Talk:Lend-Lease

Lend-Lease bill

I remember seeing something about lend-lease now having been recently paid off in full? But I can't find any reference to this atm. Does anyone else remember this? Morwen - Talk 18:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I too thought that but according to the one source I could find it won't be paid off till 2006. adamsan 20:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

That isn't for Lend-Lease. That is for the Anglo-American loan that was given *after* WW2 to save the UK from bankruptcy. 73.151.157.60 (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I have ventured to make two changes:

I have deleted the reference to lend-lease being known as lease-lend in the UK - as a Briton I have never heard this, and anyone looking at Roy Jenkins's recent biography of Churchill or at the contemporary Liddell Hart's History of the Second World War will see that they both use the term 'lend-lease'.

I have removed the reference to lend-lease having started at the beginning of the war. I suspect that Americans sometimes forget that the war was over a third of the way through by the time they (thankfully) entered it; and lend-lease came in - at the critical height of the Battle of the Atlantic - in May 1941, getting on for two years after the outbreak of war.

Mark O'Sullivan 16:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"The aid was given for free" Hmmm...The aid was financed by the US credit facility and was most certainly NOT "free". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.157.111 (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The financing of lend-lease is summarised in the lead where it says:

"Materiel delivered under the act was supplied at no cost, to be used until returned or destroyed. In practice, most equipment was destroyed, although some hardware (such as ships) was returned after the war. Supplies that arrived after the termination date were sold to the United Kingdom at a large discount for £1.075 billion, using long-term loans from the United States, which were finally repaid in 2006. Similarly, the Soviet Union repaid $722 million in 1971, with the remainder of the debt written off."

This summary is backed up by sourced details in the body of the article. If you have sourced information contradicting the information in the article then please discuss it here. Shimbo (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

1776...

The book 1940: Myth & Reality by Clive Ponting suggests that the numbering of the bill (HR 1776) was deliberately meant as an affront to the British. Anyone confirm that? Cromis 00:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

This is supported by the US gov: https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/exhibitions/artifact/hr-1776-bill-further-promote-defense-united-states-january-10-1941194.207.86.26 (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

This is what your link/source actually, and only, states: The bill was assigned the number “H.R. 1776,” linking it with the American Revolution. 50.111.50.240 (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Important Question

One thing that is exceptionally nagging here...is whether the United States asked the Soviets to pay them back? I mean OVER ONE BILLION Dollars in machines and equipment is an excessive amount of money especially during the Second World War when the international economy had just barely recovered from the Great Depression. Did the Soviets ever pay back the US? I don't thik they would considering what went on during the cold war, but I think its an exceptionally important question that doesn't seem to be answered, although it is obviously hinted at.--Persianlor

I suspect the Soviet (and perhaps now Russian, Ukrainian etc) response might be something along the lines of reminding the rest of us how many casualties they took when they were fighting virtually alone in 1941-43. Also, this 'aid' was very much in the interests of the USA. The huge economic demand for heavy industrial output is precisely what ended the great depression....so this was a boon to the USA. DMorpheus 17:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It was always understood there would be no repayments for Soviet goods. Note that Britain also supplied large amounts of munitions to Russia free. Rjensen 15:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, according to my source, the opposite was true, and the Soviet Union worked out a payment agreement with the United States in 1972. My source is the Columbia Encyclopedia.--Ggbroad 15:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So did the Soviets pay back the US back after the war?Seansmccullough (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes slowly, though they made a large final settlement in the 70's when they needed to import food from the West due to a famine. WatcherZero (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Date Discrepancy

The introduction and the article state that Lend-Lease ended on 1945-09-02. The introduction states that this date was V-J Day, but the V-J Day article clearly states that V-J Day was 1945-08-15, nearly a month earlier. If Lend-Lease aid was ended "suddenly," as I have read in many places, this date discrepacy needs to be corrected. When did it end, September 2, or August 15? An explanation and/or correction needs to be made. -Iamthealchemist 21:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

According to Correlli Barnett in the The Lost Victory he says: In the event, it was just a week later, on 21 August, that President Truman announced the ending of Lend-Lease. - p. 4. Some websites also claim the same date as the immediate ending of Lend-Lease [1], [2], [3].--Johnbull 22:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that the announcement of the ending may not be the actual ending. For example, items which were already in transit may have been delivered a few days later. I changed the text of the article from ending "on" VJ day to "soon after". StuRat 19:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point and thanks. I think this clears the issue up, and the article reads much better with the revision. I was originally drawn to this issue when I was trying to find a date for the announcement of the end of Lend-Lease because the history text I had on hand (Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, Comprehensive vol. 5th ed., Thomson/Wadsworth Learning, 2003.) states, "From the perspective of the Soviets, the United States' termination of Lend-Lease aid before the war was over and its failure to respond to the Soviet request for a $6 billion loan for reconstruction exposed the Western desire to keep the Soviet state weak" (page 798, my emphasis). Spielvogel cites this as one reason for the deterioration of Western/Soviet relations leading to the Cold War. The date was omitted in the text (which I am finding could be because the text is erroneous), even though the date would have indicated much about the decision. Coming after the war had ended, the decision did not necssary carry a negative message, as Spielvogel seems to argue. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? -Iamthealchemist 20:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The Soviets forced several European countries to denounce Marshall's plan participation. Poor SU, always a victim. Xx236 13:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a real stretch to call not getting free stuff from the US as an "act of aggression". StuRat 04:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The date for New Zealand termination was December 1945 (see my External Link to the official war history "War Economy") in the article, although New Zealand was actually in credit for 1944-55, with "Reverse Lend-lease" items. PS The USSR was offered participation in the Marshall Plan (though there were conditions for particiption) too! Hugo999 (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Support of mass crimes

The NKVD obtained part of Lend-Lease equipment. E.g. US trucks were used to deport hundreds of thousands of Chechens and Ingush. Xx236 13:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, but the americans did not gaved the russians the trucks with the condition that they should ethnic cleanse the soviet union. Therefore, what you say makes no sense, my guess is that they would had used any other truck at the time. I dont mean to be mean here, but the russians did knew how to build their own trucks...

Citation of source

The fact tag was removed from the 'significance' section on July 15. I am citing David Glantz and Jonathan House, When Titams Clashed, ISBN 0-7006-0717X, p. 150. DMorpheus 21:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Gift, not to be Repaid

I removed this claim on the following grounds: regardless of the precise terms of repayment, I think that the word "gift" is probably misleading. Lend-Lease was sent to the US Congress, debated by the US Congress, and subsequently passed by the US Congress on the assumption that while it gave the President broad powers to sell, transfer, exchange, lease, or lend military hardware to Great Britain (and subsequently any power engaged against the Axis states) that it was not to be understood as a "gift", that is, military hardware would subsequently be paid for or returned. Moreover, it's certainly true that Roosevelt himself took his pound of flesh in exchange for the Act. I quote David M. Kennedy, "Freedom from Fear", p. 473. "...to counter isolationist criticism, Roosevelt reasoned, Britain must be seen to have exhausted all its dollar resources before receiving American aid. The administration made a particular point of requiring Britain to use her remaining dollar reserves to finance the capital costs of the plant expansion necessary to service her future war orders...Roosevelt seized some British assets and compelled the sale of others" (goes on to describe British South African gold reserves picked up by a US destroyer, Britain's American securities sold off in New York, Churchill's assertion that with Lend-Lease, "we are not only to be skinned, buy flayed to the bone."

I could be wrong about this, but that is my reading of the sources that I have at hand. --Ggbroad 14:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to follow up on my own comments above, the actual text of the act states that repayment was to be "in kind or property, or any other direct or indirect benefit which the President deems satisfactory." So this would suggest that some manner of repayment was anticipated, though admittedly the wording gives rather broad latitude to the President in this regard. --Ggbroad 14:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That wording allows almost any interpretation. A satisfactory indirect benefit could be as simple as continuing good diplomatic relations after the war. I don't know enough about the topic to say what did turn out to be satisfactory. WLD 14:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The "repayment" was a technicality required by US domestic politics before Pearl Harbor. At first repayments came in the "lease" part whereby Britain gave the US Navy leases (access) to British ports. Later it was in-kind services (like the "rent" for air bases the US used in England.) Finally the "lease" part was dropped and so was the "lend" part. Note that when LL was abruptly ended in summer 1945, a huge amount of goods were in transit. These were landed in Britain and the British agreed to pay cash for them (at a heavily discounted price.) That explains the payment details in the article (which I think should be dropped). Rjensen 15:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, now the opening statement goes to the other extreme, and claims that Lend-Lease was given in return for land for military bases. This is at best a vast oversimplification, and at worst simply untrue. Russia received massive Lend-Lease but denied requests by the U.S. to base aircraft on Russian territory.

Confusion about some figures

The article states: "The value of the items to be lent were not to exceed $1,300,000,000 in total. Roosevelt approved US $1 billion in Lend-Lease aid to Britain on 30 October 1941." And yet the total value reached $50 billion. Moreover, according to my source (Kennedy's "Freedom From Fear" p. 474) Congress appropriated $7 billion for aid to Britain initially.--Ggbroad 15:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Lease terminology"

The article states: "During the war Britain did lease some small naval bases to the U.S., hence the "lease" terminology." I do not believe this is correct - the act was not called "Lend-Lease" because Congress predicted some future lease of British bases, it was because under its terms military equipment would be leased to the UK and other Allies. Ggbroad 19:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The solution for handling Churchill's request for destroyers and establishing a pattern for providing additional aid for the British came from outside the administration. The Century Group, which was a division within William Allen White's Committee to Defend America, suggested a simple formula of exchanging ships for bases. The United States would lend the destroyers to the British in exchange for leases to strategic bases in the Atlantic needed for the defense of shipping routes. The quid pro quo nature of the deal appealed to Roosevelt and made him confident that Congress would find it acceptable. Secretary of State Cordell Hull signed the agreement on September 2, 1940. This original "lend-lease" arrangement not only solved an immediate problem, it provided both the inspiration and the name for the massive foreign aid program that would follow.Brocky44 07:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

WIKISOURCE LINK

I added a link to the lend lease Acts that are over on Wikisource.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 02:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What was the precise discount and amount of the loan/debt?

