4 ms·

This is completely true, but I wouldn't forget the role of the US Lend-Lease Policy in this [1]. After the German attack, the SU wasn't really able to defend i

This is completely true, but I wouldn't forget the role of the US Lend-Lease Policy in this [1]. After the German attack, the SU wasn't really able to defend itself on the material side (same as the UK after the Dunkirk loss), and supplies were provided heavily by the US. > Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945. It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_th...

doovd 5y ago
Not sure what to make of this. The lend-lease stuff is hardly extraordinary, it would have been crazy if they _didn't!_. Furthermore, the US received almost a similar amount of goods in return (US received 8bln from allies when they lended out 11bln to USSR). All usual and unremarkable stuff. Furthermore, it's hardly fair to equate suppy of aid (which the US can afford because of their capitalist practices of exploitation etc) with supply of human life.
- elcapitan 5y ago
  You're quoting pretty selectively there. 11 billions went to the Soviet Union alone. The overall program was almost 50 billion. The reverse program of 7 billions is basically a calculatory sum of the lend and lease of military bases by the British Empire to the US. > suppy of aid (which the US can afford because of their capitalist practices of exploitation etc) That's a pretty wild statement considering how the Soviet Union created its resources (with slave labor of millions of people in the Gulag system).
  - doovd 5y ago
    Yeah sorry updated above, 11bln to USSR specifically, thanks for correcting. Nevertheless, it seemed odd to almost suggest the Us were financing the USSR in their fight in order to obtain some credit. Noted RE Soviet practices, though it's besides the point I think (i.e. it would be a scandal if the US didn't send aid in this form).
    - elcapitan 5y ago
      Yes, my argument wasn't so much that this was pure charity, but merely stating that the role of the US was a considerable factor in the fight of the SU.
nosianu 5y ago
In addition to the other reply, if you want to bring up industry, Russian achievement on that front is actually even higher. Most of the industry was in the European part and soon unavailable because it was overrun by Germans. Russians moved entire factories far to the East and started > German forces managed to occupy or isolate territory which prior to WWII accounted for over 60% of total coal, pig iron, and aluminum production. Nearly 40% of total grain production and 60% of total livestock was lost. Moreover, this area contained 40% Soviet population before the war, 32% of the state enterprise labor force, and one-third of the fixed capital assets of the state enterprise sector. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_industry_in_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_industry_in_World_War_I... Even with support from abroad, I don't see how this takes anything away from Russian war achievements.

doovd 5y ago

Not sure what to make of this. The lend-lease stuff is hardly extraordinary, it would have been crazy if they _didn't!_. Furthermore, the US received almost a similar amount of goods in return (US received 8bln from allies when they lended out 11bln to USSR). All usual and unremarkable stuff. Furthermore, it's hardly fair to equate suppy of aid (which the US can afford because of their capitalist practices of exploitation etc) with supply of human life.

elcapitan 5y ago
You're quoting pretty selectively there. 11 billions went to the Soviet Union alone. The overall program was almost 50 billion. The reverse program of 7 billions is basically a calculatory sum of the lend and lease of military bases by the British Empire to the US. > suppy of aid (which the US can afford because of their capitalist practices of exploitation etc) That's a pretty wild statement considering how the Soviet Union created its resources (with slave labor of millions of people in the Gulag system).
- doovd 5y ago
  Yeah sorry updated above, 11bln to USSR specifically, thanks for correcting. Nevertheless, it seemed odd to almost suggest the Us were financing the USSR in their fight in order to obtain some credit. Noted RE Soviet practices, though it's besides the point I think (i.e. it would be a scandal if the US didn't send aid in this form).
  - elcapitan 5y ago
    Yes, my argument wasn't so much that this was pure charity, but merely stating that the role of the US was a considerable factor in the fight of the SU.

nosianu 5y ago

In addition to the other reply, if you want to bring up industry, Russian achievement on that front is actually even higher. Most of the industry was in the European part and soon unavailable because it was overrun by Germans. Russians moved entire factories far to the East and started > German forces managed to occupy or isolate territory which prior to WWII accounted for over 60% of total coal, pig iron, and aluminum production. Nearly 40% of total grain production and 60% of total livestock was lost. Moreover, this area contained 40% Soviet population before the war, 32% of the state enterprise labor force, and one-third of the fixed capital assets of the state enterprise sector. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_industry_in_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_industry_in_World_War_I... Even with support from abroad, I don't see how this takes anything away from Russian war achievements.