the national economy: if one enterprise existed in the West of the country, another was built in the East. National security issues were in the first place for the Soviet government. In the east of the USSR, in the pre-war years, a duplicate industry was actually created.

However, despite the titanic work that the Soviet people did literally in a few years, due to the bias in the development of the country's economy, which arose during the Russian Empire, by the time Hitler Germany attacked the USSR more than two-thirds of the Union’s defense complex was in the European part. Naturally, the negative impact on the supply of armed forces weapons, ammunition, various equipment and ammunition in the initial period of the Great Patriotic War. Therefore, the Soviet leadership under critical conditions of defeat in border battles, the breakthrough of German troops inland, under the constant attacks of the German Air Force had to organize a large-scale operation to transfer industrial enterprises to the East of the country. This operation has no analogues neither in scale nor in the level of organization and execution. 2593 industrial enterprises with all the equipment were transferred to the East of the Soviet Union (of which 1360 was large). 12 million people were also evacuated to the East, of which 10 million by railways, 2,5 million cattle were evacuated. Another feat was accomplished after the transfer of enterprises and equipment, they almost immediately began to give products. In fact, this is one of the most amazing sagas in the history of mankind, where equally deserve the eternal memory of the workers of that heroic era and the leadership of the USSR, including Joseph Stalin.

During the years of the hardest possible test - World War II, the national economy of the USSR was more efficient than the economy of the Third Reich. Hitlerite Germany, having at its disposal almost the entire economic power of Western and Central Europe, produced 2,1 times more electricity, 3,7 times cast iron and steel, 4,3 times coal than the USSR. The Third Reich annually produced on average: 21,6 thousand aircraft, 11,7 thousand tanks, Self-propelled guns and assault guns, 87,4 thousand guns, 21,9 thousand mortars, 2,2 million carbines and rifles, 296, 4 thousand machine guns. The Soviet Union was inferior to Germany, which gained access to almost all the resources of Europe and its industry in the production of the most important types of basic industrial products. However, Soviet industry released on average annually during the war: 28,2 thousand combat aircraft, 25,8 thousand tanks and self-propelled guns, 126,6 thousand guns, 102,1 thousand mortars, 3,3 million rifles and carbines , 417, 9 thousand machine guns. As a result, per 1 ton of steel produced, the enterprises of the Military-Industrial Complex of the Soviet Union produced 5 times more tanks and guns, and 1 thousand metal-cutting machines - 8 times more combat aircraft than in the industry of the German Empire. The USSR was much more efficient in using every ton of metal and fuel, every unit of industrial equipment, than the Third Reich.

This fact is partly due to the fact that the German leadership was quite confident in terms of a “blitzkrieg” and did not immediately complete mobilization in the country's economy.

Therefore, there is no reason to say that the Soviet economy during the years of Stalin’s rule was ineffective and did not stand the test of war. Otherwise, the Wehrmacht would have marched through Red Square and the history of mankind has changed a lot. The Red Army was able to win a convincing victory on Hitler’s Germany and its allies (explicit and hidden) precisely because the Victory was already won by the Soviet leadership and people in the 1930s, when a powerful economy was created, and above all a military-industrial complex.

A favorite argument that proponents of the inefficiency of the Soviet economy during the Great Patriotic War, is lend-lease assistance. During the Second World War, the United States implemented a state program, according to which the Allies were given equipment, ammunition, food and strategic raw materials, including petroleum products. Some authors have agreed that the victory of the USSR over Germany directly depends on the military-economic supplies under the Lend-Lease. However, the figures refute this view. In particular, compared with the volume of Soviet production during the war, lend-lease supplies were: 9,8% for aircraft, 6,2% for tanks and self-propelled guns, 1,4% - for guns, for machine pistols - 1,7%, for guns - 0,8% , shells - 0,6%, mines - 0,1%. The total cost of the Lend-Lease in 46-47 billion dollars, the share of the USSR had - 10,8 billion dollars (according to other data - 11,3). England, which did not conduct such heavy battles as the Soviet Union, received products worth 31,4 billion. Of great importance is the fact that most of the products arrived already when it became obvious that the blitzkrieg was failed and the war would be protracted. Until the end of 1941, during the most difficult period of the Great Patriotic War, the USSR received only 0,1% of all US aid, which was recorded in the signed documents. The Red Army has dispelled the myth of the invincibility of the German divisions and the possibility of a “blitzkrieg” against the USSR only at the expense of the resources of the Soviet economy.

Chairman of the USSR State Planning Committee Nikolai Voznesensky, in his book The USSR Military Economy During the Patriotic War, published in 1948, estimated the size of industrial goods supplied by the Allies to the Union at about 4% of domestic production during the war economy period. All this convincingly proves that everything necessary for waging the hardest and long war of the USSR was ensured thanks to the heroic work of the home front workers and the amazing effectiveness of the Soviet national economy.