The article gives two values on the discount given on the sale of goods in transit. In the section Finances, it says:

(Supplies after that date were sold to Britain at a 75% discount, or $650 million, using long-term loans from the U.S.)

and in the section Repayment, it says:

These items were sold to Britain for about 10 cents on the dollar with payment to be stretched out over 50 years at 2% interest,

Which is correct? In addition, the actual size of the loan/debt is stated by Hansard to be £1,075 million, which doesn't agree with the statement in the Finance section of $650 million. By the way, I've re-added the Hansard quotations back in, as they are good primary sources. WLD^talk|edits 15:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As of 2007-03-28 the article is still inconsistent. Hansard is pretty much a primary source, so should be correct: the figures given elsewhere do not appear to have solid sources and should probably be amended or removed. WLD^talk|edits 09:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

the question is whether all the details about the repayment are especially important in dealing with a WW2 program. A couple sentences should cover this--without worrying about the day of the week the cheque was written. Rjensen 09:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That's your view of what should be in the article. It is not necessarily shared by everyone. Note that the issue remains - the precise size of the debt is not clear from the article, and that at least should be accurately portrayed, which is currently not the case. The quotations from Hansard (the document of record for British Parliamentary proceedings) give a solid source for both the size of the debt and the repayment terms, which are not detailed elsewhere, and which have been subject to considerable misunderstanding and misapprehension. Remember that Wikipedia is not paper (please read that essay). Rather than deleting well-sourced text, there's a good case to be made that perhaps it should be moved into a separate, more detailed article. My view, which is different to yours (obviously) is that the additional detail on the loan should be in this article. I see no case for deleting it, and a possible argument for inclusion in a separate article. It would be useful if you would quote an excerpt from Kindleberger showing the figures, and possibly determine Kindleberger's sources. WLD^talk|edits 10:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If the issue is so important put it in a separate article. Wiki editors have to make judgments about the balance of treatment in an article: what is the optimum balance for users? Normally we do not use long excerpts from Hansard --we just summarize them and link. A separate article is the easiest solution. Mty point is that this was tidying up after the Lend Lease program ended.--it's basically a different issue. Rjensen 10:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Your judgement and mine are different. Getting the facts right as to the size of the debt is important for the article's credibility, and having the two values of: '75% discount' and 'about 10 cents on the dollar' is not acceptable. The Hansard quotations are a good way of providing an attested overview of the repayment terms, which were, and are the subject of great confusion. Repeatedly deleting well-sourced text is not a good way of improving articles. I have refrained from deleting text that is not well sourced in the hope that it will either be improved or properly sourced. From the context given in the article, it appears that Kindleberger is incorrect, and that needs sorting out. I'll request again that you excerpt the relevant passage from Kindleberger - not necessarily in the article, the talk page is fine, and we can investigate and resolve the discrepency. WLD^talk|edits 10:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

locomotives

"For example, the USSR was highly dependent on trains, yet the desperate need to produce weapons meant that fewer than 20 new locomotives were produced in the USSR during the entire war." Well, that´s the biggest nonsense I´ve ever read. Germany built more than 6,000 type 52 locos between 42 and 45 and the much larger USSR can get anlong with just 2,000 new locos? In a war that results in the loss of much rolling stock and causes god-knows-how-much additional traffic? I don´t know how this number got in the article, but it´s just absurd. Markus Becker02 19:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

R.J. Overy's Russia's War states that Soviet output of locomotives was "just 92" (p197). I think we should find an additional scholarly source and then correct the figure. So, 20 appears to be wrong. But it's not that wrong.--Ggbroad 14:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if only 20 locomotives were produced by Russia during the war or not, like you say the low number seems a little hard to swallow. I have read however that there were about 14,000 locomotives in Russia after WW1 so one should also take into account how many locos Russia may of built and imported during the inter war years and how many they may of had at the start of WW2. Brocky44 04:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

92 is also absurd. The distances are way too huge to get along with so few new locos. The distance from the polish border to the Ural is the same as the one from the Spanish-French border to eastern Poland and the really huge part of the USSR is east and south of the Ural. By comparing the size of the territory one can conclude they had to make even more locos than Germany. Just to replace the peacetime wear and tear would require the production of thousands of new locomotives over the years. As far as the number of locos at the start of the war is concerned it has to be a lot bigger than in 1914, because of the massive industrialisation during the inter war years. Industrialisation means transportation and than meant the railroad, even in non communist countries. Unless someone can come up with a figure that makes sense or get confirmation from a russian scource we better don´t refer to locomotives at all. Markus Becker02 16:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you beieve, intuitively, that it's absurd that only 92 locomotives were produced in the Soviet Union during the Second World War. I think, however, that you may be seriously underestimating the damage the war inflicted on Soviet industry and the extent to which the Soviets relied on Lend-Lease for certain kinds of aid. In any case, I've cited a source by a very highly esteemed historian of the Second World War who has said that only 92 were produced and, moreover, his source is a Russian one: B. Sokolov's "Lend Lease in Soviet Military Efforts" which appeared in the Journal of Slavic Military Studies in 1994. I've changed the article to say 92. Before the figure is removed, it is - according to Wikipedia rules - up to you to provide a reliable source countering those claims.--Ggbroad 19:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to follow up on my own comments above, I just checked John Barber and Mark Harrison's excellent The Soviet Home Front 1941-1945. Harrison is certainly the top English-language scholar of the Soviet economy. Anyway, Barber and Harrison don't mention locomotive production specifically, but they do mention that "daily shipments of railway freight fell to one-third of prewar level." (p185). So, more and more the picture adds up. --Ggbroad 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I just sent some email to a few russian universities. Let´s see if they come up with something. Markus Becker02 20:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone wishes to mention that only 92 locomotives were built in USSR for entire war, it is noteworthy to first find figures for how much it allready had before the war, so that lend lease does not look so significant (which it wasn't). Otherwise it looks like USSR was supplied almost all locomotives by USA, which is not true.99.231.63.253 (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov, January 2.

Then please add those figures, but please do not remove cited facts that help place the info in perspective. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Soviet pre-war stock of Locomotives was 25,000-30,000 (depends on source) and they had 600,000 rail cars. The 2000 LL Locos and 11000 railcars were not even shipped until mid 1944 and thus they had little effect on Soviet rail movements.

Much of the Soviet Union's industrial plant, which was mostly in Eastern Russia, was over-run by Germany in 1941-42. This was why Britain sent supplies at that time, as almost all of the Soviet Union's industrial capacity had been captured or destroyed, or was in the process of being removed by the Soviets and transferred further east. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Lend Lease - A Final Nail in Britain's Coffin

Although the U.S. would like the Lend lease plan to be considered the benevolent act of a concerned friend of Britain, in reality it was a shrewd business deal that was designed purely for the defence of the U.S. In the years leading to the war, and even more so in the early stages of the war, Britain was virtually transferring all her accumulated wealth, dollars and gold to the U.S. because of its need for machinery ,tools, etc. which the British could not produce themselves, either quickly or in sufficient quantities. The U.S made no attempt to alleviate Britain's difficulties and in fact saw it as a golden opportunity to humble British power.

When Britain was down to her last few million dollars (and because owing to previous agreements forced on her by the U.S. regarding the quantity and type of naval ships Britain could produce, Britain was extremely short of warships), the U.S. government offered her 50 outdated, mothballed ships. In return for this "generosity" she demanded territory from Britain that would be very useful to her. The U.S. knew that Britain was desparate but this didn't stop her trying to "screw" every last cent out of her. Britain managed to save some face by offering the territory for U.S. use if she she wanted to do so. Under the terms of Lend Lease Britain was not allowed to export any similar item to those goods that comprised any part of the lease plan. American inspectors were based in Britain to carefully scrutinise this arrangement. No such restrictions were placed on the soviets. It was better for America to arm British and Empire troops to fight than to send American boys to their deaths in a European war.

Thus Britain became a warrior satelite of the U.S., her power and influence effectively destroyed forever, somethig which satisfied a long-held ambition of the U.S. Britain mistakenly believed the U.S. shared feelings of kinship with her when in reality the U.S. merely saw her as a rival to be bested whenever possible. The U.S. emerged from WW2 immensly wealthier and more powerful whereas Britain was permanently broken and reliant on American goodwill, which after the war was not in great abundance toward her.≈≈≈≈81.145.240.81 00:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I see somebody's been reading Correlli Barnett. :)--Johnbull (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we can analyze states within the framework of competition and selfishness. It's not really something to get passionate about, however. 70.144.90.132 (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

An impartial observer might instead conclude that the British rather cleverly arranged for the cost of policing the world to be transferred from her own Empire's taxpayers to the US taxpayer, apparently without any of the latter, or their government, noticing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.42 (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The truth about Britain's coffin

The above entry is a very interesting read and that is about it. It is one very disturbed point of view. If you read your history and apparently this guy has not. The US basically gave this material at $0.10/ on the USD value 1945, you must be joking when you state the US had another motive, they could and did have the right to ask for full payment but didn't. Do you know anyhting about interest rates?? at 2%, this was a gift. As for the territory, you view is again wrong. The US didn't demand anything. Britian offerd a long lease on territories close to the US for Defense, these included Caribbean, Newfoundland and Bermuda, all of which were given back, but during the time the bases were active, these facilities provided defense, security and income to these island nations. During the War ,It gave the right to America, to build and hold bases there for defence and for the protection of the convoys heading to Britian. Britian, did not have the ships, aircraft or man power to protect these islands. You got somthing for nothing and it the US worked for it. You must also understand, that Britian declared war on Germany, not having the money to back up there word and or intent. Please try understand you cannot compare the Britain to the Soviets, ( Britain 31 billion and USSR 11 billion) Britain also was not in a position to tie dowm 4,000,000 Germans on the eastern front and lose over 20 millions of its own people, during the war. As for the good will, the lend lease was not the first time the US had to bail out Britian. As for the time, Britain had just been defeated in France and they had just left all there equipment on the beaches in Dunkirk, which they did not have the money to replace. So I would asked that in relation to the history of this event, please know you facts, before writting a very distorted view of a very benevolent nation. As for Britain, you cannot blame the US for Britains money problems, as it was there choice. Finally,Read up on the loan the US gave Britian during World War I, as all payments were stopped in 1934 and have never been repayed. on todays value it is also in the billions.Jacob805 (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless i have missed something, there is no mention of the length of time the USA has access to British Bases? Is it to be in perpetuity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by High king of ireland (talk • contribs) 02:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

" ... You must also understand, that Britian (sic) declared war on Germany, not having the money to back up there word and or intent. ..." - I think you'll find that Britain declared war on Germany on the understanding that they would be fighting alongside the French, who also declared war on Germany. That France lasted all of six weeks in 1940 was no fault of the British, nor could it reasonably have been foreseen by either nation.

The US has access to the UK-owned bases for 99 years from the date of the agreement in 1940, the bases being built on land leased to the US for that term, hence the "Lease" part of the "Lend-Lease".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 09:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Germany's Moral Liability for Repayment

Just a naive thought: As the UK's Lend Lease debt was solely incurred to fight German tyranny, should the repayment of this debt ultimately be borne by Germany? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.132.223 (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think they tried that after World War I. It didn't quite work out too well. --71.172.37.93 (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make it a bad idea, just an unsuccessful one. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ethically yes, probably, but they never will. Harland1 (^t/_c) 16:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise of the question.Historian932 (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Opposition in US?

The Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act article has the following intriguing statement "By March 1956, it was being said in Washington, D.C. that the amount of correspondence on the bill exceeded anything seen since the previous high-water mark of public controversy, the Lend-Lease Act of 1941". This controversy does not seem to be discussed here, which seems an omission. 84.92.241.186 (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Aid to USSR

I've come across the statement elsewhere that about half of all the lend-lease aid to the USSR went from the US west coast via Vladivostok and the Trans-Siberian railway. Does anyone know anything about this? It seems surprising, given that the US was at war with Japan for most of that time; American ships would have had trouble on the journey, surely? Xyl 54 (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

From Collins Atlas of World War II edited by John Keegan (2006) ISBN 10:0-00-721465-0 on Convoys to the USSR: in 1943 “the important American convoys to Russia via the North Pacific and Bering Strait to Nikolayevsk were maintained”. The map shows Soviet & US/Soviet convoys from the American West Coast to Alaska and to Vladivostock, Nikolayevsk & Sovetskaya Gavan]]. Nikolayevsk-on-Amur does not have a rail connection, so I suppose material would have gone by ship to Vladivostock (the Baikal Amur Mainline to Sovetskaya Gavan was completed post-war).

I have added links to the “Voice of Russia” website re Lend-Lease. Hugo999 (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Lend-Lease, Northern Convoys from the Voice of Russia website
• from the Voice of Russia website

Thanks!

I found a book (Comrades in Arms by Jean Beaumont) with some detail on this. Apparently after Dec 1941, as Japan and the Soviet Union weren’t at war with each other ( and wanted to keep it that way) the Japanese didn’t interdict soviet vessels on this route, though some were sunk unintentionally and the Japanese seemed to have searched them for contraband/war materiel, so only food and raw materials were transported. And only soviet ships could be used; a plan to use US ships under the Soviet flag came to nothing. Also the route only got into high gear after the end of the Aleutian campaign in 1943.

