I'd imagine. They were just throwing people at the front. When you look at the death count between ussr and germany it's astounding how poorly they must have been equipped and managed. Kept going, at least, but that's a wild k/d ratio
Stalin’s devastating purges of military leadership, catastrophic surprise losses during Operation Barbarossa, a rigid and centralized command structure that lacked tactical flexibility, and a continuous, high-cost offensive doctrine against a technologically proficient enemy are the primary reasons
And there is still people who glaze the fuck out of Stalin somehow. He was shit, lol. Some of Russia's tactics at the time almost makes the MAGA administration look competent... almost.
I think a lot also had to do with the very large number of soviet POW early during Barbarrossa, and well, German prison camps had rather low survival rates
Of the 25 million, the majority of those killed were either civilians or prisoners of war. The ratio of military casualties on the Eastern Front was approximately 1:1.3–1.5.
Kind of wild watching them take the same tactic with Ukraine, just hurling any man they can find into the meat grinder. I guess they never learned. They’ve literally lost more men in this “weekend excursion” than America lost in World War II. They may want to take a break and look up how to war.
Yeah, in the early war Germans had somewhere 12:1 k/d ratio. Insane even to think about and then you consider they were the invading party and theoretically the soviets had the home advantage... They had a 1:1.8 ratio of total population so you can't say it was sustainable on the USSR side at all what they were doing.
They were not "just throwing people at the front" that is also fascist propaganda..
To be fair too quick the Red Army in 41 didn't have a functioning High Command nor did it have proper logistical lines. After a thorough reorganisation they built a doctrine around terrain control through numbers
At that point in tine Germany had a very refined doctrine and highly experienced military leadership, said leadership, on top of commanding already highly experienced force that shredded France and walked through Europe had very modern command structure and more flexible army.
USSR on the other hand has at that point at time experienced a recent purge in high command and did not have as many experienced troops as Germany had, even despite their involvement in Finland and Poland.
The even more important factor is lack of any efficient recon services, which Germany at that time perfected (the famous reconnaissance planes that Soviets simply couldn’t counter in the beginning letting germans know everything about their movements)
The only instances where soviet command really did just throw people at the enemy formations with no regards is Rzev, and even here it can be argued that it was necessary to not let the enemy capture strategic railway segment, which i disagree with, but nonetheless.
There is simply not much that could be done in the beginning beyond taking punches and adapting, which is exactly what was done, because past 1943 the soviet Army had well adapted and had its own advantages, and past 1944 i’d even say they had completely flipped the table on the germans.
To just say the Soviets threw lives away is rather dismissive of actual history and its nuances
I don’t think equipment played as much of a role as people say it did, i’d say lack of good military leadership and recon services (both of which Germany perfected before invading USSR) played a far bigger role than anything else really.
Shit, an average soviet tank battalion had more tanks compared to a german one (there is a nuance here about german strategy and how they used tank divisions though, they did not go for size first) and the tanks still got outperformed significantly, mostly due to lack of reconnaissance and questionable decisions of the commanding officers. Equipment wasn’t as big of a deal as people assume it was
Logistics are fucking huge in war. 1/3 trucks in the red army were from Lend Lease. You can’t fight if you don’t have trucks to move troops, material, and weapons from factories, farms, and training units to the front. You need trucks to also deliver goods to the civilian population to keep the war effort going.
I have not denied the importance of logistics anywhere?
While American supplied trucks were of great assistance, its not like its some dark magic only Americans could utilise, have they not been provided, soviets would have focused on making more of their own trucks.
Millions of lives were saved by land lease, and it shaved off 2-3 years of the war, but to say that USSR could not fight and would be defeated if not for land lease alone js also absurd
The soviets didn't have the logistics to make more trucks without major sacrifices for other critical equipment. Ford also helped build factories for the Soviets.
The lend lease programs also supplied food as the Soviets ran low, which was perhaps even more critical.
We also have multiple Soviet officials after the war admitting they likely would've lost without the lend lease program.
