10 ms·

The Soviets put the men. The Americans put the materiel. Stalin thought he would’ve lost if it wasn’t for Lend Lease.

by kranke155 2y ago

dataviz1000 2y ago
[flagged]
- AdieuToLogic 2y ago
  > According to ChatGPT ... ChatGPT is not an authoritative source of knowledge in any way, shape, or form. To cite it as such is folly.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- kranke155 2y ago
  I am not any of that. Good luck for asking chatGPT for world history.
  - dataviz1000 2y ago
    My last comment was meant as a joke. I should have made that clearer by emphasizing Poe's Law. My prompt included "this is a joke." Originally, I was only talking about data that shows how people's views of history change over time, whether those changes are true or not. I vaguely remember hearing that statement about ten years ago, and I searched the internet for a trustworthy source to support it. Continuing our discussion on how perspectives of history change, it might be that Americans deserve even more credit for this historical event than had 70 years ago. The conversation was about how historical perspectives change over time, but the following comments focused on modern views of a specific historical moment.
somenameforme 2y ago
The USSR might have lost if not for US supplies, but the Allies would definitely have lost if not for the Red Army. Technology has come a long ways since the 30s, yet even contemporary wars again emphasize that in the end it all just comes down to manpower. And this is extremely remarkable if you think about it. Germany basically declared war on the world, and very nearly won.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  Germany was not in a position to hit the US. They weren’t a great naval power. They needed to cross the Atlantic, but the English Channel was too big a hurdle. Eventually the fact that the war was happening in their land would grind them down. Plus, the US had nukes and aircraft carriers by the end, which would have presented a challenging situation.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    Well you're making a huge shift without accounting for it. The land war picture would have been radically different without the Soviets. In total they deployed more than 34 million soldiers during WW2 [1]. That's substantially larger than the contribution of every other ally, combined. The second largest force was the US with a total of 12.2 million soldiers (by the end of the war). [2] So what would have happened in this scenario is difficult to even imagine, because Germany would have been under far less pressure. They were already working on the development of 'Projekt Amerika' [3]. It went nowhere, but without the pressures of the Red Army they would have had vastly more resources to expend on such ventures. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army [2] - https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-us-military-numbers https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerikabomber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerikabomber
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      But you said the Allies definitely would have lost without the Soviet Union. Is it hypothetically possible that the Nazis might invent some mystery weapon without less pressure? Maybe… but it isn’t a sure thing. Getting a plane across the Atlantic with the limited bomb and fuel load that entails might not have accomplished much. If only a couple bombs could have done the job, I guess allies wouldn’t have been building all those bomber fleets, right? And they didn’t build a serious surface navy before the war, or in the first year-or-so when they were still trading partners with the Soviet Union. It seems there was something beyond manpower pressure holding them back.
otabdeveloper4 2y ago
American lend-lease was 11% of the Soviet war effort. The vast majority of that 11% was consumer goods, not weaponry.
- kranke155 2y ago
  Then why did both Stalin and Khrushchev say it was important for the victory ? Sorry but I’ve read tons of AskHistorians answers about this. I recommend you go there and search this same question. The Soviets needed that 11%. My understanding is that a lot of it helped mechanise the Soviet Army, ie trucks were delivered in large quantities. From Claude I got this: “In Khrushchev's memoirs, he recalled Stalin saying in a private conversation that without American aid through Lend-Lease, the Soviet Union "would not have been able to cope because we lost so much of our industry." Khrushchev himself wrote that Lend-Lease was "of utmost importance" and that "we would have been in a difficult position without it." “
- kranke155 2y ago
  Here is some more from Claude (it sounds about right but I don’t have to check this): “ The significance of Lend-Lease goes far beyond the raw percentage of industrial output. Here's why it was so crucial: 1. Timing and Critical Shortages: - The aid arrived during the most critical period (1941-1942) when Soviet industry was being relocated east of the Urals - During this vulnerable period, American trucks, food, and materials helped keep the Soviet army mobile and fed - Without this bridge of support during the industrial relocation, the USSR would have faced severe shortages at its most vulnerable moment 2. Strategic Materials and Bottlenecks: - The Soviets received specific materials that were severe bottlenecks in their production: - Aviation fuel and high-octane gas - Aluminum for aircraft production - Radio equipment and communications gear - Special grades of steel and industrial equipment - These materials were critical multipliers that enabled Soviet production 3. Transportation and Logistics: - Nearly 450,000 trucks were provided, which revolutionized Soviet logistics - Before Lend-Lease, the Red Army relied heavily on horse transport - American Studebaker trucks allowed for rapid troop movements and superior logistics - This mobility was crucial for later Soviet offensive operations”
StefanBatory 2y ago
And why Soviets put the men? Because they started the war in the first place with Germans. Too many people forget about that. They were allies at first.