In addition, Brian Garfield’s book The 1000 Mile War describes the air ferry route to Siberia via Alaska.

Xyl 54 (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The transportation of the lend-lease aid to the USSR through the Pacific route is also discussed in the memoirs of Anastas Mikoyan:

• http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&BBID=4313914&v3=1

The goods were transported on Soviet vessels. They were occasional detained by Japan, but as the USSR and Japan were not at war, they were not seized.

Lend Lease versus Destroyers for Bases Deal

This article states in the introduction that the British gave the USA bases in return for lend lease, however in the main body of the article it says this was actually the earlier, separate Destroyers for Bases deal. One of these statements (the introduction or the main body) is wrong it seems. I'm pretty sure it is the introduction. --Shimbo (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Quantities of goods delivered to Soviet Union

Why has the detailed table of US deliveries to the USSR been removed? It's still present in the Russian article, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.59.81.56 (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Intro sentence

'This program is not seen as a decisive step away from American non-interventionism since the end of World War I and towards international involvement'. Is this really meant to be in the negative? I would have thought that it would be seen as a decisive step. Harland1 (^t/_c) 16:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Far more money for today's dollar

The article claims that the dollars are 14 more than in 1945.I don't agree.Then a brent of oil had price low than US$1 and an onze of gold had a price of less than US$40.Today a brent of oil costs more than US$130 and an onze of gold is more than US$1,200.We must also remember that gas, diesel oil,etc. were under then under rationing in United States.Land-lease gave more than 395,000 trucks to former Soviet Union, between 1941 and 1945.The american help for England, former Soviet Union would be to hundreds of billions of dollars in today's money. Agre22 (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)agre22

Who payed the bill?

The main article states "A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to nearly $700 billion at 2007 prices) worth of supplies were shipped"... Is it known how these billions were financed? Who gave the money to pay the bills? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.227.128.90 (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The American tax payer paid for the items ordered under Lend-Lease. 73.151.157.60 (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The American taxpayers. 71.101.133.40 (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't in cash, it was the cash value of the supplies given. As it was in the posession of the United States Federal Government before it was transferred to countries through Lend-Lease, then it can be safely assumed that the money through with the US government acquired said supplies would be through US taxpayer dollars. Also, it's "paid," not "payed." Nottheking (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Trucks

The statement "Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built." is completely false. USSR even during the war built more trucks itself than it got from LL. It also ignores the more than a million trucks it started the war with as well as the thousands it captured from the Germans. The correct phrasing should be that nearly 2/3s out of trucks at the frontlines were U.S.-built. This was because they were newer models which made them better able to handle offroad or poor roads as well as being a bit more reliable overall. Away from the frontlines however USSR had 4-5 times as many trucks again as in the frontline and those were almost entirely not LL models. 217.208.225.55 (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Policy really changed by Hitler?

Isn't it a little overdramatic to state that:

"Hitler recognized this and consequently had his submarines attack US ships such as the SS Robin Moor, an unarmed merchant steamship destroyed by a German U-boat on 21 May, 1941 outside of the war zone."

Is there any direct evidence that Hitler himself personally ordered a change in policy? (as opposed to, for example, a simple case of misidentification by the submerged u-boat? If this really was a sea-change in policy [no pun intended] there would have dozens if not hundreds of such incidents throughout 1941 i would think, based on the number of transport ships and German submarines in the Atlantic. Also the fact that this attack was predated by an American destroyer on a German submarine calls this narrative into question (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_American_shots_fired_in_World_War_II):

"The first time Americans engaged in hostile action after September 1, 1939 was on April 10, 1941, when the destroyer USS Niblack attacked a German U-boat that had just sunk a Dutch freighter. The Niblack was picking up survivors of the freighter when it detected the U-boat preparing to attack. The Niblack attacked with depth charges and drove off the U-boat. There were no casualties onboard the Niblack or the U-boat."

Iow, at least one German u-boat had already been attacked by a U.S. warship. Does this automatically mean that FDR ordered his navy to wage war on Germany?Historian932 (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Poor background history

This is an article about Lend Lease --it is not the place for speculation about World War II. in particular it is not the place for bad history -- such claims as "the people of Great Britain were alone in their struggle against Nazi Germany." That of course is false, as the people of Canada, Australia and other dominions were in the war against Germany too. Industry in the United States was supplying the British war effort. The problem by early 1941 was that the British were running out of money to pay for their war supplies, something had to be done on the financial side. Canada in fact gave a gift of $1,000,000,000. The United States set up a financial program--Lend lease--to continue the shipment of war supplies that had already begun, along with other arrangements such as destroyers-for-bases, the provided war supplies without the use of British money. Rjensen (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if my most recent contribution to this article, which contains factual material supported by solid references, was not immediately edited to the point of near removal. The paragraph with which it was replaced is certainly more concise but in my view a little dry as a consequence. The purpose of the Historical Background section I created was to provide readers with a sense of why the Lend Lease law was proposed and why both President Roosevelt and the American people were sympathic to the idea of providing material aid to Great Britain. I really don't think that giving some factual background about what the British were up against during the "Battle of Britain" can be considered a "Pro-British" POV. ColonelDavy (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Colonel Davy

Facts, Not Speculation or Bad History

Nothing I have presented in the Historical Background section can be accurately termed "speculation." It is a fact that the Luftwaffe bombed London and other English cities. It is also a fact that the RAF was credited by Churchill as the only thing that held off a German invasion. The Churchill quote is factual as well. It is also a fact that President Roosevelt and most Americans were sympathetic to the British. This is hardly speculation so I don't see how it can be cast as "bad history." It is true that I originally erred in not including the fact that the Commonwealth nations were assisting the British but it is also true that Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc., were not being bombed by the Luftwaffe. That is what I meant by "struggling alone." ColonelDavy (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)ColDavy

it is a fact that Lend lease came long after the Battle of Britain was won and had little to do with it, so we drop that stuff. to include it would falsely suggest that LL was a response to that. It was not. It was a response to the British financial difficulties. At the time of the Blitz, the Americans were selling large quantities of war supplies to the British. it is bad Wikipedia policy to make these long-winded assertions with no reliable sources. It is bad history to not mention the isolationist movement in the United States. it is biased history to present the history of the lend lease solely from the perspective of London in 1940, rather than London and Washington (and Berlin and Ottawa) in 1941.Rjensen (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur and agree that the earlier edits emphasize the British background, in contravenance of WP:WEIGHT. The introduction of a different citation and referencing system also needs attention. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC).

Characterizing my contribution as speculation and bad history is not the sort of constructive criticism I thought I could expect from my fellow contributors. It is true that Lend-Lease did not start until after the so-called "Battle of Britain" was over in October 1940 but the law was proposed and passed by Congress during the subsequent "Blitz," which lasted well into 1941. As for the supposed "weight" of the section, I think we need to remember that we are talking about verifiable events that occurred in Britain, not British opinions about what happened. I did retain most of the paragraph that mentions American isolationsists. I have also cited the NYTimes for my mention of American preparations for war. I really don't understand how this contravenes any WP rules. ColonelDavy (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)ColonelDavy

Wikipedia rules require reliance on secondary sources -- reliable sources of bound by serious scholars. None of them have been used by ColonelDavy. He did not look at any books in American history. LL was a financial program, that enabled American factories to continue to sell their production to Britain after that country was virtually broke and could no longer pay for its urgent needs. American business was already selling war supplies during the blitz-- and supposed sympathy for the hard-pressed victims of the German air assault played a very minor role in the decisions of corporations and banks to fund the shipment of war supplies. Rjensen (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You may do what you like with this section. I don't really care any more. ColonelDavy (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)ColonelDavy

You have to understand that writing an encyclopedic article can't be written in a "pop" style; stick to connected, supported statements. The idea that Britain was being pounded by Luftwaffe attacks, subjected to a U-boat campaign and that it stood alone against the Nazi hordes, is just not factually correct and smacks of sensationalism. I have to agree with Rjensen in his concerns that the paragraph has to be revised. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Bzuk: For the sake of conciseness, I have already edited the paragraph to take out the parts that you and Professor Jensen deem "sensationalist." But I have to say that I am thoroughly astonished by your claim that the Luftwaffe's bombing of England, the German U-Boat campaign against Great Britain, and so on is not factually correct. I don't know where you learned history but how you hold that well-documented facts such as these are neither connected nor supported by evidence is beyond my comprehension. I have seen for myself some of the World War II bomb damage that still remains on buildings in London. Are you also a Holocaust denier? ColonelDavy (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying that the details of the bombing or U-boat war are not factually correct, it's just that adding the obvious is unnecessary. BTW, 10 books, hundreds of academic articles published, editor of a magazine on the subject of aviation, 17 films and the appointment as an Air Force Historian, your credentials again? FWiW, don't throw around accusations, you are already in breach of WP:CIVIL. Bzuk (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Bzuk: Your credentials are impressive but in your previous statement you very clearly said: "The idea that Britain was being pounded by Luftwaffe attacks, subjected to a U-boat campaign and that it stood alone against the Nazi hordes, is just not factually correct and smacks of sensationalism." Now you are saying that you didn't say that. I see now that it was you and not me, who took out the parts about London being bombed, etc. but that's okay, although I disagree with your position that these facts are obvious to all Wikipedia readers. Many young people, not just scholars like yourself, rely on this site. They may not be as informed as you. As for my credentials, I am a college history professor with a Ph.D. in Transatlantic Studies who may not be able to match your list of accomplishments but I am no fool either. BTW, I did not accuse you of anything. I merely asked a question. In any event, as I said in my message last night, I am growing weary of this exchange so you won't be hearing any more from me after this, at least not on this topic. In closing I would just like to add a suggestion: In future, instead of making assumptions and pompously attacking another contributor, why not try to be more tactful and offer some suggestions for rewording in a positive tone? In short, it is not what you and Professor Jensen have said but the unfriendly way you said it that I have found a little hard to take. ColonelDavy (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)ColonelDavy

How specific do you want to go, the Luftwaffe undertook an extensive bombing campaign of British capital cities that essentially ended in September 1940, followed by interdictor raids in the months following and leading up to the V-1/V-2 "terror" campaigns. Using the terminology of "pounded" was the contentious issue. Britain and other nations including Canada and the United States were the targets of the U-boat "wolf packs" on the high seas, although the intention as you stated was to starve the United Kingdom by denying needed supplies by seagoing vessels. Stating that Britain was essentially alone is fine but it was not the only combatant nation facing Nazi Germany in 1940–1941 as many other occupied nations continued with governments-in-exile. Introducing the old canard of "only a question" is tantamount of an accusation and how did the holocaust became entangled in any of these discussions? Both Professor Jensen and I have not made any accusations and had been tacitly undertaking a discourse, outlining concerns of content as much as style. You applied the WP:BOLD stratagem, received some criticism, wherein the WP:BRD was invoked. The article did not suffer from a review nor attention by three interested parties and if you take your leave, bear in mind, I bear you no ill will. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Having read through the Lend-Lease article and talk page to inform myself on a subject about which I had no detailed knowledge, I hesitate to intrude in this rather hotly argued section, but I was puzzled by Bzuk's assertion above that "(the) bombing campaign of British cities essentially ended in September 1940". The German bombing up to that point was essentially a daylight campaign against RAF Fighter Command's airfields in an attempt to neutralise FC before the planned invasion of Britain. When German losses became too great, they switched to first daylight then night terror/strategic bombing of cities throughout the United Kingdom, this finally tailing off by June 1941. It is true that to say that Britain did not stand alone while supported by other British Empire countries, but the British homeland did bear the brunt of German attacks until the Germans turned their attentions to the Mediterranean area and to the USSR.Mabzilla (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The Tizard Mission