At the same time, it is impossible to deny the fact of this assistance. In some areas, American assistance was very noticeable. In particular, the Allies delivered a significant number of vehicles (for example, the Lend lizov Studebakers) became the main chassis for Katyusha’s jet systems, as well as food products — the famous American stew, egg powder, flour, mixed feed, and a number of other products that played prominent role in providing armed forces and rear. Obviously, these supplies played a positive role. But to say that US aid has played a decisive role and there is nothing to say. The victory in the Great Patriotic War was achieved thanks to the unprecedented courage and perseverance of soldiers and officers, the work of home front workers.
Author:
40 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. erased
    erased 15 October 2012 08: 09
    +3
    you have to be grateful to the USA and England for the Lend-Lease; But to say that he saved and that he did not give anything at all. Extremes are unacceptable. Another thing is that supporters of both points of view are sliding into them.
    1. Sakhalininsk
      Sakhalininsk 15 October 2012 08: 48
      +5
      I agree with you, you have to be grateful, but!
      Lend-lease was not a free carrot, Russia paid and paid a lot with gold, but what was supplied from military equipment basically was far from the best, it just took time to launch evacuated plants at the first stage of the war.
      Russia could well cope from without the help of the United States, the losses were more undeniably for this reason and bought. So thank them not for helping, but for trading when we needed it.
      1. Click-Klyak
        Click-Klyak 15 October 2012 09: 28
        -12
        Like tenacious myths. How many times they said that during the war we didn’t pay any gold for Lend-Lease (although in 1941 there were ALSO LEND-LEASE and paid deliveries). Another thing is that there was a reverse Lend-Lease - some raw materials. caviar, etc.- but scanty.
        Let me remind you that the American people raised about a billion dollars to help the USSR - at that time a huge amount.
        Let's not forget about the purely military aspect.
        Germany was forced to hold considerable forces outside the Eastern Front. And it's not just about forces in Europe or Africa. How many soldiers remained in the air defense, how many anti-aircraft guns fired precious shells into the sky instead of knocking out Soviet tanks. How many planes could not bomb our troops and shoot down our pilots.
        How many products did the Wehrmacht receive less thanks to the Allied bombing (according to Speer, 9%).
        And by 1944, 40% of the Wehrmacht was not on the Eastern Front. In some months of 1944, German casualties were ABOVE in the west.
        1. DIMS
          DIMS 15 October 2012 09: 51
          0
          There were also commercial deliveries until 1942, pre-lease lease, which was also paid. And for what could be used in the national economy, I had to pay
        2. Gamdlislyam
          Gamdlislyam 15 October 2012 09: 59
          +2
          Click-Klyak
          Like tenacious myths. How many times they said that during the war we didn’t pay any gold for Lend-Lease (although in 1941 there were ALSO LEND-LEASE and paid deliveries). Another thing is that there was a reverse Lend-Lease - some raw materials. caviar, etc.- but scanty.

          Dear colleague Klik-Klyak, you shouldn't be doing so much for our former allies and "benefactors". For supplies under Lend-Lease, the government of the USSR paid both during the war and after the war, and even before 2030 we will pay on these bills, but now the government of Russia.
          For reference to a colleague of Click-Klyak: US President Nixon in 1972 wrote off all Lend-Lease debts in relation to 51 countries (out of 52). Only the Soviet Union no one has ever forgiven debts, like Russia.
          1. Click-Klyak
            Click-Klyak 15 October 2012 10: 11
            +1
            My friends, I did not write that Lend-Lease supplies are free. I wrote that during the war there was no need to pay.

            Quote: DIMS
            There were also commercial deliveries until 1942, pre-lease lease, which was also paid. And for what could be used in the national economy, I had to pay

            That's right, I wrote about it.
          2. aviator46
            aviator46 15 October 2012 22: 12
            +3
            If not in the subject do not drive the blizzard ... read the Law on LendLisa.
            ! What's destroyed or used up ... NOT PAYABLE "
            Quote-
            The volume of American supplies under Lend-Lease amounted to about 11 billion US dollars. / HUNDRED THIRTY - according to the current Kursk / According to the law on lend-lease, only equipment that survived during the war was subject to payment; to agree on the total amount, immediately after the end of the war, Soviet-American negotiations began. At the 1948 negotiations, the Soviet representatives agreed to pay only a small amount and met the predicted refusal of the American side ...
            ..The agreement with the USSR on the procedure for repaying debts under Lend-Lease was concluded only in 1972. Under this agreement, the USSR undertook to pay $ 722 million, including interest. By July 1973, three payments were made for a total of $ 48 million, after which the payments were stopped due to the introduction of discriminatory measures by the American side in trade with the USSR (Jackson-Vanik Amendment). In June 1990, during negotiations between the presidents of the United States and the USSR, the parties returned to discussing the debt. A new deadline for the final repayment of the debt was set, and the amount was $ 674 million. After the collapse of the USSR, the debt for aid was reissued to Russia (), as of 2003 Russia owes about 100 million US dollars.
            Thus, of the total volume of US Lend-Lease deliveries of $ 11 billion, the USSR, and then Russia, paid $ 722 million, or LESS than 1%, taking into account inflation
        3. Brother Sarych
          Brother Sarych 15 October 2012 10: 58
          +1
          They often fought at the planes almost as prisoners, because they wanted to live, and the bombing was over the area, the effect of the bombing was almost miserable, enterprises were often cared for, but the cities got it in full ...
          1. datur
            datur 15 October 2012 20: 46
            0
            Brother Sarych, yes, especially the Dresden bombing - after all, it did not have any military significance - this is the war in the West, during the night 100000 thousand killed civilians and refugees !!!!!
            1. aviator46
              aviator46 15 October 2012 22: 16
              +4
              It’s good to breed shovel propaganda here -
              Quote -
              "In 2008, a commission of German historians, commissioned by the city of Dresden, estimated the death toll in the range from 18 to 25 thousand people."

