American and Soviet pilots pose in front of a Bell P-39 Airacobra, supplied to the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease program. Photo: Museum of the U.S. Air Force (Courtesy Photo)
Robert Coalson, RFE: 'We Would Have Lost': Did U.S. Lend-Lease Aid Tip The Balance In Soviet Fight Against Nazi Germany?
On February 24, 1943, a Douglas C-47 Skytrain transport aircraft with serial number 42-32892 rolled out of a factory in Long Beach, California, and was handed over to the U.S. Air Force.
On March 12, 1943, the plane was given to the Soviet Air Force in Fairbanks, Alaska, and given the registration USSR-N238. From there, it flew 5,650 kilometers to the Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk, one of some 14,000 aircraft sent by the United States to the Soviet Union during World War II under the massive Lend-Lease program.
This particular C-47 was sent to the Far North and spent the war conducting reconnaissance and weather-monitoring missions over the Kara Sea. After the war, it was transferred to civilian aviation, carrying passengers over the frozen tundra above the Arctic Circle. On April 23, 1947, it was forced to make an emergency landing with 36 people on board near the village of Volochanka on the Taimyr Peninsula.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: This is a debate that I have had more than once with my father and his World War II comrades. They told me that they never saw or use any US equipment or supplies during the war. I know that my father did ride a US jeep after the war, and he accidentally crashed it a day later. Considering how lousy and careless my father was as a driver, I do believe that story. But during the war my father and his buddies were very adamant. They never saw US aid. They may not have seen any aid, but IMHO US aid did help. The records on what the U.S. shipped to the Soviet Union are a manner of public record, in both the U.S. and in Russia. It may not have been enough to tip the war, but it did contribute to the eventual victory.
11 comments:
I would tend to believe your Dad and his friends. The US aid more than likely kept Russia from losing the war vs winning the war. It's not unusual for aid to have a great effect without being seen or used by the troops.
Part 1
Without Lend Lease, it is highly unlikely we'd have seen the successful Red Army offensives in 1943-1945 because that was only possible by all the logistical support provided by the US. Most likely the Soviets would have still been bogged down somewhere in Ukraine and Belarus by the end of the war with a lot more dead. They certainly would not have made it to Berlin, probably not even Warsaw.
As RFERL said, the US provided over half of all rails during the war. US also sent almost 2000 locomotives (the # of locomotives produced by Soviet Union was only 92). US also provided over 11,000 railway cars. Soviets produced less than 1100. Combined with 363,000 trucks, it is hard to see how the Soviets could have provided a sustained offensive. Their logistics would have collapsed and they could not conducted their deep operations.
Then there are the 380,000 field telephones, 5,800 radio receivers, 35,000 radio stations, and 956,688 miles of telephone wire that the US sent. I think that had a pretty decisive effect of enabling the Red Army to coordinate its operations and respond quickly. All of that would be lost without Lend Lease. Nobody could have sent instructions to aircraft, tanks, and commanders without that telecommunication equipment. As noted during the Battle of France, while the Germans actually had inferior tanks than the French, the fact that they had radios in theirs while the French did not proved decisive.
The US also provided almost 15 million pairs of boots. I believe a total of 35 million men served during the war. So that is almost half the Red Army. Needless to say, it's hard to have soldiers when they don't have the proper footwear. RFERL mentions this as well.
Then there was the 782,973 tons of canned meat that the Red Army ate. Hard for your soldiers to fight if they don't have food. That amounted to half a pound of food for every Soviet soldier every day of the war. RFERL says 4.5 million tons of food which has to include the canned meat and food in other forms. Needless to say soldiers march on their stomachs.
RFERL says the US provided aviation fuel equivalent to 57% Soviet production. But Russia's War by Richard Overy (where I am pulling all my statistics, and he used Sokolov for his Lend Lease source as well) said that US provided 57.8% of the Soviet's aviation fuel requirements, meaning the US provided more than the Soviets produced. RFERL is pulling from the same sources, so I'm not sure who is right unless I consult Sokolov's article myself.
But the US also provided 53& of all explosives and almost half of the Soviet's wartime needs of copper, aluminum, and rubber tires. So without Lend Lease, the Soviet manufacturing production collapses.