Surely the technological advances made by British scientists and offered to the United States by the Tizard Mission in exchange for financial and industrial help deserve a mention? For instance, the official historian of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, James Phinney Baxter III, wrote: "When the members of the Tizard Mission brought the cavity magnetron to America in 1940, they carried the most valuable cargo ever brought to our shores." Yet apparently none of this intellectual property counted against the British debt to the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabzilla (talk • contribs) 01:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The British gave the US the information for nothing while the war was on-going, no fees for using the information or patents was payable. Once the war had ended such fees then became payable for further US use from that point on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The Tizard Mission has nothing to do with Lend-Lease 73.151.157.60 (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

"Shipped to France"

I think the lede may need a little clarification. Given that France was under Axis occupation/Vichy control at the time of the start of lend-lease, our lede seems somewhat confusing. Was lend-lease matériel delivered to free-French forces, or was it delivered to France after liberation, or both? Perhaps someone with access to the relevant sources and/or the knowledge to find them can clear this up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

yes, it was Free France and I changed it. Rjensen (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Canada

Why does Canada take up 10+ paragraphs in this article? It's not even mentioned in the opening, unlike China, which is then never mentioned again. And the article specifically says "Canada did not use a term like "lend lease" but it did give Britain gifts totaling $3.5 billion during the war". So, why the crap is it being discussed in an article called (a term exactly like) "lend lease"? Is there a line in the arachnid article stating "lobsters do not have 8 legs but they do have 10"? It seems like Canada had nothing to do with Lend-lease but someone felt excluded and shoe-horned Canada into the article. Thedoorhinge (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Canada had a major program that was quite similar in function. It is the functionality in terms of historical events, rather than the terminology, that is important.Rjensen (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that Canada is given its own section when it did not participate in Lend-lease. This is not to say Canadian aid was unimportant, but dedicating an entire section on top of paragraphs about return lend-lease (which again, Canada did not participate in) seems unneeded and confusing. --Level3Sentry (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

the Canadian program could not be called "lend lease" for political reasons, but it operated in very similar manner and was a key part of the Allied effort. Rjensen (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to expand the current Canadian aid section. Canada paid cash for American equipment, so that shoehorned text under 'Reverse Lend-lease' isn't just confusing but factually inaccurate. There were neither loans nor leases involving the US. --Level3Sentry (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Canada did participate in Lend Lease under The Hyde Park Declaration. The problem arose that under the early and pre war economic model Canada purchased tools from the US to manufacture goods for the UK they were paid in British Pounds which they could then convert in to US Dollars. This ensured a two way balance of payments flow. However when Lend Lease kicked off with a buy only in USA dollars clause British currency was being diverted to the USA bypassing Canada and so they wernt receiving enough foreign currency to pay for the imports from the USA required to support their own wartime and domestic manufacturing needs. This Declaration allowed US financing to be used for the purchase of Canadian manufactured supplies for the UK and committed the USA to buying $200-300m of Canadian manufactured arms to even out the balance of payments.

http://wartimecanada.ca/sites/default/files/documents/WLMK.HydePark.1941.pdf WatcherZero (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the article could do better at explaining the collaborative nature of the Hyde Park Declaration and the political reasons Canada could not accept Lend-lease. Also, if the scope of the article is to include the Canol project should equal space not be given to the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, or other significant projects facilitated by Canadian aid?

"Because of its close relationship with the United States, however, Canada could not accept lend-lease without jeopardizing its national sovereignty to a politically unacceptable degree. The problem was side-stepped through the Hyde Park Declaration, announced jointly by the Canadian Prime Minister and the President of the United States on 20 April 1941. Its general purpose was to promote economic collaboration between the two countries in the realm of defence and to provide additional assistance to the United Kingdom in doing so. Through its provisions American goods and materials imported by Canada but intended ultimately for use by Great Britain could be brought across the border under the Lend-Lease Act. This interlocking of American lend-lease and Canadian aid to the United Kingdom considerably eased Canada’s balance of payments, without threatening her sovereignty." --Level3Sentry (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Value of materials

added table of values of US aid translated from German wikipedia

The Soviets

US and UK didn't control the usage of deliverd goods, some of which weren't used (a tire plant) and some of them were used by NKVD to committ crimes against humanity Chechnya (Russo-Chechen Conflict, 1800-2000: A Deadly Embrace). In 1945 some of the goods constructed post-war imperialistic power of the SU.Xx236 (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I propose to add NKVD used Studebaker trucks from Lend-Lease during the expulsion of Chechen and Ingush people during which tens of thousands died. Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

not a good idea. It's irrelevant to this article. Rjensen (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, you decide here. But why? Becasue you don't like US help for Soviet genocides?Xx236 (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not about us support to usssr war crimes, it is about relevancy of it. Us didt comited or suported these crimes. If some guy buy/get for free colt gun and use it for robbery and rape, will you blame gun manufacturer for this crime too ? or it is, and allways have been, about end user ? 2A00:1028:9198:E50E:CD7D:9F51:38F8:5A24 (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The FDR's agenda was - Let's deliver everything they want and don't ask any questions.

How were the Soviet engineers trained to serve foreign hardware? Did they obtain manuals in English or Russian? Were there any contacts with the Soviets possible?Xx236 (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The US goal was to defeat Germany. It did not send observers to watch every truck or check the contents of material printed on Lend Lease mimeograph machines or written using Lend Lease pens. Rjensen (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Termination

Finding it surprising the end of this lend lease program is not included. I've seen references to its sudden end (by Truman) yet not the reasons / background for the end. If it's provided elsewhere, perhaps reference to that location at least could be added? Meanom (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Meanom (I rarely edit - so any errors on my part likely due to inexperience. TIA) link to my user page (as it isn't yet showing as a live link): —Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

more detailed info pls, if posible.

it is posible to add here how much lend-lease was recived by usssr, not only shiped from us ports ? type by type (tanks, fuel..etc) and how much % of domestic usssr production it was ? it will be greatly helpfull. 2A00:1028:9198:E50E:CD7D:9F51:38F8:5A24 (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

heavy handed POV that says zero about Lend lease

What's heavy-handed pov like? try our newest editor: Effectively the United States sucked the British of it their wealth, effectively the US was profiteering off the war. He cites two sources on how Britain shipped its gold to Canada --the fear was German invasion. Some gold was used -- during the war gold reserves fell by £152 million but at the end of the war most of the gold was still there in Canada and was shipped back. The British in 1939-41 (before lend lease) bought mostly food and oil from US, Canada, Argentina, etc etc. The articles cited are useless for that. The editor needs to read Hancock and Gowing, British War Economy esp 101-35 on "cash and carry" and p 352 on gold movements. The main reason UK ran out of money is that its exports collapsed--to near zero for Europe. Its factories produced munitions for British use and NOT for sale, plus items needed at home. This was done by stropping production of export products in order to make airplanes and shells etc. Rjensen (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The addition is WP:WEASEL, WP:POV, WP:SOAPBOX editorialising, and I'm not convinced of the quality of most of the sources used. The editor trying to introduce it needs to respect WP:BRD and engage here, not edit war. (Hohum ^@) 14:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't support the addition but there is a kernel of truth in it, so much gold was accumulated in the US that other countries didn't have enough national stockpiles to underwrite their own currencies, the Dollar essentially became the new gold standard after WW2 and was formalised as the "gold exchange standard" by the Bretton Woods treaty at $35 per ounce, this continued up until the start of the 70's when France cashed out its Dollars for Gold and the US was bankrupted by Vietnam, the US was too financially strained to maintain the standard which was dropped to $38 in 1971 by the Smithsonian Agreement and again to $42.22 in 1973, within two weeks of this final devaluation of the Dollar the US crashed out of the standard. WatcherZero (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Personal opinion

As one Roosevelt biographer has characterized it: "If there was no practical alternative, there was certainly no moral one either. Britain and the Commonwealth were carrying the battle for all civilization, and the overwhelming majority of Americans, led in the late election by their president, wished to help them."[9] As the President himself put it, "There can be no reasoning with incendiary bombs."[10]

This section to me rather sounds like the person who wrote it stating their personal argument why they think lend lease was good. It doesn't seem very factual. Secondly it also contradicts the previous part that says the american public was against intervention. Personally I'm just a guest here so I leave it to you people to decide whether or not to make any change to it.2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:1821:BEC4:CC4A:91C1 (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Incoherent addition.

This keeps being added. The editor immediately reverts its removal and doesn't appear to want to take it to talk, so I will.

This is incoherent:

""Even such a relatively small volume of supplies in the Soviet Union had a positive value for the Red army in the autumn and winter of 1941 Playing a significant role in filling the losses of the red army in military equipment, weapons and military materials, lend-lease did not have a significant impact on the course of hostilities in 1941, as, however, and in the subsequent. It was obvious to the direct participants events'. At the end of may 1945, Hopkins, assessing the importance of lend-lease in an interview with Stalin for the Soviet Union, stated the following: "We never believed that our help lend-lease is the main factor in the Soviet victory over Hitler on the Eastern front. It was achieved by heroism and blood of the Russian army.""

It starts by saying the supplies had a positive value, then said it wasn't significant, and then becomes incomprehensible "as, however, and in the subsequent". "It was obvious to the direct participants events" (Hohum ^@) 15:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The fundamental point of all of his edits is not wrong as Lend-Lease was useful, but not vital in the winter of 1941-1942, but some of his stats are skewed to make the US look bad overall. His material badly needs to be rewritten to remove the incoherency and properly cite the material that he's referencing. Citing all 12 volumes of a book really isn't helpful. I haven't looked over the whole article, but there are some second-order effects that the Soviets are really reluctant to acknowledge, AFAIK, like the fact that they were able to focus their economy on weapon production because Lend-Lease supplied their economy with the trucks, locomotives and other things that the economy simply needed to run. Not to mention that Western supply of foodstuffs allowed them to transfer men from agriculture to the Red Army.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Because I can't even figure out what he's trying to say in the incomprehensible parts, I can't rewrite them. Any knowledgeable volunteers? Also, he's gone way beyond WP:3RR. (Hohum ^@) 19:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

it’s @Pelirojopajaro:, a “minor” point. Restoring controversial material, even by reversion and editing, is never a “minor edit”, so perhaps cleanup based on it not should be labeled as such, either? I think that can slide through some watchlist settings.

Next, and aimed generally, or rather at the IP editor who has written and repeated restored his work, there are several problems with the restored material, all mentioned or alluded to here, in the edit summaries, or elsewhere. To mention a few:

It’s original research, at least in Wikipedia’s use of the term. This reflects one person’s judgement about what the centerline consensus of Russian historians is, using a single cite as an example

. It needs either a decent cite that explicitly states this, or a group of examples, preferably laced with a weighted sprinkling of counterexamples.

Amateur translations, as continually restored here, aren’t useful cites, especially when the translator’s English skills are so...so “much what they are” might be a charitable way to describe ‘em. At a certain point, a bad translation also becomes first publication, i.e. what Wikipedia calls Original Research. Perhaps some of the other difficulties stem partly from this.