              According to German sources, the capital of Saxony was by no means a harmless and peaceful goal. About a hundred enterprises with more than 50 thousand employees worked for the Wehrmacht, including branches of the Carl Zeiss Optical-Mechanical Plant, aviation and artillery factories.
              It was through Dresden, a large railway junction, that sent over twenty trains with troops and equipment to the Eastern Front daily.
          2. aviator46
            aviator46 15 October 2012 22: 40
            +2
            Both cities and enterprises were bombed.
            Those who worked at these enterprises died in cities ..
            So do not talk about inefficiency ...
            If they managed, even in conditions of massive bombing, to advance their military science, technology and industry forward ...
            Quote-
            At the end of the war, the Germans had 138 types of remotely controlled projectiles at various stages of production and development ... all the remote control and aiming systems so far known were used: radio, short waves, wired communication, directional electromagnetic waves, sound, infrared rays, light beams, magnetic control, etc. The Germans developed all types of rocket engine, allowing their rockets and rockets to reach supersonic speeds.
            Great successes relate to the production of liquid and solid fuels, to the metallurgical industry, to the production of synthetic rubber, textiles, chemicals, artificial fabrics, medicines and paints ....
            .... research by German scientists in applied physics, in the field of infrared ray research, according to the invention of new lubricants, synthetic mica, methods for cold rolling steel, etc.,
        4. Sakhalininsk
          Sakhalininsk 15 October 2012 11: 39
          0
          Well, who would doubt it, even how strange it is that in your glorification of the brazen-Saxon contribution to the victory over Germany, you modestly did not write that the victory over Germany was born in the sands near El Alamein laughing
          And of course there was no gold ... all the damned commies invented it ... and only the leader of Russian liberalism stands on a beautiful square in a white cloak and lips extended for a passionate kiss of impudent Saxon asses ...
          1. revnagan
            revnagan 15 October 2012 15: 44
            0
            Quote: Sakhalininets
            And of course there was no gold ... all the damned commies invented it ...

            Yeah, and after the victory, the insolent Saxons were secretly loaded into the "Edinburgh" sunk by the Germans.
            1. Taratut
              Taratut 15 October 2012 20: 25
              +1
              Besides Edinburgh, can you give examples?
              Gold was brought on this cruiser in payment for deliveries of Britain. Lend-lease has nothing to do with it.

              Quote: borisst64
              According to Stanislavsky - I DO NOT BELIEVE. I do not believe that even on one of the days the losses of the Germans on the western front were higher than on the eastern

              Why believe? There are ten-day losses of the Wehrmacht, you can watch.
              1. datur
                datur 15 October 2012 20: 50
                -1
                Taratut, altruists, amerikosy sucked the gold reserves of their closest ally of small Britain to dry all clean! belay and therefore they helped us for free-nu-nu !!!!! feel funny !!! laughing after the war, 70% of the gold of the west was in america !!!! wassat probably gave it yourself? yes in gratitude for the salvation? crying
                1. aviator46
                  aviator46 15 October 2012 22: 19
                  +2
                  You understand this "like a pig in oranges" ...
                  70% of the gold of other Countries - STORED in the USA.
                  And where was it stored - in warring / Europe ?????
        5. borisst64
          borisst64 15 October 2012 13: 21
          +2
          Quote: Click-Gag
          In some months of 1944, German casualties were ABOVE in the west.

          According to Stanislavsky - I DO NOT BELIEVE. I do not believe that even on one of the days the losses of the Germans on the western front were higher than on the eastern. Just do not take into account the number of prisoners, the Germans at the end of the war, the Americans gave up divisions without a fight, if only not to the Russians.
        6. Aleksys2
          Aleksys2 15 October 2012 15: 03
          +1
          Quote: Click-Gag
          How many products did the Wehrmacht receive less thanks to the Allied bombing (according to Speer, 9%).