The Soviets put the men. The Americans put the materiel. Stalin thought he would’ve lost if it wasn’t for Lend Lease.

dataviz1000 2y ago

[flagged]

AdieuToLogic 2y ago
> According to ChatGPT ... ChatGPT is not an authoritative source of knowledge in any way, shape, or form. To cite it as such is folly.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
kranke155 2y ago
I am not any of that. Good luck for asking chatGPT for world history.
- dataviz1000 2y ago
  My last comment was meant as a joke. I should have made that clearer by emphasizing Poe's Law. My prompt included "this is a joke." Originally, I was only talking about data that shows how people's views of history change over time, whether those changes are true or not. I vaguely remember hearing that statement about ten years ago, and I searched the internet for a trustworthy source to support it. Continuing our discussion on how perspectives of history change, it might be that Americans deserve even more credit for this historical event than had 70 years ago. The conversation was about how historical perspectives change over time, but the following comments focused on modern views of a specific historical moment.

somenameforme 2y ago

The USSR might have lost if not for US supplies, but the Allies would definitely have lost if not for the Red Army. Technology has come a long ways since the 30s, yet even contemporary wars again emphasize that in the end it all just comes down to manpower. And this is extremely remarkable if you think about it. Germany basically declared war on the world, and very nearly won.

bee_rider 2y ago
Germany was not in a position to hit the US. They weren’t a great naval power. They needed to cross the Atlantic, but the English Channel was too big a hurdle. Eventually the fact that the war was happening in their land would grind them down. Plus, the US had nukes and aircraft carriers by the end, which would have presented a challenging situation.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  Well you're making a huge shift without accounting for it. The land war picture would have been radically different without the Soviets. In total they deployed more than 34 million soldiers during WW2 [1]. That's substantially larger than the contribution of every other ally, combined. The second largest force was the US with a total of 12.2 million soldiers (by the end of the war). [2] So what would have happened in this scenario is difficult to even imagine, because Germany would have been under far less pressure. They were already working on the development of 'Projekt Amerika' [3]. It went nowhere, but without the pressures of the Red Army they would have had vastly more resources to expend on such ventures. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army [2] - https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-us-military-numbers https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerikabomber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerikabomber
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    But you said the Allies definitely would have lost without the Soviet Union. Is it hypothetically possible that the Nazis might invent some mystery weapon without less pressure? Maybe… but it isn’t a sure thing. Getting a plane across the Atlantic with the limited bomb and fuel load that entails might not have accomplished much. If only a couple bombs could have done the job, I guess allies wouldn’t have been building all those bomber fleets, right? And they didn’t build a serious surface navy before the war, or in the first year-or-so when they were still trading partners with the Soviet Union. It seems there was something beyond manpower pressure holding them back.

otabdeveloper4 2y ago

American lend-lease was 11% of the Soviet war effort. The vast majority of that 11% was consumer goods, not weaponry.

kranke155 2y ago
Then why did both Stalin and Khrushchev say it was important for the victory ? Sorry but I’ve read tons of AskHistorians answers about this. I recommend you go there and search this same question. The Soviets needed that 11%. My understanding is that a lot of it helped mechanise the Soviet Army, ie trucks were delivered in large quantities. From Claude I got this: “In Khrushchev's memoirs, he recalled Stalin saying in a private conversation that without American aid through Lend-Lease, the Soviet Union "would not have been able to cope because we lost so much of our industry." Khrushchev himself wrote that Lend-Lease was "of utmost importance" and that "we would have been in a difficult position without it." “
kranke155 2y ago
Here is some more from Claude (it sounds about right but I don’t have to check this): “ The significance of Lend-Lease goes far beyond the raw percentage of industrial output. Here's why it was so crucial: 1. Timing and Critical Shortages: - The aid arrived during the most critical period (1941-1942) when Soviet industry was being relocated east of the Urals - During this vulnerable period, American trucks, food, and materials helped keep the Soviet army mobile and fed - Without this bridge of support during the industrial relocation, the USSR would have faced severe shortages at its most vulnerable moment 2. Strategic Materials and Bottlenecks: - The Soviets received specific materials that were severe bottlenecks in their production: - Aviation fuel and high-octane gas - Aluminum for aircraft production - Radio equipment and communications gear - Special grades of steel and industrial equipment - These materials were critical multipliers that enabled Soviet production 3. Transportation and Logistics: - Nearly 450,000 trucks were provided, which revolutionized Soviet logistics - Before Lend-Lease, the Red Army relied heavily on horse transport - American Studebaker trucks allowed for rapid troop movements and superior logistics - This mobility was crucial for later Soviet offensive operations”

StefanBatory 2y ago

And why Soviets put the men? Because they started the war in the first place with Germans. Too many people forget about that. They were allies at first.