The reasons for not delevering heavy bombers as lend-lease were neither obvious nor as stated by the IP. There was a fundamental difference in bombing doctrine between the Western allies and the Eastern. The US wasn’t giving up any of what it viewed as essential materiel it was in short supply of to be used in a sideshow elsewhere. Qwirkle (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The IPs additions seems indeed questionable, he/she also revealed a strong point of view, considerable obtuseness and insistence on being right. The edit warrings here and on the article of Napoleon III speak for themselves. Dircovic (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The US produced 30,000 heavy bombers before the end of the war. USSR-100. The US gave nothing to the USSR. What's there to argue about? That the US could not give 100-200? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Россиянин2019 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

fringe theories

[copy ex https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hohum&action=edit&section=151 Hello,

I tried to undone the IPs contribution, as they are based on fringe theories but without sucess. The IP pretends to claim that the statements come from the book 'The Great Patriotic War of 1941-45' Vol. 2. (pdf link) but that's not true. (just check the cite to p. 358) Most of the statements in fact come 1:1 from this article: https://ukraina.ru/pobeda/20150507/1012991229.html written by Evgeny Spitsyn, a die-hard Stalin apologist and revisionist.

According to historian Irina Pavlova, Spitsyn’s article is "a symbol of present-day Russian historiography of World War II and a symbol of the return to the Stalinist interpretation" in the most extreme way. In it, the writer repeats "all the myths about Stalin as the main peacemaker and supporter of collective security in the 1930s." link: http://euromaidanpress.com/2017/05/08/moscow-completely-restores-and-promotes-stalinist-conception-of-ww2-pavlova-says-euromaidan-press/ 2A02:1206:4589:3F40:D1B8:DBF3:4E0E:9001 (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Аnswer:

Dear companion! I can assure you that the link given by me is correct. You must have just made a mistake and looked at volume 2, not volume 3.

https://encyclopedia.mil.ru/files/VOV/tom3/VOV_Vol3.pdf

You can look at page 358 (in Russian) and there you will find a fragment that I quoted:

""In the struggle against the common enemy, the allies assisted the Soviet Union. The coalition was finally formed by the summer of 1942 the U.S. Economy and Britain was increasingly rebuilt in a military way. In 1942 on lend-lease in USSR delivered more than 2.5 thousand aircraft, 3 thousand tanks, about 79 thousand cars, radio equipment, hydroacoustic devices, gasoline, food, footwear and so on. However, "by the end of 1942, the agreed program of deliveries to the USSR were made by the Americans and the British by 55%. In 1941-1942, the USSR received only 7% of cargo shipped during the war from the USA. The main number of weapons and other the materials were received by the Soviet Union in 1944-1945". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.92.126.42 (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense in opinions about the ‎significance of Lend-Lease.

Nonsense in opinions about the ‎significance of Lend-Lease. From the opinions it can be concluded that the question of the ‎significance of lend-lease today is considered almost only as a question of the significance of lend-lease for the USSR. But!!!!!!!! Why only for USSR????? And this despite the fact that the USSR was not in the first place in terms of American aid. According to data of supplies, the UK was in first place, and the USSR - only in second, and in terms of aid-the UK 3 times (!!!!!!!!!!) surpasses the Soviet Union. At the same time, Britain is 3 times smaller than the USSR in population. But the opinion of the extreme importance of lend-lease for the USSR dominates here, and first of all, Russian sources are quoted, fully supporting this point of view. All this, generally speaking, requires consideration. It is impossible to deny the influence of the past and present political situation in the world on the opinion of people on this issue. In the end, it's just stupid. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Россиянин2019 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Significance of Lend-Lease. View from Russia.

I hope that visitors here will be more tolerant of another opinion and will not be inclined to impose their opinion and ignore the opinion that they do not like and to quote only those sources that are "beneficial" to them and not to quote those sources that are "not beneficial" to them. I have no intention to impose my opinion and only want to bring information that there are different opinions in Russia. Including about lend-lease assistance. To understand the essence of the issue, you need a balance of opinions, you need to listen to the opinions of the other side.

I do not propose to erase the opinion that lend-lease was of exceptional importance for the USSR. No, I suggest adding the following:

This point of view (the exceptional importance of lend-lease for the USSR) is not generally accepted among Russian historians. There is also the point of view that the supply of military equipment and materials from the United States and Britain played a major role in the second half of the war and brought victory much closer. But before the situation of the turning point in the war, before the victory at Stalingrad, the US and UK supplies were limited. This was largely due to the difficult situation in the UK, exhausted by the blockade, as well as the fact that US military production in 1941-42 was in the process of deployment. Such a point of view is stated, for example, in the collection of works of Russian historians (The Great Patriotic war of 1941-45. In 12 volumes. 2012 edition): "In the struggle against the common enemy, the allies assisted the Soviet Union. The coalition was finally formed by the summer of 1942. The economies of US and Britain were increasingly rebuilt in a military way. It was delivered more than 2.5 thousand aircraft, 3 thousand tanks, about 79 thousand cars, radio equipment, hydroacoustic devices, gasoline, food, footwear and so on in 1942 on lend-lease in USSR . However, "by the end of 1942, the agreed program of deliveries to the USSR were made by the Americans and the British by 55%. In 1941-1942, the USSR received only 7% of cargo shipped during the war from the USA. The main number of weapons and other the materials were received by the Soviet Union in 1944-1945 " .

In his 1944 book, Stettinius (Secretary of State under Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt) wrote: "The role of arms supplies to the Red Army, the role of lend-lease during the battles with Germany in the summer of 1941 is difficult to assess correctly. If we talk about the shortage in Russia of specific military materials and equipment, such as trucks or phones, lend-lease played an important role here. But in general, the volume of military materials supplied by us is not too large. We know that American technology served a good purpose in the defense of Stalingrad. But frankly, we have no detailed information about the benefits that brought in that year, our weapons to the Russians. In 1942, the Russians and we were just learning to work together as allies, and it would be foolish to pretend that our relations with Russia from the very beginning were as friendly and frankly as with England and China" (China under the political regime of Chiang Kai-shek).

Россиянин2019 (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Generally its a pretty revisionist viewpoint, you have all the Soviet Leaders immediately after the war saying how it saved their country and it wouldn't have survived without it and issuing telegrams of thanks and commendations to allies. Then as the Cold War goes on that becomes increasingly censored with references to foreign weapons removed from memoirs and downplayed and then by the height of the cold war you have historians arguing that it had no effect and trying to demonstrate through incorrect and partial data that the materials only arrived in significant numbers after the tide had turned (when in Reality 25% of Medium and Heavy tanks added to the Soviet army during 1941 were from Britain and by the Battle of Moscow 40% of medium and heavy tanks in Soviet service were Lend-Lease tanks).

This a-historical viewpoint is then revived after the 90's when pushing the nostalgic and rose tinted "life was better in the Soviet Union" and "Stalin was a great economic boon for Russia" a viewpoint that was significantly debunked by Soviet Historians by the 80's. WatcherZero (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Answer: I agree that the accusations of bias and silencing the role of the United States and Britain have an objective reason in the "cold war". But in the United States and the West similarly silent about the role of the USSR in the victory. You won't deny it, will you? Here, for example, is a statement from a 1944 book by Stettinius. But after 1945 such a already not wrote. Isn't? I dare warn you against the usual error in calculating the percentages. Perhaps, in the West until now not understand war 1941-45 in Russia. Well, they probably believe the beaten German generals when they complain that the "Nibelungs" were defeated by hordes of "barbarians". But before the counteroffensive 1941 under Moscow the ratio military forces was on the side Germans. Especially after the defeat of the Bryansk front 2-14. 10. 1941.

"By December 6, Kalinin, Western and South-Western fronts received 27 divisions, thus bringing the total number of troops involved in the counteroffensive to 1 million 100 thousand people, as well as having 7652 guns and mortars, 774 tanks and 1,000 aircraft. In total on the Western strategic direction as a part of three Soviet fronts was almost 41% of the land forces, here was concentrated almost 40% of tanks, about 32% of guns and mortars of the total number in the army. Army group "Center" consisted of 1 million 708 thousand people, about 13.5 thousand guns and mortars, 1170 tanks and 615 aircraft. A simple comparison of the figures shows that the enemy outnumbered the Soviet troops in personnel-1.5 times, in artillery-in 1.8 times, in tanks-1.5 times, and only in combat aircraft it was inferior to 1.6 times" .

Do not think that US&UK sent tanks and guns and everything became OK. And "those Russians" do not want to admit it. Yes?

/Россиянин2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Россиянин2019 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

At the start of the invasion the Soviet army outnumbered the Germans 3 to 1, it was never an issue of quantity but the Soviet failure to bring their own forces to bear in resistance, even still on the frontline during the first months of the invasion the Soviets had the numerical superiority, the Germans had 3.8m men and around 2,500 tanks and 3,000 aircraft while the Soviets had 2.9m men, 11,000 tanks and 8,000 aircraft. WatcherZero (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Answer:

What do you mean, "it was never a question of quantity"? In war, it is always question number 1 - the ratio of forces. You even surprise. The Germans, generally speaking, has always been characterized by the desire and ability to achieve numerical advantage on the battlefield at the expense of better tactics. And at the beginning of the war-I remind you-at the expense of treachery, violation of obligations under treaties. Hitler or Wilhelm 2 did not care - the treaties were broken, if only it would bring success. Again I dare to warn you against mistake, you should not just calculate percentages. This (the lack of superiority in military forces) explains the limited success in the battles at Moscow. The advantage over the Germans was not or it was small. Therefore, although there was a victory, but in fact the Germans retreated only 150-250 km and continued to pose a threat to Moscow.

Россиянин2019 (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

References

In addition to the topic of the importance of lend-lease. View from Russia

Lend-lease for the USSR in the first year of the Great Patriotic war: features, problems, results The text of the scientific article on the specialty " History of Russia»

Komarkov Alexander Yurievich Journal «Society. Nature. Development (Terra Humana)». 2012. N.1(22)

Was the USSR in need of lend-lease supplies at 1941-1942? Doubtless he did. However, the number of received weapons, materials and equipment could not satisfy the enormous demands of the red army and Soviet industry. Data on the supply of Anglo-American equipment, even taking into account the indicators for November 1942, do not go to any comparison with the production of domestic samples in the same time. For the period from July 1941 to the end of 1942 in the Soviet Union was produced 29200 tanks and 29900 aircraft without taking into account the available in troops to the beginning of the war . The share of allied supplies in the total tank and aviation fleet of the Red Army, thus, amounted to 14% and 10%, respectively (…). A similar situation was observed with vehicles. 48000 trucks and jeeps received by the USSR on lend-lease by November 1942 correlate with the total number already available in the army by June 22, mobilized from national economy during the first 18 months of the war and produced for 1941-1942 597000 Soviet cars as 1:12 (calculated by the author). It can be said that the supply of arms from the United States and Britain in the period did not play the important role (…). On the other hand, from the United States alone, goods weighing 1389000 tons were delivered, where finished equipment, weapons and ammunition amounted to only 279000 tons. the rest fell on food (320000 tons), metals, products of the chemical and oil industry (763000 tons). These materials contributed to the deployment of Soviet production in the evacuated factories more actively than the supply of equipment manufactured abroad contributed to the success of the Red army in the crucial battle for Moscow. Supply of allies in 1941-1942. gave opportunity compensate for lack of or the absence of series of needed for Soviet military production species products and raw materials. Among them, American supplies of steel, copper, aluminum, telephone cable, leather, shoes for the army . Analysis of the implementation of the First agreement on economic supply for the "Russian front" allows you to see all the factors that effect the Moscow Protocol (First protocol, signed at Moscow October 2, 1941) was made by the British and Americans to a lesser extent compared to subsequent. Present at first shortcomings of organizational properties were gradually eliminated, and work on the supply of the Red army closer to the second half of the war was adjusted. However, another thing is also true - the implementation of the decisions of the Moscow conference in the autumn of 1941. coincided with the hardest battles of the first period of the Great Patriotic war, which were accompanied by huge losses of the Red army in men and equipment. Following the logic of events, it is necessary to recognize that the Soviet Union, needing at 1941-1942 in the maximum volumes of economic assistance, actually received it in minimal quantities. From this point of view, the version of lend-lease's decisive contribution to the USSR's ability to stop the German blitzkrieg is controversial. Россиянин2019 (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

References

The real importance of lend-lease. View from Russia.

