Apologies for the cut offs before the slides. It's my first time using powerpoint 2016 and didn't even know this cut out feature existed. I felt it didn't take any important information away so that is why I have not re recorded. Also couldn't find a public domain pre war map so used post war. Also I pronounced operation typhoon bizarrely. 18:00 Also, tariffs didn't mean they directly taxed the US/UK except unless agreed upon. It meant that the goods were taxed domestically once they arrived. I would need to do more research on this topic.

@TheUstasha101

4 жыл бұрын

Hi I always curious -could the Soviet Union take on Nazi germany( + a Romania,Finland and Hungary) alone?

Do not use GDP as a comparative measure for the Soviet economy, it's essentially meaningless, because there's no market valuation. Measure outputs.

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

elaborate please. are you speaking of artificial prices because then I agree with you. I spoke about the overvaluation of Soviet share of GDP compared to lend lease because if import duties.

@ddbrady3787

6 жыл бұрын

GDP doesn't measure output. It measures the market value of what is produced - this valuation is very problematic where conditions exist: 1) there is no "market" in the Soviet Union, it's a command economy; what is produced is done so as a consequence of a plan, and available human and technological resources; 2) In your video, you say that it's a "mystery" as to why the Soviets outproduced the Germans in many categories of military equipment, such as tanks, aircraft, and the like, even though the GDP of Germany is 130% of that of the Soviet Union. Mystery solved - GDP can't be used to compare a capitalist economy which operates according to a totally different paradigm than a socialist one. Simply measure the output of each country, as you did, and you discover the *actual economic power of the economic system.*

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

Nope I disagree. The mystery is because the Germans did not mobilize their war resources extensively and had a more consumer based economy. The Soviets over compensated their moblization and were dangerously close to collapse. This is reason why countries like North Korea have huge militarization despite a weak economy.

@ddbrady3787

6 жыл бұрын

It doesn't matter whether you agree or not. If one country produces more than another country - discussion of comparative GDP is meaningless. The whole discussion of GDP has no substance in this presentation. "Country A produced twice as many tanks as Country B, even though Country B had a higher GDP;" ad nauseam.

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

The discussion is important because it signals overall economic health. The Soviets produced more armaments but were dangerously mobilizing their economy so it doesn't show sustainability. Higher GDP signals higher productivity levels not just in armament levels which is important in maintaining a balance between the consumer economy and armament industry. Using just flat out production rates lacks nuance.

The first lend-lease delivery on the Pacific route arrived in Vladivostok on September 4th, 1941, aboard the tanker L. P. St. Clair carrying 11,000 tons of aviation fuel. It arrived about four days after the first convoy on the northern route and was followed by two more tankers of aviation fuel over the next four days.

Antiknock Additives containing Lead were used to increase octane ratings for AvGas. Antiknock allowed engines to run higher pressures longer without backfires, enabling higher manifold pressures, ergo more power on demand. Keeping the manifold cool was how you did that and both Lead additives (Allies) and MW:50 boost (Germans) kept the manifold cooler, so that higher pressures could be maintained. This was crucial for the operations of high performance aircraft engines. Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles has a couple of really smooth videos about the topic. And this is a big reason Japan went to war with us-we'd cut off all the high octane additives needed to prosecute the war in China.

@WildBillCox13

5 жыл бұрын

Here's one: kzread.info/dash/bejne/Y4R1mZKpfpnggLA.html Here's another: kzread.info/dash/bejne/pYh4maaqiMm4ntI.html

@BlitzOfTheReich

5 жыл бұрын

that is a very interesting analysis and if true it would go hand in hand with the stat that around 60% of aircraft fuel of the Soviets was provided by lend lease.

@WildBillCox13

5 жыл бұрын

@@BlitzOfTheReich Here's the explanatory lecture that lit me up on the topic: kzread.info/dash/bejne/dJNk1auPhbXLYLA.html

can you site the trade flow numbers percentage number? I am looking of the source.