          From June 6 to September 12, when the Wehrmacht divisions moved to the Franco-German border, 2 tank divisions and one infantry division plus two motorized divisions from Italy were sent to the West from the reserve headquarters. Not a single unit was withdrawn from the Soviet front in support of the western direction. And this with the loss in personnel (killed, wounded and captured) of about 400 thousand people (26% of the total number of German formations in Western Europe at the time of the landing in Normandy) and the loss of 5490 tanks (including replenishment). For comparison, the irreplaceable losses of the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front from January to October 1944 amounted to 900 thousand people. Here, in the battles of 1944, 136 enemy divisions were defeated, that is, double the total number of German divisions in Western Europe. March replenishment and supply of heavy equipment to the Eastern Front were not interrupted until April 1945.
        7. AIvanA
          AIvanA 15 October 2012 15: 40
          0
          Well, with such reasoning, I can say that the USSR saved Britain in general, because if everything that shot on the Eastern Front would have shot at Britain, there probably wouldn’t be such an island, in general, you write a little, in fact, the allies paid off, realizing that if the USSR does not survive, then they will have nothing to catch.
        8. revnagan
          revnagan 15 October 2012 15: 42
          -2
          Quote: Click-Gag
          In some months of 1944, German casualties were ABOVE in the west.

          The case is difficult, the doctors helplessly spread their hands ...
        9. viruskvartirus
          viruskvartirus 15 October 2012 16: 50
          +2
          And what's that? Off the coast of the United States found a Soviet treasure
          Treasure seeker Greg Brooks found the sunken British ship Port Nicholson with platinum bullion from the USSR. According to RIA Novosti, the value of the treasure is more than three billion dollars.
          Greg Brooks, treasure hunter: "I will get this load even if I have to bring the entire ship to the surface."
          Port Nicholson was sailing with a cargo of platinum to New York. A German submarine spotted him off the coast of the Cape Cord Peninsula in the northeastern United States. A torpedo that hit the side sank the ship and killed six sailors. Platinum was intended for settlements between the Soviet government and the US authorities for the supply of weapons under the state lend-lease program, according to which the United States transferred ammunition, military equipment, food and strategic raw materials to the allies. "But it certainly doesn't count, it's not gold))). Http: //kladoiskatel.org.ua/articles/137-u-beregov-ssha-nayden-korabl-s-gruzom-pl
          atiny-s-sssr.html
          1. aviator46
            aviator46 15 October 2012 22: 26
            +2
            Read the Law on LendLisa and do not drive the blizzard ...
            Quote-
            "In general, most of the American aid provided under Lend-Lease was simply written off. Both Roosevelt and his successor Truman considered fighting the enemy and sacrificing Allied soldiers a sufficient price."
      2. Brother Sarych
        Brother Sarych 15 October 2012 10: 56
        0
        It was precisely Lend-Lease during the war that they didn’t pay, they paid for third-party deliveries in addition to Lend-Lease, the return flow of raw materials was not scanty, as some say ...
        1. Click-Klyak
          Click-Klyak 15 October 2012 11: 24
          0
          Quote: Brother Sarich
          the return flow of raw materials was not scanty, as some claim ...

          Well, if 2% is not minuscule ...



          Quote: Click-Gag
          They often shot at planes almost prisoners,

          As of November 1943, there were 3 million people in the Luftwaffe, of whom 2.1 million were military personnel and 900.000 were civilian and auxiliary personnel. About a million people served directly in anti-aircraft artillery. The military and support staff were represented in a 2: 1 ratio.
          http://nnm.ru/blogs/teufel65/pvo_germanii_protiv_vvs_ssha/#comment_15914276
          1. DIMS
            DIMS 15 October 2012 11: 43
            +1
            Quote: Click-Gag
            Well, if 2% is not minuscule ...

            Watching for whom, for the USSR, this was by no means a minuscule. For example, the transfer of 30 tons of manganese in the conditions of its own deficit for this material. We Nikolsky pool only recaptured in 1944.

            Quote: Click-Gag
            About a million people served directly in anti-aircraft artillery.

            Do not forget that the local anti-aircraft gunners not only opposed the allied raids, but were also at the front. And most combat-ready men were there. After all, the second, and sometimes their first task was to fight with tanks.
            Well, in the metropolis, the majority of l / s were limited-fit, women and adolescents
  2. Click-Klyak
    Click-Klyak 15 October 2012 09: 20
    -8
    The duplicate industry is not from forethought. No one thought that the Germans would capture half the country. They simply developed lands where there are a lot of resources - both human and material.


    The author mixes horseradish with radish.
    Help from the West has become a very important factor. Could do? Maybe. But at the cost of much greater losses and difficulties.
    It must be understood that, firstly, the Soviet industry was largely built on Western technologies and their specialists. All the main plants of the first five-year plan were built by the Americans.
    Secondly, even those products that are considered the merit of our industry alone are not. Let's say the American hardware is used in the tank - and without them the tank will not be. They used imported aluminum, copper, fuel ... And the soldiers were delivered at the right time to the right place in American cars. And fed American canned goods. So no offense - grandfathers and grandmothers worked, no doubt. But the West also helped.