It is necessary to understand the importance of lend-lease not from the point of view of an ordinary person. This person knows about the war in terms of the number of military equipment-tanks, aircraft, guns, well, autocars or food for soldiers. But this is not enough. In addition, the estimates of the percentages distort the whole picture. Because in war, it is not the percentages that matter, but the quantity on the battlefield. In addition, I repeat, the factor of politics and historical memory is already beginning to influence here. That is, actual problems and their own experience. The negative experience of relations in the form of the "cold war"is superimposed here. Russians, therefore, are usually strongly opposed to the meanings that without lend-lease would be a defeat for the USSR. Well, for residents of the United States or Britain - it was the opposite. Therefore, they begin to argue with references to biased and marginal Russian historians, but who completely agree with them. Historical knowledge is necessary to correctly assess the importance of lend-lease. From this point of view I think to give the scientific point of view of an assessment of importance of deliveries for the USSR. Lend-lease deliveries were most important for the manufacturing industry.

In 1930 years in the USSR were made big mistakes in construction industry production explosives, which are used under production ammunition (above all toluene). Production on the basis of oil products (kerosene),instead of coal, intensively developed. In this connection, the resource base of production was limited. After the defeats of 1941 and the loss of significant territory with coal mining, this simply created a critical situation. Not only the increase in production, but even the maintenance of the achieved level has become impossible. Lend-lease supplies in the production of toluene (materials for explosives) were really critical here and reached 30-50%. Of course, the USSR would not have stopped fighting if it had not received toluene from the United States. This would lead to a decrease in the quality of ammunition (they would dilute the high-explosive substance with salt and so on) and reduce the overall production of ammunition (as the Germans did by 1945). But it would be much harder for Russians to fight, and much easier for Germans on the contrary. For the Germans it was much easier to fight in 1941-1942. Later, no. - - - - - -

Development of explosives production in the USSR in the 1930s of the XX Century and lend-lease deliveries during the Great Patriotic war The text of the scientific article on the specialty “History. Historical science”

Balysh Andrey Nikolaevich

Bulletin of the peoples ' Friendship University of Russia. Series: History Of Russia. 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Россиянин2019 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

(...) With the temporary occupation of the regions of the Donetsk basin, the TNT plants completely lost coal toluene of the coke plants of Donbass. Accordingly, the production capacity for coal toluene decreased by 2/3, since this product could now be produced only by enterprises of the Eastern group-coke plants of the Urals and Siberia. Meanwhile, during the war, the annual demand for toluene was about 80,000 tons (9). Since only 10,000 to 11,000 tons of coal toluene could meet this demand, the remaining 70,000 tons of toluene had to be supplied by pyrolysis of kerosene. To provide kerosene production of 70,000 tons of toluene required about 14 million tons of oil. (…) Thus, for a number of reasons, the Soviet industry during the war was unable to provide the production of the most necessary explosives-TNT-the necessary amount of toluene. In this situation, the only way out was to place orders for toluene, as well as TNT, abroad, in particular, in the United States. The fuel base of this country was incomparably more powerful than the fuel base of the USSR. For example, in 1942, coal production in the United States and the USSR amounted to 583 and 75.5 million tons of oil, respectively - 200 and 22 million tons. (…) The first application for imported toluene was made by the People's Commissariat of munitions in August 1941 for a total of 60,000 tons, with the first delivery of 10,000 tons in 1941. However, such a large order could not be placed immediately. USA took the order on 8,000 tonnes of toluene, with delivery time until mid-1942, the First of 1400 tons of imported toluene entered the Soviet Union in September-October 1941, Because the supply was carried out through ports of the far Eastern USSR, which imported toluene came to the factories for the production of TNT only 3-4 months. after shipment, i.e. in late 1941-early 1942. (…) One of the issues discussed during this conference (Moscow conference in 29.09-1.10.1941) was the supply of toluene and TNT from the United States to the USSR. The Soviet representatives insisted on a monthly supply of toluene in the amount of 4,000 tons, which would allow a year to produce at least 80,000 tons of TNT. This was about 60-65% of the minimum that was needed by the army. However, the Americans were extremely reluctant to meet the requests of the Soviet side. October 1 1941 representative of the American President A. Harriman, head of the British delegation Lord Beaverbrook and Chairman of the delegation of the USSR V. M. Molotov signed the "Secret Protocol of the Moscow conference of representatives of the USSR, USA and Great Britain". For the duration of this Protocol - from October 1941 to the end of June 1942 - the Americans were obliged to supply only 1250 tons of toluene per month, starting from November. "It will be studied the possibility to increase these supplies, was also noted in the Protocol. "In addition, 10,000 tons of TNT will probably be shipped as soon as possible, with the monthly amount reported soon from Washington" (…) In the spring of 1942, the Soviet representatives prepared a corresponding request, in which they asked the United States to supply the Soviet Union with 8 million tons of goods necessary for the front and rear, including 36,000 tons of toluene and 24,000 tons of TNT (about 86,000 tons in terms of TNT) during the year from July 1, 1942. Referring to the lack of ships (tonnage), the Americans agreed to send in the specified period through Murmansk, Arkhangelsk and Basra only 4,400,000 tons, of these, 2,600,000 tons were raw materials and other products that the USSR needed for the production of weapons and ammunition. To equip the latter with TNT, the allies agreed to supply 24,000 tons of toluene and 24,000 tons of finished TNT. Thus, these goods could not be ready to be used by the Soviet Union directly in the summer-autumn of 1942, i.e. in the most active period of hostilities. Therefore, the Americans insisted on sending to the USSR only finished products-tanks, aircraft, guns and ammunition in the amount of about 2,000,000 tons.

The American government promised to use the freed vessels to send its troops to England in preparation for the invasion of Western Europe from there in 1942. In April F. Roosevelt invited the people's Commissar of foreign Affairs of the USSR Molotov in Washington, where he arrived on may 29 at the end of negotiations with the British government. In a conversation held on June 1, 1942, Roosevelt tried to convince Molotov that " the American government seeks and hopes for the creation of a second front in 1942." "In this direction, both in England and in the United States, a lot of preparatory work is underway," Roosevelt said. - One of the ways to accelerate the organization of the second front would be to reduce the supply from the United States to the USSR in order to release additional tonnage for the transfer of American troops and weapons to England". About also spoke and special assistant to the President of the United States G. Hopkins. At the same time (June 1, 1942), he assured Molotov that " the President wants a second front in 1942, and his proposal to reduce in order to accelerate the creation of a second front in 1942, the supplies of the USSR should be considered in the most serious way." "In Molotov's place," said the special assistant to the us President, "he, Hopkins, would have been pleased with the results of the negotiations," as " the chances of a successful resolution of the problem of the second front in 1942 rose far beyond 50%". However, in 1942 the allied landings in France never took place. (…) The reluctance of the Americans to supply the USSR in the second half of 1942 raw materials could have a negative impact on the production of ammunition in the Soviet Union, as their equipment was sorely lacking TNT. Moreover, the question of supplying with imported toluene and TNT could not be solved for about three months. The second Protocol on the supply of arms, ammunition and raw materials by the United States and Britain to the Soviet Union was signed in Washington only on October 6, 1942, although the first Protocol expired on June 30 of the same year. (…) In his message to Roosevelt on October 7, 1942, Stalin was even more specific. Given the problems with tonnage, he was ready to temporarily completely abandon the supply of tanks, artillery, ammunition and small arms, but insisted on monthly deliveries of up to 500 fighters, 10000 trucks (used both for the transfer of troops and as a means of pulling artillery guns), 5000 tons of aluminum and 5000 tons of explosives. In a letter of reply received by Stalin on October 16, 1942, the American President promised to supply the USSR with explosives in the following quantities: in November - 4000 tons, in the following months-5000 tons per month. (…) In 1942-1944, the enterprises of the USSR supplied 361,718 tons of TNT (21) to the Soviet troops, of which 273,193 tons were produced by the Soviet explosives industry, and 88,525 tons (24.47%) came under lend-lease. In turn, in the manufacture of plants of the USSR 271 193 tons of TNT was spent 159 865 tons of toluene, of which imported-64 000 tons, or 40%. With this in mind, the amount of imported toluene (and TNT), in the total balance of supply of Soviet TNT plants, amounted to 54.6% in the period 1942-1944 (about 197,500 tons out of 361,718). (…) As a result, the Red Army's firepower was more than half supplied by allied supplies. This was one of the reasons for the significant delay in hostilities during the Great Patriotic war, since the supply (both TNT and toluene) in the required volume began to be carried out only from the second half of 1943. Before that, the Red army experienced an acute shortage of ammunition, due to the lack of TNT necessary for their equipment. For example, in 1942, the Soviet explosives industry was able to deliver to the front only 88.8 thousand. tons of TNT (with a minimum consumption of 120-130 thousand tons), as allied supplies in the balance of TNT plants amounted to only 30 000 tons, or 33.78%. The situation changed radically in 1944, when allied supplies increased to 65% (102,000 tons of finished TNT, as well as toluene in terms of TNT), and the Soviet industry was able, thanks to this, to give the front 156,000 tons of this explosive. This factor was one of the most important factors that led to the successful conduct of Soviet troops in 1944, numerous large-scale offensive operations. (…) Thus, the need for explosives in wartime was met by the USSR at the expense of its own production and its own raw materials by about 50%, and in some years of the Great Patriotic war (1944) - even less. In the absence of assistance from the allies, this circumstance could lead to severe consequences (at least - a further delay in hostilities) and would negate all our successes achieved in the field of creating new models of military equipment and weapons. The reluctance to publicize this fact in the postwar period, especially in the conditions of deepening confrontation with Western Europe and the United States, led to the fact that the study of the development of the ammunition industry and military chemistry in the prewar and war years, as well as the influence of this factor on the course of hostilities fell under the strictest The excessive secrecy of the topic, which also has a special specificity, contributed to its oblivion.

Modern historians, according to the tradition laid down in the Soviet era, do not pay serious attention to this problem, investigating, first of all, the development of aviation, tank industry, production of artillery and small arms. And meanwhile precisely problems with production ammunition and is due a range of failures red Army in 1941-1942 devolving So without disclosure this issue impossible full understanding of course Great Patriotic war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Россиянин2019 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Россиянин2019 (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:Wall of text. This approach is unlikely to be effective. (Hohum ^@) 15:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Please speak out, if you have questions - ask. Then there will be consensus. Россиянин2019 (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Need information on what materials were sent to Great Britain.

There are figures for the Soviet Union but not for Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.98.55.56 (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

First of all, people write about what is interesting and what they argue about. About lend-lease in Britain, no one argues and the British themselves are the first not to argue. But the Russians argue and will argue very actively.178.155.64.26 (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

About Lend-Lease

If you want to believe an idiot, I can't stop you from doing it. I'm only interested in one thing that makes you believe an idiot (Sokolov). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.64.26 (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Please tell me about "Weeks 2004". What is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.64.26 (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The above was moved here from my talk page. "Weeks 2004" refers to Weeks, Albert L. Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2004. ISBN 978-0-7391-0736-2. The IP needs to familiarize themselves with how sources are often referenced on wikipedia; it is very similar to the method often used in printed texts and I expect most readers easily pick it up. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. It's nice to communicate with people who are ready to help. I will now know about quoting. Thank you also for prompting to read this book. A bit even funny, that the only (!!!!!) the "historian" whom he quotes is Sokolov. Here's superhistory. :) Россиянин2019 (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Does this quote belong in the article?

