Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Login ] [ Active ]

Lend-Lease Aid

POST REPLY
Log-in to remove advertisement.
Post 31 Jan 2005, 13:37
Ports located in the Baltic and Barents sea, were basically inaccessible, due to many of the supposed 'supply ships' were of poor quality and unable to make it through the Rough seas and Ice covered seas. And whilst the Soviet Union was in it's darkest hour, and the so-called 'Lend Lease Aid' was at its greatest hour, they were blocked off by the German forces at Stalingrad.

The ports of Vyborg were plagued by U-boats, and Kaliningrad was totally overrun. So basically very few ships actually got through.
Post 31 Jan 2005, 13:44
Nikita Khrushchev wrote:
Ports located in the Baltic and Barents sea, were basically inaccessible, due to many of the supposed 'supply ships' were of poor quality and unable to make it through the Rough seas and Ice covered seas. And whilst the Soviet Union was in it's darkest hour, and the so-called 'Lend Lease Aid' was at its greatest hour, they were blocked off by the German forces at Stalingrad.

The ports of Vyborg were plagued by U-boats, and Kaliningrad was totally overrun. So basically very few ships actually got through.



You seem to be forgetting Murmansk where the most of the supply ships came, thats why there where Finnish "sissis" send there to destroy/cut the railways to cause problems to supply-transpoorting.
Post 31 Jan 2005, 13:51
Are you aware of the difficulties travelling to Murmansk in the poor quality ships of which they were using? obviously you know nothing of the Barents see. Perhaps you should do some research on the weather conditions of such a place?

Image
Post 31 Jan 2005, 13:55
Majority of lend-lease aid, which was rather insignificant compared to Soviet industry were delivered by pacific route.
Post 31 Jan 2005, 13:57
Petropavlovsk kamchatskiy?
Post 31 Jan 2005, 13:57
Comrade Russell wrote:
Majority of lend-lease aid, which was rather insignificant compared to Soviet industry were delivered by pacific route.


What about the trucks? Food? Resources? Eh? The war would have taken more casualties and lasted longer without them.

http://www.iremember.ru/tankers/loza/loza1.html

Russian Sherman commander interview.
Post 31 Jan 2005, 14:00
I'm not saying that those trucks, boots and such didn't help. Lend-leases importance just so much exagerated.
Post 31 Jan 2005, 14:01
Perhaps the Soviet Union recieved some Shermans, but it was definately not at the crucial time of Soviet resistance towards the Nazis, as all trade routes were blocked, until the time came for the massive Soviet counter-attack, at which by then the Soviets were dominating the Nazis.
Post 31 Jan 2005, 15:01
Nikita Khrushchev wrote:
Who?

What?


I was reffering to kormy.
Post 31 Jan 2005, 16:03
Quote:
Majority of lend-lease aid, which was rather insignificant compared to Soviet industry were delivered by pacific route.


Than the Russian have the fun of transporting them across their country.

I thought the Lend-Lease Program was mainly designed to help England?
Does anyone have any numbers for them so I can compere them to the USSR?
Post 31 Jan 2005, 18:17
Red Rebel wrote:
I thought the Lend-Lease Program was mainly designed to help England?
Does anyone have any numbers for them so I can compere them to the USSR?

USSR received 11 billion USD
UK received 31 billion USD
China received 1 billion USD

Source: Venäjän historia
Post 31 Jan 2005, 19:58
Red Rebel wrote:
Quote:
Majority of lend-lease aid, which was rather insignificant compared to Soviet industry were delivered by pacific route.


Than the Russian have the fun of transporting them across their country.

I thought the Lend-Lease Program was mainly designed to help England?
Does anyone have any numbers for them so I can compere them to the USSR?


At least there wasnt U-boats.
Post 01 Feb 2005, 11:34
Post 01 Feb 2005, 16:04
Quote:
USSR received 11 billion USD
UK received 31 billion USD
China received 1 billion USD


Thank, this proves my point that the Lend-Lease looked good in paper for the US + USSR relationship but did not help them as much as it seems. The USSR should have goten more than the UK becuase (besides China) suffered the most.

Quote:
At least there wasnt U-boats.


Still their were Japanese ships and subs to worry about. And paying for the transportation of goods.

I wish I could remember were I found this quote but it went something like this: "America won the war through Spam." and their was something else like: "America gave Spam to Russia in return for their blood." Again I'm not sure were I found them and their not directly from the source.
Post 01 Feb 2005, 20:47
Red Rebel wrote:
Quote:
At least there wasnt U-boats.


Still their were Japanese ships and subs to worry about. And paying for the transportation of goods.

In fact, no, as goods were transported by Soviet or "Soviet" ships. Japan was neutral in GPW and Japanese subs and ships stayed out from US west coast (with 2-3 exceptions).
Post 02 Feb 2005, 02:34
The Soviets didn't have enough 'ships' in the numbers it would require them to recieve these vast amounts of supplys, therefore they must have been delievered by old British Merchant ships. But U-boats in the Barent see and Horrible weather basically put a stop to the delivering of so called 'aid'. In the pacific Japan had control of the sea around the major Soviet Ports, which made it inaccesable.
Post 02 Feb 2005, 08:32
Nikita* wrote:
In the pacific Japan had control of the sea around the major Soviet Ports, which made it inaccesable.

Soviet Union was not in war with Japan 1941-44, so it didn't matter that Japan controlled waters outside Vladivostok. Soviet ships were able freely travel through international waters from US west coast to Vladivostok without the fear of Japanese subs or ships: they could do as much as Liberian navy to them. The battle of Khalkhin Gol/Nomonhan incident had shown to Japanese not to mess with Soviets.
Post 02 Feb 2005, 08:57
As I mentioned before, they were not Soviet Ships, they were American; The Japanese were at war with the Americans. That is why the Americans did not risk using the Pacific route, it was not used. If you read my previos post properly you would understand that they were American & British ships doing the delievering, not Soviet ships, the Soviets [At the time] did not have an adequate merchant fleet capable of dealing with such high levels of supposed 'aid'.
Post 02 Feb 2005, 11:57
Nikita* wrote:
As I mentioned before, they were not Soviet Ships, they were American; The Japanese were at war with the Americans. That is why the Americans did not risk using the Pacific route, it was not used. If you read my previos post properly you would understand that they were American & British ships doing the delievering, not Soviet ships, the Soviets [At the time] did not have an adequate merchant fleet capable of dealing with such high levels of supposed 'aid'.

See http://www.o5m6.de/routes.html. Almost half of Lend-Lease to SU was delivered through Far East, and most of that was delivered through Vladivostok.

Most of those delivered 104 ships and boats were merchant ships capable of high sea travel. In some cases also US ships raised Soviet flag when they sailed to Vladivostok.
Post 02 Feb 2005, 12:10
They were all US ships.

Image


Then travelled via the Trans Siberian railway, which would take a rather long time to get there, if infact they even got to there designated destination.



Use your brain.
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
[ Top ]