    The Stalinist economy was obviously inefficient, but it saved huge human and raw materials, almost free - plus all the same help.

    Lend-Lease deliveries amounted to: 9,8% for airplanes, 6,2% for tanks and self-propelled guns
    How much do you need? 80%? Then this is not help, it is full security for the banana republic. They could deliver us more, just - why? And would we build our tanks and planes without the same copper and aluminum, armored plates, etc.?

    for pistols - 0,8%, for shells - 0,6%, mines - 0,1%
    Already in 1941, the USSR refused to supply small arms in favor of more needed resources. But the mines we stuffed in many ways with imported explosives. Let me remind you that the powder for Katyush was made by the USA. Our plants could not master it immediately.


    most of the products arrived already when it became apparent that the blitzkrieg was a failure.
    Strange argument. All Lend-Lease formalities were settled by the end of 1941. When in 1941 could they deliver us a lot? But also take into account the paid assistance of England.
    Already in 1942, Lend-Lease was in full flow (about 20% of the total volume). And what period of war is the most, which is not the most?


    Ascension was shot as an enemy of the people and there is no calculation of these 4%. In addition, I repeat, much of what our industry released and what is considered 100% ours, would not have been released or had worse quality indicators without import.

    As for the DECISIVE role of Lend-Lease - no one will answer this question. A straw breaks the back of a camel. And about what is still unknown how everything would have gone without American help, said Zhukov, Mikoyan. Nobody pulled their tongue.

    And the main role of the courage of the soldiers and the labor of the rear workers is without question. Resources themselves do not fight.
    1. tambourine 2012
      tambourine 2012 15 October 2012 12: 23
      -1
      Is this your post for proof? that the national economy of the USSR did not stand the test of war.
    2. de_monSher
      de_monSher 15 October 2012 19: 00
      0
      Click-Klyak

      The Stalinist economy was of course inefficient


      Almost a catch phrase, dear. Justify it ... It became interesting to me ... *))))
    3. de_monSher
      de_monSher 15 October 2012 19: 57
      -2
      Click-Klyak

      It's amazing how you, dear, love to throw catch phrases. How do you remind me of the "glorious" Mr. Nikolai Karlovich Svanidze. When he was shown on one of the programs "Historical process" as proof, mmmmm ... "wealth" of the people = I put this word in quotation marks, since in itself it is wrong at the root, and smells of rot. Better to use the word - "prosperity", it will be closer =, in the Stalinist era, the fact that collective farmers bought registered aircraft with their own money, and sent them to the front. This dude did not find anything better than to arrange a mini-hysterics on the same program, with screams - "this could not be, since this could never be! My fellow liberals have already proved this in the 90s (!) Years." .. gygyks ... *)) Argumentische is super-duper ... *)

      Please, do not confuse the ass with your finger, dear ... *) You and your brothers are building your extrapolations based on the completely wrong way of reforming the Soviet economy, God forbid, the memory called the Kosygin-Liberman reform - introducing elements of capitalism into the economy, which ultimately led to full the collapse of the USSR economy = well, it is impossible to cross a hedgehog with a snake ... *) An example of China, with its wildest distortions, under the nose =. Whereas the correct, as it seems to me, path, a natural and harmonious continuation of the Stalinist economy, would be the rejected reform of Glushkov-Kitov - reborn in the future into SOFE = System of Optimal Functioning of the Economy =. You understand, roughly speaking, the model of the modern economy is controlled chaos, and reliance on scarcity - in general, scarcity of resources - material, intellectual, labor, etc. All this eventually turns into a "game", and, as a rule, people are "toys". Anyway, the monetary approach to the economy is chaos in its purest form - it is not for nothing that some overly religious comrades directly say that money is the devil's main instrument ... *)) While what Kitov and Glushkov suggested was a model of the economy on demand (on demand), with a very powerful mathematical apparatus for forecasting and planning.

      Farther. All economic models, both implemented and unrealized, “grow” from the 20-30s of the last century - from the mobilization economy. And the pioneers of the mobilization economy were the Americans. It was they, back in 1927, who conducted the first experiment on mobilization of the entire economy, when, on a signal, at hour H, all civilian enterprises began to produce military products ... *) In fact, Stalin adopted the American experience, and history has shown that only two countries = Germany too, but we do not take into account the defeated = at that time, and "pulled" such a model - the United States and the USSR. And after the war, another war of attrition already unfolded. And the economies in the USSR and the USA were mobilization, in fact. Everything else is from the evil one ... *) And now, when both myths have crumbled - the "free" US market = do you see the path of market development? At least some? =, And the "free" model = Lieberman = "national economy" of the USSR, it's time to really think about normal model of the economy, and not trying to revive a long-stinking corpse called "market" ... *)))
    4. skullcap
      skullcap 15 October 2012 21: 51
      -3
      Click-Klyak
      The Stalinist economy was certainly ineffective.
      -------------------------------------------------
      You have outdone Orwell's "ministry of truth."
      Even those guys did not dare to assert that one of the two superpowers in the world (of the 20th century) was built by "certainly an ineffective economy."
  3. Basilevs
    Basilevs 15 October 2012 10: 15
    +1
    Quote: Click-Gag
    The Stalinist economy was of course ineffective,