User Talleyrand20, seems determined to exclude the following quote by Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov from the article and has deleted it multiple times. The same quote has also been deleted multiple times by IP address 178.155.64.26.

On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR's emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany's might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.

Which is sourced to "Weeks 2004, p. 9"

The quote appears to me to be referenced and NPOV as it is assigned to its author.

Talleyrand20 however appears to believe it is "biased".

The IP address user who has deleted the quote claimed it is "dull", which does not seem like a valid reason to not include the information.

What would be the best thing to do about this? Shimbo (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems like the ball is in Talleyrand20's court. The quote does not seem to be controversial and seems to me to reflect a major, if not a majority view of historians. In any event it is properly attributed and belongs in the article unless it can be shown that it is a fringe view (which it certainly isn't). The general issue seems to be related to a POV issue the editor edit warred on earlier, leading to a block. It is interesting that Россиянин2019 has popped up in response to edits directed at the IP referenced above. This user also had participated in reinstating the material that Talleyrand was edit warring over. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Why not quote Glantz who is the specialist of the eastern front? His vision of the lend lease is totally different from that of Sokolov (The majority of Russian historians also disagree with him, and strangely it is this historian who is quoted, thank you for showing a little neutrality on this article!), the quotes are very biased on this article and only go in one direction. Talleyrand20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

This review is critical of Weeks and notes the problems of making counter-factual claims: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=10887.

The Sokolov quote could probably be included but only if the context was made clear: there is disagreement about how essential the aid was. One Russian historian, Boris Sokolov, claims "that without these Western shipments..." However, as David S. Foglesong notes, this claim raises the question of how the Soviet Union stopped the German assault on Moscow in December 1941 with minimal Lend-Lease aid. The historian Alexander Hill argues that British Lend Lease tanks (Matildas and Valentines) were crucial in stopping the German advance on Moscow, comprising one-third of Soviet medium and heavy tanks in this battle. Albert L. Weeks concludes that the "jury is still out" regarding the impact of Lend-Lease aid. . Also as Talleyrand20 says, the more Glantz the better. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Okay, Talleyrand20, how about editing the article to include a sourced quote from Glantz as well then, instead of just deleting the Sokolov quote? Remember it is not about which of them is 'right' because Wikipedia is NPOV. Different opinions have been stated by different historians and it is wikipedia policy that those differences of opinion should be included in the article. It is not up to us to come to a conclusion about which historian is right, it is up to us to include both. --Shimbo (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The Hill article aligns with Sokolov. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

What should I do?

It is quite true that the point of view of the historian Sokolov is only one of many, and, by the way, in Russia it is completely marginal. This unbalanced view distorts the picture. Meanwhile, it is this quote that a certain "Honum" constantly leaves here as the only one. I have tried several times to cite the points of view of other Russian historians (I just know them better), but this "Hohum @)" constantly removes them under various pretexts and leaves only the opinion of the historian Sokolov. Can I delete it too? I know it's not very good, but what should I do? :) Россиянин2019 (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

What you should do, Россиянин2019, is stop edit-warring and engage in a good faith dialogue to reach a consensus. Remember it is not about which historian or viewpoint is 'right' because Wikipedia is NPOV. Different opinions have been stated by different historians and it is wikipedia policy that those differences of opinion should be included in the article. It is not up to us to come to a conclusion about which viewpoint is correct and then delete any opinions we disagree with, which is what appears to be happening currently. --Shimbo (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I removed content which was *incoherent* - i.e. made no sense in English, or which restated what was already in the article. Regarding Weeks/Sokolov, wikipedia should include what WP:RELIABLE sources say, if sources differ, then we should include what non-WP:FRINGE sources say, with suitable WP:WEIGHT. i.e. - I agree with Shimbo, North Shoreman, AugusteBlanqui. (Hohum ^@) 20:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Tallyrand20's latest addition uses a blog as a reference, which doesn't seem like a reliable source. It also seems to attribute to Glantz, things that the article author has said, which is problematic. (Hohum ^@) 20:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I will try to find a better source for the Glantz position. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The blog source was a bastardized version of the conclusion of When Titans Clashed which I happen to have on my shelf. I added the quote (it's a huge paragraph so I ellipsed some of it). AugusteBlanqui (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to add, in the quote Glantz notes that Soviet historians minimize the importance of Lend-Lease. This assessment by Glantz of Soviet/Russian historiography needs to remain any part of this discussion. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

What should I do?????

I agree that deleting and erasing texts is bad. But again, what should I do? I tried several times to balance the opinion of the historian Sokolov. If it is given only one, it distorts the overall picture. Moreover, for many people it will sound all the more convincing because this is an opinion from Russia. "See, well, if the Russians themselves think so, then so it is true?" But in Russia, the opinion of the historian Sokolov is completely marginal. Therefore, I tried to balance the opinion of this Sokolov with another opinion. But "Hohum" removed it several times. At the same time, he stated that "he can't understand it." Strange argument. Yes? I can once again give an opinion from the 12-volume history of the Great Patriotic war (Russian).

"This point of view (the exceptional importance of lend-lease for the USSR) is not generally accepted among Russian historians. There is also the point of view that the supply of military equipment and materials from the United States and Britain played a major role in the second half of the war and brought victory much closer. But before the situation of the turning point in the war, before the victory at Stalingrad, the US and UK supplies were limited. This was largely due to the difficult situation in the UK, exhausted by the blockade, as well as the fact that US military production in 1941-42 was in the process of deployment. Such a point of view is stated, for example, in the collection of works of Russian historians (The Great Patriotic war of 1941-45. In 12 volumes. 2012 edition): "In the struggle against the common enemy, the allies assisted the Soviet Union. The coalition was finally formed by the summer of 1942. The economies of US and Britain were increasingly rebuilt in a military way. It was delivered more than 2.5 thousand aircraft, 3 thousand tanks, about 79 thousand cars, radio equipment, hydroacoustic devices, gasoline, food, footwear and so on in 1942 on lend-lease in USSR . However, "by the end of 1942, the agreed program of deliveries to the USSR were made by the Americans and the British by 55%. In 1941-1942, the USSR received only 7% of cargo shipped during the war from the USA. The main number of weapons and other the materials were received by the Soviet Union in 1944-1945 ".

.

https://encyclopedia.mil.ru/files/VOV/tom3/VOV_Vol3.pdf (p.358)

And I brought another book, an American one:

"In his 1944 book, Stettinius (Secretary of State under Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt) wrote: "The role of arms supplies to the Red Army, the role of lend-lease during the battles with Germany in the summer of 1941 is difficult to assess correctly. If we talk about the shortage in Russia of specific military materials and equipment, such as trucks or phones, lend-lease played an important role here. But in general, the volume of military materials supplied by us is not too large. We know that American technology served a good purpose in the defense of Stalingrad. But frankly, we have no detailed information about the benefits that brought in that year, our weapons to the Russians. In 1942, the Russians and we were just learning to work together as allies, and it would be foolish to pretend that our relations with Russia from the very beginning were as friendly and frankly as with England and China" (China under the political regime of Chiang Kai-shek) ).

References

(Россиянин2019) and 178.155.64.26 (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Why did Russia survive 1941 w/o much Lend Lease? historians agree there were multiple reasons: Germans were months late to invade, got caught in a bad 1812-like winter, lacked cold weather gear, lacked enough trucks & too-long supply lines, relied too much on overextended Luftwaffe, alienated anti-communist civilians, and blundered by splitting into 3 offensives. The Russians did have winter gear and shorter lines of supply. By 1942 their supplies were running low and they relied more and more on western aid. so YES, the quote belongs. Rjensen (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

In addition, the Hill article I cited makes the case that British Lend-Lease tanks were important for winning the Battle of Moscow in December 1941. (Россиянин2019) and 178.155.64.26, as others have explained, there is a difference between the 'balance' you are calling for and Wikipedia's policy on NPOV. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Answer:

I think you are missing another factor that caused the Soviet Union to survive in 1941. This is the high morale of the Soviet troops, the desire to fight to victory and the high level of military command. I've written about this before. The victory over Moscow was won in terms of numerical superiority of the Germans. And in the number of troops and equipment, including tanks. Therefore, I urge you to be careful about percentages. Percentages isn't everything. Yes, we can agree that the British tanks were 30% near Moscow. But the Germans had 1.5 times more tanks. Therefore, the main factor in the Soviet victory was NOT the number of tanks, but, again, the high morale of the troops and the high level of military command.

"By December 6, Kalinin, Western and South-Western fronts received 27 divisions, thus bringing the total number of troops involved in the counteroffensive to 1 million 100 thousand people, as well as having 7652 guns and mortars, 774 tanks and 1,000 aircraft. In total on the Western strategic direction as a part of three Soviet fronts was almost 41% of the land forces, here was concentrated almost 40% of tanks, about 32% of guns and mortars of the total number in the army. Army group "Center" consisted of 1 million 708 thousand people, about 13.5 thousand guns and mortars, 1170 tanks and 615 aircraft. A simple comparison of the figures shows that the enemy outnumbered the Soviet troops in personnel-1.5 times, in artillery-in 1.8 times, in tanks-1.5 times, and only in combat aircraft it was inferior to 1.6 times" .

References

When the Russians talk about it, it doesn't mean that Russians are against the US and Britain and don't want to value lend-lease. This is their (and my) view based on our historical experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.64.26 (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

" the high morale of the Soviet troops, the desire to fight to victory and the high level of military command." ?? that needs better evidence for late 1941--after millions of Soviet soldiers had surrendered and millions of USSR citizens (esp Ukraine) welcomed German invaders. The morale did go up in 1942 after the Germans were stopped in late 1941. Rjensen (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Answer:

I think you already have a picture of events in your head. What I say and provide information does not fit into this picture of events. Therefore, you refuse to accept information. Meanwhile, I provided information, including figures. Don't ignore it. The victory at Moscow was achieved when the Germans had an advantage in forces. The numbers are given to you. But you don't want to believe it. You have the opposite of everything. Like, "Nibelungs", they are hordes of "Eastern barbarians" at the muzzles of nagans and machine guns of Commissars. Yes? Hebbels died, but his propaganda is alive. 178.155.64.26 (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Again Россиянин2019 what you have to get your head around is it is not about which historian or viewpoint is 'right' - no one will stop you adding information to the article as long as it is sourced to reliable sources, but Wikipedia is NPOV and so different opinions to yours will be included in the article as long as they too are sourced to reliable sources. It is nothing to do with other Wikipedians "ignoring" you, "refusing to accept information", "not wanting to believe" your point of view or "western propaganda". Again, it is not up to us to come to a conclusion about which viewpoint is correct and then delete any opinions we disagree with. Please can you respond indicating that you understand this fundamental principle of Wikipedia and then we can move forward. --Shimbo (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Answer:I completely agree with you. Don't delete anything. But then let "Hohum" not delete the text with sources. If "he doesn't understand it" is not a reason to delete it. This is a strange argument. You could agree if the English translation was bad. But I think that's not the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.64.26 (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Poor translation is only one issue. The bigger issue is unfortunatley the nationalist ideology which permeates Russian historiography. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

"nationalist ideology which permeates Russian historiography" is not necessarily a problem for Wikipedia to resolve. As long as the summarisation of the Russian nationalist PoV is sourced to reliable sources and shown to be only one school of thought and the other schools are represented and given due weight.--Shimbo (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Answer:Wow?????? I strongly disagree with this assessment. I think in the end, leave different opinions. Instead of erasing the ones you don't like and leaving the ones you like. 178.155.64.26 (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that this is exactly what should happen. People are welcome to add the 'Russian nationalist' PoV, as long as it is sourced to reliable sources. What they should not do is add their PoV as if it is a fact, or delete other PoVs. And vice-versa. That was the entire point of this RfC.--Shimbo (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

In many cases this material is inappropriate wp:fringe. We do not want to "balance" Glantz with Russian nationalists. We don't balance medicine topics with anti-vaxxers AugusteBlanqui (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but the idea that lend-lease was important to victory but not critical to Russia's survival in 1941 is not a fringe position. It may be most prevalent or more extreme amongst nationalist Russians but if there's reputable sources that support it, it should be included. --Shimbo (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that you simply do not find arguments. Therefore, you start accusing me of some kind of "Russian nationalism". This is your fetish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.64.26 (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Please, No personal attacks. We are trying to resolve this issue, assumptions about other people's motives will not help us do that. This process is not about 'winning' an 'argument' against your 'enemies', it is about making the article better and personal attacks will not help us do that. --Shimbo (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree that we need to talk about the topic, and not about the identity of the opponent. For my part, I can also urge my interlocutors not to attribute "Russian nationalism"to me. Россиянин2019 (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

So we are all agreed then, no further personal attacks. Good.--Shimbo (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Answer:You can think and understand as you like. You can consider that historian Sokolov as a genius or a villain. :) I don't care. I'm just for not thinking that Sokolov's opinion is "an opinion from Russia". In Russia, there are different opinions and Sokolov's opinions are only one. 178.155.64.26 (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, as I said already, add other opinions then, as long as you can source them from reputable sources. How many times do I need to suggest this? --Shimbo (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that the editor has already done this -- see the edit history of the article and the earlier discussion. His additions were found to be very problematic and were deleted and contested by several editors. In the current discussion he has repeated the two paragraphs and apparently thinks they should be in the article.