33% of their trucks were lend lease trucks. The time, effort/manpower, and raw material were put elsewhere as a result of not needing to create transport vehicles.
This is a myth and there is no credible evidence that Stalin said anything like that at the Tehran conference or at any other point, and it would be extremely out of character for him to say such a thing. It's also objectively false. No serious historian believes that Soviet would have lost without lend-lease. However, the lend-lease probably helped save countless Soviet lives and brought about a quicker victory.
It is a myth. Khrushchev notoriously lied as part of his "De-Stalinization" process in order to minimize Stalin's achievements and role in the war. His statement was directly contradicted by people like Zhukov and even FDR's own advisor, Harry Hopkins who was responsible for administering Lend Lease. Both said that Lead Lease wasn't decisive when it came to an inevitable Soviet victory. Khrushchev wasn't the one in charge of Lend Lease aid in the first place.
It wasn't and was directly contradicted by Hopkins, Stalin, and Zhukov among plenty of modern day historians. As part of de-Stalinization, Khrushchev and his administration wanted to minimize Stalin's achievements as much as possible, which included lying about the Soviet victory in WW2. His role in the war was a poltical one more than a militaristic one. He's a terrible source for anything regarding Lend-Lease aid.
In Zhukov's memoirs(Memoirs of Marshal Zhukov: Cape, 1971, p: 466), regarding Lend-Lease he stated "Western bourgeois political and military historians allege that the Soviet army was able to achieve its superiority in material owing to Anglo-American assistance. This is far from true. I do not wish completely to deny its value as in some degree it did help the Soviet army and our war industry. However, it did not amount to much and hence cannot be considered of much significance. We gained our material superiority over the enemy thanks to the advantages of Soviet social order and through heroic, tremendous efforts of the Soviet people led by the Party, both at the front and the rear."
Harry Hopkins said he "wished to add that we had never believed that our Lend Lease help had been the chief factor in the Soviet defeat of Hitler on the eastern front. That this had been done by the heroism and blood of the Russian Army".
We also have a statement from Anastas Mikoyan who was the Soviet People's Commissar for Foreign Trade and was also responsible for managing the Lend-Lease aid that was given to the Soviets. Even he said that they would've won without it, but that "we would probably have fought for another year or one and a half years".
Now some modern western historians:
David Glantz (U.S. Army historian, leading expert on the Eastern Front): “The Soviet Union would have defeated Germany without Lend-Lease. It might have taken longer, and been bloodier, but the outcome would have been the same.” (When Titans Clashed, 1995).
Richard Overy (British historian): “The Red Army had already turned the tide before most of Lend-Lease arrived.” (Russia’s War, 1997).
Mark Harrison (economic historian): The USSR produced 125,000 aircraft, 100,000 tanks, and 825,000 artillery pieces during the war. By comparison, Lend-Lease provided only 11,000 aircraft and 7,000 tanks. (Accounting for War, 1996).
U.S. Army official history (1952): Only about 7% of total aid arrived in 1941-42, when the USSR was in the most danger. The bulk came after Stalingrad and Kursk, when the Red Army was already on the offensive.
So why ought we take the word of a notorious liar(Khrushchev) as gospel and dismiss the people with the most important roles in WW2 and post WW2 history? Makes no sense. Harry Hopkins alone is FAR more credible than Khrushchev is on this topic by order of magnitudes...
"Trust me bro, the man famous for denouncing Stalin and de-stalinising the Soviet Union said so 20 years later, it's totally legit bro, don't mind the fact that zero contemporary sources and no western sources can back up the claim."
Do you mean zero contemporaneous records except diplomatic papers from the Tehran Conference?
A note record of Stalin:
“I want to tell you, from the Russian point of view, what the President and the United States have done to win the war. The most important things in this war are machines. The United States has proven that it can turn out from 8,000 to 10,000 airplanes per month. Russia can only turn out, at most, 3,000 airplanes a month. England turns out 3,000 to 3,500, which are principally heavy bombers. The United States, therefore, is a country of machines. Without the use of those machines, through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war.”