    They won the war using 15% of the industry. What was supposed to be an effective economy?
  4. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 15 October 2012 10: 54
    +1
    Something I did not understand the very first promise! Who and when said that the national economy could not stand the test of war? Personally, I have not met such a statement ...
    Another thing is that it has become increasingly fashionable to extol the help of allies, I do not argue with this statement ...
    The help of the Allies was far from superfluous, it really helped, but to say that it was the help of the Allies that made the decisive contribution to the Victory, even the Allies themselves did not ...
  5. apro
    apro 15 October 2012 11: 20
    0
    To say that the national economy of the USSR could not stand the test of war would certainly lie, without industry there would be no victory .land lease is not decisive.
  6. Rashid
    Rashid 15 October 2012 11: 30
    +2
    Yesterday they showed a film from the "Unknown War" series about evacuating industry to the rear and setting up work there. Everything is exactly as described in the article, just don't read, but watch the chronicle. This is indeed the most ambitious work in the history of mankind, the Americans themselves admit it.
  7. Egoza
    Egoza 15 October 2012 12: 36
    0
    What kind of help is this if it was paid for? The United States simply made money on the USSR, since there was no war on their territory! And as for the fact that "the national economy of the USSR did not stand the test of the war" - you know, it is better to read:
    http://rufact.org/blog/2011/jul/1/stalin-managers-please-leader/
    Stalin's managers
    In the summer of 1944, this person wrote a statement with a request, sending it personally to Stalin - the lower authorities did not even want to listen to him, answering not at all out of heartlessness: "You have already done everything you could. Rest."
    Why they refused, you can understand from the text of the statement.

    This Man, Hero of the Soviet Union, wrote to Stalin, that he lives badly and asked to help him. Than?

    Be sure to read this statement, a copy of which was stored in the archives of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Belarus, it was declassified and published recently.

    It doesn't just seem incredible these days - it is amazing. "And this is really AWESOME!

    And further - Mortgage in the Stalinist style, 1946
    I found an interesting decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of August 25, 1946 "On raising wages and building housing for workers and engineers in enterprises and construction sites located in the Urals, Siberia and the Far East."
    http://ihistorian.livejournal.com/148357.html

    And this is almost immediately after the war!
    1. Taratut
      Taratut 15 October 2012 13: 40
      0
      Then specify what help is. So, if you die of thirst in the desert and were given a flask of water - this is help, and if you were asked when you get home to transfer ten dollars for this flask - is that not help?
      1. xan
        xan 15 October 2012 15: 52
        -3
        you probably think something smart blurted out
        it’s written to you in the article - they gave 3% of the water that was there in the flask and asked to pay later
        1. aviator46
          aviator46 15 October 2012 23: 04
          +3
          The USSR received under Lend-Lease 622,1 thousand tons of railway rails (56,5% of its own production),
          1900 steam locomotives (2,4 times more than produced during the years of the war in the USSR) and 11075 wagons (10,2 times more),
          3 million 606 thousand tires (43,1%),
          610 thousand tons of sugar (41,8%),
          664,6 thousand tons of canned meat (108%).
          The USSR received 427 thousand cars and 32 thousand army motorcycles, while in the USSR from the beginning of the war until the end of 1945, only 265 thousand cars and 6 motorcycles were produced.
          The United States supplied 2 million 13 thousand tons of aviation gasoline (together with the allies - 2 million 586 thousand tons) - almost two-thirds of the fuel used during the war by Soviet aviation ...
          ...... also machines, diesel generators, radio stations, tire factory, uniforms, medicines, various equipment and spare parts ....

          AND EVERYTHING FOR FREE!
          1. de_monSher
            de_monSher 16 October 2012 02: 57
            -2
            aviator46

            AND EVERYTHING FOR FREE!


