It's not obvious that there are any actual sources you are willing to consider, but here's a try: https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/8uatt5/how_important

It's not obvious that there are any actual sources you are willing to consider, but here's a try: https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/8uatt5/how_important_was_lendlease_for_the_soviet_war/ https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/8uatt5/how_importa... for example: > Lend-Lease trucks were particularly important to the Red Army, which was notoriously deficient in such equipment. By the end of the war, two out of every three Red Army trucks were foreign-built, including 409,000 cargo trucks and 47,000 Willys Jeeps. [Note, Glantz's 2/3 stat is a higher ratio than Ellis indicates, but Ellis still points to 2:1 import/production, and regardless there may be other caveats in play] The shipment of finished trucks, planes and tanks was very important in the early years of the war, and forced a stalemate in early battles (we both know, that Moscow was about a hair from being captured). Yes, the material aid became relatively less significant as Soviet production ramped up, but that wouldn't have happened if the USSR had collapsed in 1942 or 1943. Oh lol I almost missed this gem. > The only difference, they left China afterward, while the USA army stayed in Europe as an occupying force Absolutely incredible to describe the US forces in Europe as "occupying" and not mention what the Soviets did. Yeah I think we're done here.