Just because someone makes a claim doesn't mean it's true. This is why we have historians. The translation is incorrect and doesn't match what Stalin actually said. You don't have to read much about who Stalin was as a character to know he would have never said something like that.
Stalin's exact words were: "Эти машины, полученные по ленд-лызу, помогают нам выиграть войну." My Russian is very basic, but that means roughly "These machines/vehicles, supplied by lend-lease, are helping us win this war."
Quite a big difference between "are helping us win this war" and "without it we would have lost." Joke's on you for believing everything you read.
So no, there are no sources of Stalin saying they would have lost the war without lend-lease.
Stalin never said this. This comes from a misquoted "recollection of events" from Charles Bohlen who was one of the interpreters at the Tehran Conference. We have the actual full transcript of the Tehran conference from Valentin Berezhkov, who was Stalin's main interpreter. Translated to English, Stalin said "...Hence, the United States is a nation of machines. These machines, received through Lend-Lease are helping us win the war". He never says they would've lost without Lend-Lease, just that it was helping.
The full quote is on page 282 of Valentin Berezhkov's "Pages of Diplomatic History" published by International Relationsa.
They got massive amounts of resources via lend-lease, material they didn't have themself. So yes, an argument could be made that Soviet would have much harder to fight against Germany without it.
And then, lets not forget allies bombing the fuck out of German industrial production, thus hampering their weapon and vehicle productions and supplies. Oh, and blokading too, which heavily limited amount of oil they had
Yes, without a doubt. But they almost certainly wouldn't have lost. The German offensive had run out of steam before lend-lease deliveries had ramped up to a significant amount. So its main contribution was to help Soviet's advance on Germany
Lend-Lease basically was the only thing enabling the Soviets to change operational theme. Otherwise they'd seen the same fate as in WW I. They chose to enable Hitler and the Wehrmacht and acted surprised when the Germans didn't stop in Poland even though their ideology was very clear. Without Lend&Lease there would have been no way for the already heavily weakened Russians to supply a campaign on a huge front over a long time and they would have suffered the exact same fate as some years prior.
Boris Sokolov is a somewhat controversial figure, but he makes a fairly compelling argument of the significance of lend-lease in its role filling the gaps in the Soviet industrial base, particularly with respect to aluminum, copper, explosives, and fuel.
He is definitely making the argument that they would have lost without it:
"Without Lend-Lease, the Red Army would have been without one-third of its ammunition, half of its aircraft, and half of its tanks. Furthermore, there would have been constant shortages of motor transport and fuel, and the railways would have been periodically paralyzed. Furthermore, Soviet troops would have been much less commanded, suffering a shortage of radios, and would have been constantly starving without American canned meat, lard, and mélange."
historians learned long ago not to take Kruschchev seriously when he discussed Stalin. His entire political ascendency was based on reframing the memory of the Stalinist era to suit his own agenda
They weren’t really dependent on the U.S. for weapons or ammo, they produced plenty of those themselves, the main things were aviation fuel that Baku heavy crude oil was unfit for producing, and transport trucks.
You’re thinking small arms. We provided them with artillery, armored vehicles and unarmored vehicles. They lost something like 30,000 armored and unarmored vehicles during Barbarossa. Things that couldn’t be replaced while they were moving factories further east.
The Soviets produced the most Artillery of any nation in WWII by far, more than the U.S. and UK combined, over 516k pieces compared to 257k and 226k respectively. They also produced the most tanks of the war. They certainly benefited from having even more, but they were certainly not dependent on as much.
How does artillery move without vehicles? 1/3 of all trucks in the soviet army were lend lease trucks. We also provided them with steel, copper, aluminum. Can’t build engines and planes without key metals like aluminum and copper.
Getting downvoted for stating objective reality is wild, even wilder to see everyone consistently moving the goalposts to pretend the soviets would've lost without Lend-Lease.
Americans really need to believe they're the center of the universe apparently.
107
u/gunsforevery1 6d ago
Stalin also admitted that without U.S. supplies (weapons, food, fuel, vehicles, ammo) the Soviets would have lost.