Reddit Reddit reviews Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II

We found 10 Reddit comments about Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

History
Books
American History
United States History
Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II
Check price on Amazon

10 Reddit comments about Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II:

u/MightierThanThou · 384 pointsr/videos

> and a culture known to the world for something else than being fat, unhealthy, aggressive, and pathetically stupid.

Our culture is known to the world for being responsible for basically every major invention since the end of WWII. For giving the world Blues, Jazz, Rock and Roll, Hip Hop/Rap, and electronic music. For having the most influential and pervasive modern culture in terms of music, film, TV, and books. We invented the internet. This site you're on right now is American. Pretty much every major internet site is American.. Youtube, Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Wikipedia etc...

Yeah, our culture is only known for being fat, unhealthy, aggressive and stupid. Or... maybe that's what brainwashed people like you believe as part of your efforts to cope with being inferior to the US in countless ways and butthurt that you're dependent on us militarily, politically, technologically, and even culturally? You have to depict the US in unrealistically negative ways because the truth would damage your pride.

> Contributing to WW2 from beginning to end is also a national pride, and not joining right at the end, when all the major battles were won. Ah, England.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, you're just mindlessly regurgitating revisionist history designed to help you avoid acknowledging that you were losing in WWII before the US entered the conflict.

It's really stupid when people like you say the US didn't show up until the last minute in WWII when it was the US joining that CAUSED the war to end quickly (oh and the US joined the allies in 1941, the US was a participant for the majority of WWII). The allies were losing across the board before the US entered the war, by the way. Look at a map of Axis-held territory up until the very moment the US joined, you'll notice the Axis territory was expanding until the US entered with troops, and then began to recede and collapse immediately afterward. The allies would have lost if the US didn't do anything. Only liars or idiots will deny that.

Also, the US was the only country to fight significantly in every theater of war. The US did the most in N. Africa, the Med, Italy, and then Western Europe post D-day, while simultaneously fighting Japan on the other side of the world will very little help. The US did a whole hell of a lot more to help the allies against Germany than the help the US received against Japan. And the US did this while supplying not only its own military but all of the allies with literally the majority of their war material.

Let's quote Stalin himself, who is just about the last person who would benefit from admitting the importance of the US:

'The United States is a country of machines. Without the use of these machines through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war.' —Josef Stalin (1943)

People always say the Soviets won WWII (and then there's delusional twits like you who think the UK did). But the Soviets only began to make offensive progress after US-provided war aid began flooding in, and after the US opened the second front in Europe (something Canadians and Brits failed to do on their own without the US, in the disaster later euphemistically called the 'Dieppe Raid"). A liberaiton of western Europe would not have occurred without the US. Was the liberation of France not a major battle? It was, and the US contributed the bulk of forces.

Look at this map of army deployments in France in WWII.

Simpson, 9th Army (USA)

Dempsey, 2nd Army (USA)

Hodges, 1st Army (USA)

Patton, 3rd Army (USA)

Patch, 7th Army (USA)

Bradley, 12 Army (USA)

Montgomery, 21st Army (UK)

Crerar, 1st Army (Canada)

The US did way, way more than your country did in WWII. Get a grip on reality and realize that you're taught a bunch of lies to help you cope with playing second fiddle to the US. You hate on Americans because your history with us is quite embarrassing to you. We defeated your empire in a war, then later saved your country in two world wars, and now the only power you have left in this world is contingent upon your relationship with the US.

Cry about it some more, limey.

u/Pyritoxin · 57 pointsr/todayilearned

I think you mean, made it possible. In place of "a bit easier".

Hate to do this again, but when i read stuff like this its hard not to.. This book was a really interesting and I do want to encourage people to read it, so here it is: http://www.amazon.com/Russias-Life-Saver-Lend-Lease-U-S-S-R-World/dp/0739145630

u/66GT350Shelby · 14 pointsr/DestroyedTanks
u/CosmicGoblin · 11 pointsr/UpliftingNews

> Nope, without the US joining the war it would have been far more likely Europe would have fallen under Soviet regime.

Except for the fact that before US aid began pouring in and before the US opened the western front in Europe, the Soviets allies were losing, including the Soviets, pretty much across the board.

'The United States is a country of machines. Without the use of these machines through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war.' —Josef Stalin (1943)

u/Voliker · 5 pointsr/history

>90% of their rolling stock and locomotives

Manufactured during the time of war. Lend-lease provided 11,000 railroad cars and 1200 locos vs against 600,000 railcars and 28,000 locos from Soviet stocks. Source.

>70% of their trucks, representing about 90% of their truck capacity

1/3 in 1945 by Weekses "lifesaver"
>as the Russians were still building 1930s designs without 4x4 or 6x6 capability.

And so?... Those designs are less effective, but that does not allow you to claim this "90% truck capacity" representation at all.

And that just comes from first glance.