Some of the manufacturing collapse could have been prevented by Soviets changing their own economic priorities. But that would have meant pulling men out of the armed forces and into the mines, factories, and farms and probably by producing less tanks and other military equipment.
Part 2
Taped conversations from Stalin, Zhukhov, and Khruschev all admit to the same thing - without US Lend Lease, the Soviets would have lost the war. Private statements from Soviet leaders contradict the Soviet official version that Lend Lease was negligible because the official version was mere propaganda with no more base in reality than any other Soviet lie.
So this is not even a question of whether Lend Lease helped or if it "tipped" the war. Quite simply, the Soviets would not have won. Way too much of the Soviet war production and logistics capability was based on Lend Lease. They might not have lost - late 1941-1942 proved the Soviet Union was not going to collapse, and the Germans were outrunning their own logistics network. The Soviets were going to hold, but that is different from beating the enemy.
As for the author's father who "never saw" American aid. Most likely he was eating American food throughout the war, probably wore American boots, belts, and blankets. He received his orders on American telecommunication equipment, and received his supplies on American trucks and railway equipment while much of his Soviet made equipment was produced with American materials and capital tooling. I hope he liked all that artillery support that was possible because of American explosives.
The soldiers of the Red Army have a lot to be proud of, but it doesn't diminish their individual bravery and competence to acknowledge Lend Lease was essential to their war effort.
Chris
I'd like to think that program ALSO kept German subs and surface raiders out of the Atlantic because they were trying to sink stuff up north.
The Us tanks were inferior to the Russian tanks. However, any us tank used in rear area security, freed up a Russian tank for the front. It I remember by the information correctly the US account ed for 10% of fighter planes and 10% of tanks. The Eastern front was won with Russian tanks.
Where I think lend lease was key was in trucks. Without the lend lease trucks the Russians may have won, but they would not have won as quickly. Without the trucks moving supplies offensives would have ground to a halt faster and been further spaced apart in time. Often offensives ground to halt not because German resistance was that awesome, but the Russians ran out of supplies.
Patton wanted more bulldozers than more tanks. The Russians needed more trucks than more tanks.
Lengthening the war might have been fatal for the USSR. Germany had a nuke program. However it had been compromised from within before the war. During the war it was further compromised by special forces in Norway and maybe internally.
Well obviously Anon 3:49 said it better than me.
Did not know about the rail cars or field telephones.
One deficiency with Soviet tanks, which really crippled them was the fact they did not have radios to communicate with other elements. So field telephones for battalions, companies etc is really key.
It seems obvious that lens lease definitely helped greatly. Without lebd lease the war would likely have taken longer, there would have been more casualties on all sides due to the war taking longer, the infrastructure damage to Europe would have been greater due to the war being longer, rebuilding Europe in the aftermath would've taken longer, and it would've been more expensive. These are very good things about lend lease. Overall it seems to have had positive utility.
With that said it did not change the end result. Nazi Germany still loses and the Soviet Inion still wins.
My grandfathers neighbour in Edinburgh spent his life in the British merchant navy. He did the Atlantic & Arctic convoys, the Murmansk run. He was sunk twice & lived to tell the tale. He gave my father, when he was a small boy, the 1st ever banana he ever ate. Mr Wright was his name. I remember seeing him when I was a child a few times. Lovely gentleman. The other neighbours, Mr Henderson fought in Italy with the 2nd Royal Scots & Old Dick Richards was a Sgt Major in the Highland Light Infantry a retired Boer war & WW1 veteran brought back as a recruiting Sgt in Edinburgh for WW2. Dick I never met but they were gentlemen as were all the British & Polish veterans I met, including a grand old lady who survived the Battle of Warsaw & a German concentration camp.
Not sure about winning but as far as shortening the length Lend Lease helped. Forget the movies, most the German Army was not mechanized to the degree the Western Allies were. Trucks make reliable logistics possible. I’m sure the AirCobras and tanks helped Russia to some degree but on both fronts the two and a half ton truck, the duce and a half, was key.
Thanks, great info and history!
One of my family members was in the merchant marine and shipped supplies to Russia via the Murmansk route in 1944, '45. He once told of watching the Russian dockworkers paint out any indication of origin on the shipping crates with white paint and then painted made in Russia on the same container.
I greatly enjoyed the preceding comments. I learned quite a bit on the enormity of the Lend Lease program.
Post a Comment