The first paragraph that was added starts (referring to the Weeks quote), ""This point of view (the exceptional importance of lend-lease for the USSR) is not generally accepted among Russian historians." The expectation by this topic sentence is that it would produce a discussion of what specific Russian historians concluded -- instead what follows is a rambling recitation of background and statistics.

The second paragraph starts, "In his 1944 book, Stettinius (Secretary of State under Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt) wrote ...". The problem here is that this reflects the understanding of a political actor back in 1944. A lot of analysis has occurred since 1944, including the opening of Soviet archives that forms the basis for Weeks analysis (he did not view the archives himself) of how Russian scholars have used this information. It is unclear from the discussion whether there are a significant number of current Russian historians who have looked at the archives and reached different conclusions.

It seems with the addition of the Glantz quote, an acceptable balance to the Weeks quote has been accomplished. Glantz wrote, "Although Soviet accounts have routinely belittled the significance of Lend-Lease in the sustainment of the Soviet war effort, the overall importance of the assistance cannot be understated." I read the Hill article referenced above which included analysis of the earliest Lend Lease aid provided to the USSR. From that article:

"It would be difficult and unconvincing to argue that Lend-Lease "saved" the Soviet Union from defeat in 1941. Axis forces were, for instance, halted before Moscow with Soviet blood, and to a large extent with Soviet-manufactured arms and equipment. Nonetheless ... Lend-Lease aid provided during the period First Moscow Protocol had a far more significant impact on the war effort and indeed on frontline capability both during and after Battle for Moscow than the Soviet and indeed Western historiography would suggest. What is perhaps of particular note is not only the speed with which Britain in particular was willing and able to provide aid to the Soviet Union after initial hesitation, but how quickly the Soviet was able to put foreign equipment into use. This is testimony both to the political and military realism of Churchill and other key British ministers in this instance, and to the effectiveness of the Soviet command economy when faced with a clearly defined task."

All things considered, if Россиянин2019 does intend to edit the article itself, they should probably submit specific language and sourcing here first for consensus. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

What I'd say about those edits is that they are not sourced, apart from the Stettinius quote, which would be a valid addition IMO. We can assign opinions such as Stettinius's and others, like Khrushchev, to the time, and then qualify them with the later views of historians, can't we? --Shimbo (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Answer: I will remind you and everyone that Stettinius ' book was written in 1944. And it is written that then it was difficult to write later because of the beginning of the "cold war". Leaving aside the question of what caused this "cold war", we can say that the "cold war" hindered an objective approach to the assessment of "lend-lease". And not only in the USSR, but also in the United States and Britain. It's just a fact. This is what makes Stettinius ' book valuable. I believe that the quote from Russian history (in 12 volumes) is quite informative. It also contains specific figures for the volume of deliveries, as well as indications of the implementation of agreed obligations. In 1942, the United States and Britain fulfilled only 55% of the promised amount. And also the volume of deliveries was small, if we compare it with the volumes in subsequent years. Only 7%. Россиянин2019 (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so what is your proposed edit and what is it sourced to? Submit specific language and sourcing here and we can try to build a consensus on how to include it.--Shimbo (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Answer:

I understand that the language barrier creates barriers to understanding. But there is no other way, except as Russian sources. This is all the more appropriate since the Russian historian Sokolov is quoted here from the very beginning.

2 edits with sources:

This point of view (the exceptional importance of lend-lease for the USSR) is not generally accepted among Russian historians. There is also the point of view that the supply of military equipment and materials from the United States and Britain played a major role in the second half of the war and brought victory much closer. But before the situation of the turning point in the war, before the victory at Stalingrad, the US and UK supplies were limited. This was largely due to the difficult situation in the UK, exhausted by the blockade, as well as the fact that US military production in 1941-42 was in the process of deployment. Such a point of view is stated, for example, in the collection of works of Russian historians (The Great Patriotic war of 1941-45. In 12 volumes. 2012 edition): "In the struggle against the common enemy, the allies assisted the Soviet Union. The coalition was finally formed by the summer of 1942. The economies of US and Britain were increasingly rebuilt in a military way. It was delivered more than 2.5 thousand aircraft, 3 thousand tanks, about 79 thousand cars, radio equipment, hydroacoustic devices, gasoline, food, footwear and so on in 1942 on lend-lease in USSR . However, "by the end of 1942, the agreed program of deliveries to the USSR were made by the Americans and the British by 55%. In 1941-1942, the USSR received only 7% of cargo shipped during the war from the USA. The main number of weapons and other the materials were received by the Soviet Union in 1944-1945 .

https://encyclopedia.mil.ru/files/VOV/tom3/VOV_Vol3.pdf (p.358)

In his 1944 book, Stettinius (Secretary of State under Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt) wrote: "The role of arms supplies to the Red Army, the role of lend-lease during the battles with Germany in the summer of 1941 is difficult to assess correctly. If we talk about the shortage in Russia of specific military materials and equipment, such as trucks or phones, lend-lease played an important role here. But in general, the volume of military materials supplied by us is not too large. We know that American technology served a good purpose in the defense of Stalingrad. But frankly, we have no detailed information about the benefits that brought in that year, our weapons to the Russians. In 1942, the Russians and we were just learning to work together as allies, and it would be foolish to pretend that our relations with Russia from the very beginning were as friendly and frankly as with England and China" (China under the political regime of Chiang Kai-shek) ) .

References

I think I found a mistake

This seems incorrect to me, could someone confirm/correct?

Lend-Lease A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $565 billion in 2018) worth of supplies was shipped

2601:742:8003:C8B0:8906:A37C:A949:8308 (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Spoon Me Fork You

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• US Navy 081110-N-5549O-080 The U.S. national flag waves graciously from the Iwo Jima memorial during a wreath laying ceremony in honor of the 233rd Marine Corps birthday at the Marine Corps War Memorial.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Anglo-Soviet Military Supplies Agreement

I propose that we shorten the section on UK aid to the USSR or split it into it's own page(Anglo-Soviet Military Supplies Agreement) as the agreeement concerns both Lend-Lease goods and goods produced in the UK that are not part of Lend-Lease.Originalcola (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the stupid question, but...how did it actually _work_?

Administratively and procedurally, how did lend-lease functionally work? FDR was empowered to lend as much money as he wanted and lease military equipment to whomever? Fephisto (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

As I understand it, the president was authorised to "sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government [whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States] any defense article." So, the Act gave the president almost complete power to spend the funds allocated by Congress to Lend Lease in any way he saw he saw fit. The administration of the aid was done by the Office of Lend-Lease Administration. As the entire US economy was on a war footing, there were few limits other than resource constraints and the fact that the needs of the USA's own forces came first. I think this information is basically in the article already, but I can see that it's not that all that clear. I'm surprised there's not an article about the Office of Lend-Lease Administration. I hope that helps. --Shimbo (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Shimbo, that's the sort of stuff I was going after. Fephisto (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

“Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022”

I am the opinion that content regarding this proposed U.S. act, as added in recent edits, [4] is off-topic for this article, which describes one specific agreement, during one specific historical period. I think there is very likely going to be sufficient coverage of the new act to justify a stand-alone article on the subject, and if such an article is created, the only necessary mention of it here might be in a disambiguation note. Meanwhile, I think that it would be more appropriate not to discuss the act here at all, and instead find a place in an existing article covering the Ukraine-Russia war: the United States and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article would seem to me to be the most appropriate place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree. An article on "Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022" would be the obvious thing and probably a link in the "See also" section and a disambiguation note in this article. Shimbo (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Also agreed, and I've removed the section. A "See also" link might be warranted, but it is otherwise off topic for a WW II article CAVincent (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Although I can see your point, this is currently the only article called "Lend-Lease", and there is no article on the recent act. Until there is, deleting the section seems premature. (Hohum ^@) 14:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

How about moving the text to the United States and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article, if there's some reason not to create a "Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022" article?

The 2022 Act really has nothing to do with WW2 Lend-lease, other than referencing the words "Lend-Lease" and there's no reference in this article to the dozens of other countries the USA has given arms to. South Vietnam and Afghanistan for just two examples.

If people feel there's a broader concept of lend-lease of which WW2 Lend-Lease is one example, and aid to Ukraine is another, then maybe a separate broader article would be warranted called something like Lend-Lease (concept). Shimbo (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I don't think any of the other occasions were through a lend-lease act. (Hohum ^@) 16:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

What is a 'lend-lease act' though? The WW2 military aid program was enabled through legislation formally entitled 'An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States'. Anyway, this article is about the WW2 program, and no sources have been provided to indicate that there is any sort of broader concept of 'lend-lease', distinct from other forms of military aid. One article, one topic. I suggest that rather than arguing the point, someone should create a new article on the 2022 Act - finding sources to demonstrate its notability shouldn't be difficult. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know: Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022 now exists and someone has added a disambiguation note and a see also to this article pointing to it. Shimbo (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, I've moved the text about the 2022 act that was previously in this article over to Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022 Shimbo (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Incomplete and misleading information

The article claims "On September 20, 1945, all Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union was terminated". However, the USA and USSR then negotiated a "pipeline agreement", signed on 15 October 1945, that resumed the delivery of Lend-Lease already "in the pipeline" for the USSR. This included item in the Forth Protocol that had been made but not yet delivered as well as items that were in the process of being made. This agreement extended delivery of Lend-Lease items into 1946 and should be mentioned in the article. 72.74.109.14 (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Unclear or suspicious quotes?

"Joseph Stalin, during the Tehran Conference during 1943, acknowledged publicly the importance of American efforts during a dinner at the conference: "Without American machines the United Nations could never have won the war."

Why does a comment from 1943 discuss the how the war was won?

The first reference to this quote is from a book I don't have access to, so it would be great if someone could cross reference it. It's also a little odd to come from a book about aircraft production rather than say, something directly about the Tehran Conference or Lend Lease itself.

The second reference to the quote has this stated verbatim, again, it doesn't make sense. The war was far from over during the Tehran Conference.

I feel this may be a misattributed, false or poorly translated quote that needs to be looked at. Because the date is clearly incorrect, I am going to remove the quote. Lostsandwich (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)