            Damn all this, buddy ... *) The USA, during the war years, raised their production great, and at the same time, they won time to prepare for the war ... And it was paid more than gold - the blood of our grandfathers. You carefully read the very Wikipedia from where you trained all these numbers, and then compare it with the data from TSB. Do you know what will be the difference? And the fact that the USA, really, at the expense of Lend-Lease, got into the ass of the whole of Europe after the war, and, without using Vaseline, used it = in TSB it is shown on fingers to everyone, even the inveterate and-d-and-o-t -a-m = ... They tried to do the same with the USSR, and naturally they were sent to hell. Well, just take a look at how the fleets of the defeated countries shared - and it will be sooo interesting ... In general, dude - you are wrong. In theory, it was necessary to boldly send the United States in three funny letters, both in the 72nd year, and in the 90s - in general, always when the question of Lend-Lease was raised ... something like that ...
            1. Taratut
              Taratut 16 October 2012 14: 05
              -1
              What exactly is paid by the blood of grandfathers? They fought for dollars?
              If it weren’t for the help of the USA, would they quit fighting?
              The fact that the United States raised production is true. So what?
              Well, they would refuse the Lend-Lease, wiped their nose vile Yankees.
              1. de_monSher
                de_monSher 16 October 2012 14: 54
                -1
                Into the brake, but ... If the amers, for example, began to fight at least from December 11, 41, when, as far as I remember, Germany declared war on them - it would be understandable - they helped, fought, well done. And so, "they wiped it, didn't wipe their nose," "vile, or not vile Yankees" - a fact - they sat for three years, bought themselves off with Lend-Lease, which, in fact, was VERY profitable for them, they didn't get into a fight, then they started yelling they would have been nothing. So dude, don't you do verbal balancing act here, okay?

                Yes, and in the ass already to yourself, cram your arguments, and roll already in the woods, from your Wikipedia ... boltologist, defender - found ... *)))
                1. Taratut
                  Taratut 17 October 2012 08: 55
                  +1
                  What does it mean to start fighting on December 11? At sea - they fought, but on land where?
                  The Americans, by the way, were eager for battle, the British kept them.
                  What does it mean - "bought off with Lend-Lease"? From what? If it weren't for Lend-Lease, they WOULD HAVE to fight, or what?
                  Was a land lease profitable? In a way, yes. So what?

                  Quote: de_monSher
                  Objections, verbal and substantial, except for a tacit minus - are there? *)))) Or are you all the way acting within the American paradigm - "quietly, meanly, and only for the sake of profit"?

                  I got stuffed with cons, I am limited in the ability to answer.


                  Quote: kalbofos
                  yes this is not help, this is a service

                  Well, Lend-Lease is America's service to the Soviet Union.
                  1. de_monSher
                    de_monSher 17 October 2012 15: 15
                    0
                    The Americans, by the way, were eager for battle, the British kept them.


                    And you, personally, witnessed that the British held them back? *))) = smiled =. If they wanted to fight, they would have acted simply - "hey, Lyovka British, we want to fight, we have no urine. So - we will fight, whether you want to or not. And if you don't want to - I'm sorry, hell you'll use bases in Iceland, Greenland = , for your information, the United States has taken control of it =, and you will have problems with Lend-Lease, and you can easily drive back the destroyers received like that ... "and so on. etc. *) This argument of yours, at least, is ridiculous ... *))) The United States had much more powerful leverage ... *)

                    As for the minuses to you - I didn’t put you, but in fact they please me - it’s time to lift up your pride to heaven, and not someone else’s at own expense ... *))))
                    1. Taratut
                      Taratut 17 October 2012 16: 53
                      +1
                      Quote: de_monSher
                      And you, personally, have witnessed the fact that they were held by the British?


                      Read the literature.


                      Quote: de_monSher
                      want to fight, no urine


                      WHERE do you propose to fight? To arrange a naval landing in Normandy? Well, Hitler was already waiting in 1942. Even with the Eastern Front 5 divisions removed, ferried.
                      But this is a very complicated matter. Hitler did not dare to ride the Sea Lion. Despite the fact that he had great superiority. The chances of a landing success in 1942 were close to zero.

                      Quote: de_monSher
                      I didn’t set you, but in fact they please me

                      For God's sake. I am not like-minded to the majority on this site. There are some serious guys, but the bulk of the young are thoughtless.
                      1. de_monSher
                        de_monSher 17 October 2012 17: 26
                        0
                        Taratut

                        Read the literature.


                        The reading process is a purely subjective and intimate process, and in the end, oddly enough, it rests on the question of faith ... *)) Since it was you who suggested that I "read literature", I conclude that you belong to the layer of "believers fanatics ", for which there is one phrase -" Read the Bible = the Koran, the Torah = and you will understand everything "... *))) = smiled =. By the way, judging by your statements, nevertheless, my encyclopedic knowledge surpasses yours, and, by the way, is more versatile. So - I return you, your words - learn the materiel ... *))

                        To arrange a naval landing in Normandy?


                        Norway = ideal bridgehead for landing =, point strikes in the Balkans, followed by the creation of bridgeheads, Italy = starting from Sicily, which was done only in 43rd =, Adriatic = Yugoslavia =. And do not overestimate the role of the Italian fleet - the Germans gouged it very quickly when the Italians tried to spread to the other side.

                        The war in Africa, even the language cannot be called a war - both Italians and Vishists, surrendered en masse, and the Germans, even under these conditions, managed to thoroughly clean the faces of all the opponents on that theater.