Were the Lend-Lease significant? Absolutely. Could have denying it change the course of the war? Yes. But also to claim that "WWII was won by the Western Allies" is simply wrong.

u/Ace_of_Sporks · 2 pointsr/history

Russia's lifesaver: Lend-Lease Aid to the USSR
https://www.amazon.com/Russias-Life-Saver-Lend-Lease-U-S-S-R-World/dp/0739145630

It looks like this paper has some good information about Soviet logistics during World War 2.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a217257.pdf

Here's another article about it:
http://histrf.ru/uploads/media/default/0001/12/df78d3da0fe55d965333035cd9d4ee2770550653.pdf

Study the logistics of the thing. How well would the Red Army have functioned without the 400,000 trucks that came from the US, for example? Without those, the Red Army would lose a lot of its mobility and thus would probably not have been able to carry out Saturn or Uranus.

u/WestenM · 2 pointsr/polandball

It's a what if possibility, but you don't think that in the absence of the US Pacific fleet the Japanese wouldn't have moved on the Soviet Union, despite doing so (and getting their asses kicked) in the late 1930's? Here's an interesting read on the importance of the border conflict.


According to wikipedia the source for that is Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II.

u/Co_Co_Co1a · 1 pointr/leagueoflegends

> and a culture known to the world for something else than being fat, unhealthy, aggressive, and pathetically stupid.

Our culture is known to the world for being responsible for basically every major invention since the end of WWII. For giving the world Blues, Jazz, Rock and Roll, Hip Hop/Rap, and electronic music. For having the most influential and pervasive modern culture in terms of music, film, TV, and books. We invented the internet. This site you're on right now is American. Pretty much every major internet site is American.. Youtube, Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Wikipedia etc...

Yeah, our culture is only known for being fat, unhealthy, aggressive and stupid. Or... maybe that's what brainwashed people like you believe as part of your efforts to cope with being inferior to the US in countless ways and butthurt that you're dependent on us militarily, politically, technologically, and even culturally? You have to depict the US in unrealistically negative ways because the truth would damage your pride.

> Contributing to WW2 from beginning to end is also a national pride, and not joining right at the end, when all the major battles were won. Ah, England.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, you're just mindlessly regurgitating revisionist history designed to help you avoid acknowledging that you were losing in WWII before the US entered the conflict.

It's really stupid when people like you say the US didn't show up until the last minute in WWII when it was the US joining that CAUSED the war to end quickly (oh and the US joined the allies in 1941, the US was a participant for the majority of WWII). The allies were losing across the board before the US entered the war, by the way. Look at a map of Axis-held territory up until the very moment the US joined, you'll notice the Axis territory was expanding until the US entered with troops, and then began to recede and collapse immediately afterward. The allies would have lost if the US didn't do anything. Only liars or idiots will deny that.

Also, the US was the only country to fight significantly in every theater of war. The US did the most in N. Africa, the Med, Italy, and then Western Europe post D-day, while simultaneously fighting Japan on the other side of the world will very little help. The US did a whole hell of a lot more to help the allies against Germany than the help the US received against Japan. And the US did this while supplying not only its own military but all of the allies with literally the majority of their war material.

Let's quote Stalin himself, who is just about the last person who would benefit from admitting the importance of the US:

'The United States is a country of machines. Without the use of these machines through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war.' —Josef Stalin (1943)

People always say the Soviets won WWII (and then there's delusional twits like you who think the UK did). But the Soviets only began to make offensive progress after US-provided war aid began flooding in, and after the US opened the second front in Europe (something Canadians and Brits failed to do on their own without the US, in the disaster later euphemistically called the 'Dieppe Raid"). A liberaiton of western Europe would not have occurred without the US. Was the liberation of France not a major battle? It was, and the US contributed the bulk of forces.

Look at this map of army deployments in France in WWII.

Simpson, 9th Army (USA)

Dempsey, 2nd Army (USA)

Hodges, 1st Army (USA)

Patton, 3rd Army (USA)

Patch, 7th Army (USA)

Bradley, 12 Army (USA)

Montgomery, 21st Army (UK)

Crerar, 1st Army (Canada)

The US did way, way more than your country did in WWII. Get a grip on reality and realize that you're taught a bunch of lies to help you cope with playing second fiddle to the US. You hate on Americans because your history with us is quite embarrassing to you. We defeated your empire in a war, then later saved your country in two world wars, and now the only power you have left in this world is contingent upon your relationship with the US.

Cry about it some more, limey.

u/hivemind6 · 0 pointsr/todayilearned

Well, you're going to have to buy it. I read this book:

Russia's Life-Saver

The Soviets were absolutely, positively, utterly dependent on US war material during WWII. The book goes into incredible depth and detail. It talks about how poorly the Soviet war economy performed before they received US aid. The Soviets had huge shortages in many areas, like food and textiles. The US gave them so much aid that it allowed the Soviets to actually abstain from producing certain things themselves completely, and they just used what the US gave them. The US filled huge voids in the Soviet economy.