                        In general, Dear - there were a lot of options, only the most profitable theater of the time was chosen - North Africa, Morocco. Although, at least the landing in Norway, in the 42nd year, in the summer, was technically feasible, quite simple and would really help the USSR.
                      2. Antistaks
                        Antistaks 1 November 2012 00: 18
                        +1
                        You ask where to fight - for example, to seize the port of Narvik and cut off the Germans from Swedish ore for half a year.
              2. de_monSher
                de_monSher 16 October 2012 17: 25
                -1
                Objections, verbal and substantial, except for a tacit minus - are there? *)))) Or are you all the way acting within the American paradigm - "quietly, meanly, and only for the sake of profit"? *)))
      2. datur
        datur 15 October 2012 20: 58
        0
        Taratut, no, this is yours-gesheft !!!!! laughing
      3. karbofos
        karbofos 16 October 2012 02: 12
        0
        Yes, this is not help, this is a service, and with interest. do you pay your friends for help denyushkoy?
    2. wax
      wax 15 October 2012 17: 11
      0
      Impressive. One has only to turn to the primary sources, as everything falls into place. See also http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/golovanov_ae/index.html
    3. DEMENTIY
      DEMENTIY 15 October 2012 17: 25
      0
      Egoza.

      Thanks for the link - very instructive reading matter !!! hi
  8. Egoza
    Egoza 15 October 2012 16: 47
    0
    Quote: Taratut
    if you die of thirst in the desert and you were given a flask of water - this is help, and if you were asked when you get home to transfer ten dollars for this flask - this is no longer help


    Imagine! Help is always selfless. If money is required for help, then this is BUSINESS. And if they demand some kind of action in exchange for "help", then most likely these are the actions of the special services! lol
  9. Voin sveta82
    Voin sveta82 15 October 2012 17: 55
    0
    Well done ..))) not that now ...
  10. sergant89
    sergant89 15 October 2012 19: 10
    +2
    Quote: Click-Gag

    Click-Klyak

    Quote: Click-Gag
    The Stalinist economy was obviously inefficient, but it saved huge human and raw materials, almost free - plus all the same help.

    Yes, you swept the American lick ass lick go and live in their effective economics, but so as not to argue with you, look at the photo
    1. aviator46
      aviator46 15 October 2012 22: 54
      +1
      If not in the subject, so don't 3.14zdi "patriot"

      At the Yalta conference, Stalin said "... Lend-Lease is a wonderful invention, without which the victory would have been different ... in his opinion, Lend-Lease made an EXTREMELY contribution to victory"

      Marshal Zhukov
      "... We would be in a difficult situation without American gunpowder, we could not release 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. "
      Zhukov emphasized that “we entered the war, while still continuing to be an industrially backward country compared to Germany ...
      "... the Americans drove us so many materials, without which we could not form our reserves and could not continue the war ... We did not have explosives, gunpowder. We had nothing to equip rifle cartridges. The Americans really helped us out with gunpowder, explosives.And how much they drove us sheet steel!
      Could we have quickly set up production of tanks if not for American steel aid? "
      1. xan
        xan 16 October 2012 12: 09
        -2
        you need to add that the Americans won the war.
        You think so.
        Stalin said that "the victory would have been different," but that does not mean that there would have been no victory.
        During the war, heaps of examples when this or that was missing, and as soon as possible they began to do it. Do not la la. The only reason they did not win with little blood was because of the inability to fight. Everything else is lyrics.
  11. sergant89
    sergant89 16 October 2012 02: 05
    -1
    Quote: aviator46

    aviator46

    hear Th dark, then go to the beautiful overseas country and there you will be 3.14, and for the patriot in quotation marks, maybe an African American would be there for you to duplicate.
  12. Sasha 19871987
    Sasha 19871987 16 October 2012 07: 21
    0
    thanks to the author for the article, such things should be introduced into the school curriculum for the development of patriotism ... for the sake of telling, Medvedev stuttered about proper school education, so you need to drop this article on Twitter to him, let him read at his leisure)))
  13. Antistaks
    Antistaks 1 November 2012 00: 34
    0
    The help may have been only 4 percent, but in the STRATEGIC directions. And the planes are not the main thing here. The main thing is machine tools, aviation gasoline and entire factories for its production (we had asked them before the war but to us as aggressors (BOMBINS OF FINLAND) they did not sell them) gunpowder and explosives. And most importantly, wagons, locomotives and cars.
    For those who don’t know, light tanks were made at atomic plants (instead of cars) and tanks at a supercar factory.
    But Stalin did a good job of centralizing production and not spraying. Here Stalin planted Korolyov so as not to distract, and Brown, on the contrary, transferred state money to missiles.
    As for the bombing. The Germans did not have enough strength near Moscow and near Stalingrad and in many other places. Maybe because 900000 people (almost a million) were not at the front, but sitting in the rear near anti-aircraft guns?