This list is in the book, it's just part of what the Soviets received from the US through Lend-Lease

Aircraft: 14,795

Tanks: 7,056

Jeeps: 51,503

Trucks: 375,883

Motorcycles: 35,170

Tractors: 8,071

Guns (artillery): 8,218

Machine guns: 131,633

Explosives: 345,735 tons

Building equipment valued: $10,910,000 (many, many times that value in current dollars)

Railroad freight cars: 11,155

Locomotives: 1,981

Cargo ships: 90

Submarine hunters: 105

Torpedo boats: 197

Ship engines: 7,784

Food supplies: 4,478,000 tons

Machines and equipment: $1,078,965,000 (many, many times that value in current dollars)

Non-ferrous metals: 802,000 tons

Petroleum products: 2,670,000 tons

Chemicals: 842,000 tons

Cotton: 106,893,000 tons

Leather: 49,860 tons

Tires: 3,786,000

Army boots: 15,417,001 pairs

Most important was perhaps the 375,000 trucks. The Soviet had a huge problem with forward mobilization before they got their hands on them. The book argues that the Soviets wouldn't have made any real offensive progress on the eastern front if the US didn't provide these trucks, and that this might have meant that the Axis would have won.

The success of the war actually hinged on 375,000 cargo trucks.

Oh, and the book includes a quote from Joseph Stalin, the last person who would have benefited politically from admitting how dependent the USSR was on the US:

'The United States is a country of machines. Without the use of these machines through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war.' —Josef Stalin (1943)

u/MySoulIsaModem · -3 pointsr/worldnews

You don't know what you're talking about. You have a surface fact in your repertoire, which is true, that the majority of German casualties were on the eastern front, but you're definitely someone who has been fed a revisionist history in which context and other information have been omitted.

First off, this incredible factoid is often completely exed out of people's understanding of WWII, or flat out denied or obfuscated. The Soviets did not have an auspicious start to WWII. The Soviets and the Nazis were ALLIES. They agreed to invade Poland in unison, and they did, and while the Germans were invading from the west and the Soviets from the east, the Soviets were supplying the Nazis with fuel from eastern Europe oil fields. They were allies. It wasn't just a "non-aggression pact". Hitler and Stalin had an agreement to conquer Europe and share the spoils, starting with Poland, and their militaries cooperated in a joint invasion. The Soviets did not enter the war on the side of the allies.

The Soviets would have remained on the wrong side of the war had Hitler not stabbed Stalin in the back. Part of the reason the Soviets got absolutely clobbered in Operation Barbarossa is because they actually thought their was no risk of Germany invading them, because of their cooperation up to that point.

Secondly, the Soviets were losing, miserably, absolutely making ZERO offensive progress of any kind, and losing most of their defensive battles, before the US entered the conflict. The US entered the conflict and helped the Soviets because...

1) The Soviets had a weak, primitive economy and could not support their war machine. The US provided the Soviets with absolutely staggering amounts of fuel, textiles, food, clothing, medical supplies, and perhaps most importantly, vehicles. The Soviets had almost no ability to launch anything resembling an expeditionary, offensive operation against the Germans until they received 350,000 cargo trucks from the US and fuel to run them on. Before that the Soviets depended on rail networks to ferry supplies and troops to combat areas, and logistics networks via rail were incredibly easy targets. The Soviets westward mobilization against Germany would simply not have occurred without US aid.

The US absolutely outproduced the Soviets during WWII. The US economic output during the war was several times larger than that of the USSR.

The Soviet GDP by the end of the war only peaked at $340 billion. The US GDP peaked at $1.5 TRILLION.

The US produced almost 7000 naval vessels during WWII. The Soviets only produced 81.

The US produced 324,000 aircraft. The Soviets only produced 136,000.

The production of raw materials was also hugely disparate. The US produced waaaay more petroleum products, steel etc...

Let's quote the man himself:

"The United States is a country of machines. Without the use of these machines through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war."

Josef Stalin (1943)

2) The US bombed the hell out of Germany's war industry. The British also participated in bombing Germany, but they mostly focused on bombing German population centers. The US had 10 times as many bombers as anyone else, and had bombers and air crew trained and equipped to target smaller targets with more effectiveness. German war production peaked right before the US began its bombing campaigns against Germany, then the German war economy fell apart immediately afterward.

The Soviets would not have lasted and certainly wouldn't have turned the tide on the eastern front without the US supporting them logistically, while neutering Germany logistically.

3) The Soviets were desperate for a second front in Europe. The allies retreated from western Europe at Dunkirk and failed to get back in when they tried. It was the US who enabled a massive invasion of Nazi-held western Europe. This forced the Germans to fight on two fronts, overstretch their logistical systems which were being bombed to hell by the US Army Air Corps, and they diverted many of their divisions to the western front that were otherwise destined to be deployed to the eastern front.

Also, when people talk about all the casualties the Soviets caused, and yes the eastern front was a meat grinder, they ignore that many of those deaths were not combat deaths, they were deaths to disease, the elements, and from captured German soldiers being summarily killed or starved to death by the Soviets. Fewer Germans died on the western due to that front being less bloody, yes, but it is also largely due to the fact that the US and the other western allies actually treated German prisoners well, so Germans were both more likely to surrender en masse on the western front and more likely to survive as POWs once captured.

And some larger, wider context. The US did all of these things, logistically, tactically, strategically, to win the war in Europe... while the US was also leading an entire regional campaign against Japan on the other side of the planet, simultaneously. In the full spectrum of the war, the US and its participation was the largest contributor to allied victory.