11:30 Modest nitpick here but the GDP's are averaged for the entire year, so the Soviet 1941 numbers are also depressed because of Barbarossa and are not entirely from "before". If one looks at the 1938-1940 numbers, one can see that the GDP ratio hovers around nearly 1:1. So it is entirely accurate to say that the Soviet GDP disadvantage stems from the huge economic losses first to Barbarossa and then to Operation Blau in 1942, which set off another round of dislocation and disruption among the Soviet industry. This goes double for industries outside of armaments production, which were lower priority for evacuation (or couldn't be moved in the first place, like the raw material sectors).

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

Yes that is true but if you look at the document by Mark Harrison the correct GDP figures in red are probably the war time ones which are 1942 onward.

@ObssesedNuker

6 жыл бұрын

But that was after the Soviets lost most of the economic resources in those territories. Even retaking that land doesn't magically restore the destroyed factories, mines, farmland, and infrastructure within that territory to working order and reconstruction from all the damage wasn't finished until well into the 1950s. So even as late as 1945, the Soviets were operating from a war economy that had been mauled by the Germans despite the reconquest of all their land.

@21:25 You put up a graphic which claims that LL accounted for 14% of resources. This figure is correct, if you add up all the LL from 1941 to 1945, and compare it to Soviet output in the same period. What this kind of graphic lacks is a time context. The bulk of the deliveries occurred after mid-1943, nearly 2 years into the war, through 1944, tailing off towards the end of 1944. By December, 1942, for example, only about 14% of the *total quantity* of Lend Lease had been delivered, even though at that time the war had been going on for 18 months. Up to February 1943, the quantities of Lend Lease were minuscule compared to existing quantities and output in the Soviet Union. This is the basis for the thesis that the Soviet essentially beat the Wehrmacht on its own. The later deliveries help accelerate the end of the Wehrmacht, perhaps by as much as 3 to 6 months, and that was chiefly due to the large number of trucks which supplemented the GAZ production, and other key material deliveries which added mobility to the infantry, logistical, and support forces of the Red Army. Excluding the time of delivery component from your analysis removes an important and relevant consideration of the campaign.

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

I mentioned that peak deliverables were in late 1943 and acknowledged that the strategic initiative of the war was already achieved on the Soviet side. However, I believe they would have never won rather they would have had a truce with Germany had the allies not participated at all. My ending stats on aviation fuel, trucks, tank equipment, and so on show much lend lease gave in terms of overall production. Did you see my whole video because the timing of the deliveries is a central component to my discussion.

@ddbrady3787

6 жыл бұрын

No serious historian takes the position you do with respect to "truce." The work you present, while good in some aspects, also reflects this bias of belief. You "mentioned that peak deliverables were in late 1943" but this doesn't mitigate the other aspects of the presentation where this is a relevant fact, but omitted. The myth believed by most Americans is that without Allied Lend Lease, the Soviets would have lost to the Germans, or as you believe, would never have been able to defeat the Wehrmacht. These positions often take on an absurd quality. For example, in the battle of Moscow, from about early October to early December 1941, the Soviets had only about 400 to 600 tanks available (including, it should be mentioned, about half a brigade of T-34s). During this period, some ~60 British tanks were received through Murmansk, and were eventually committed to this battle. Despite the fact that the battle occurred over several hundred thousand square kilometers, and over a million troops (around 1.5 million altogether by early December both sides additive), these 60 tanks are presented by some as *the* reason the Germans failed to take Moscow. You do not take an absurd position in your video, and you present researched facts. My position is that parts of the video tend to reinforce the mythical view about Lend Lease, because in those particular parts, such as the one at issue here (around 21:20), a key fact in that segment is missing, even though it's presented elsewhere. The key point is this: Lend Lease did not change the ultimate outcome - it merely moved the timetable. This is proven by the fact that as of February 2, 1943, after the destruction of the 6th Army and about 1/4 of total German combat power on the Eastern Front in the Uranus offensive, Lend Lease supplies had little or nothing to do with this victory - they were simply too small to have made any difference at that time. Later on, particularly after the battles of Kursk and Kiev, you can see that the pace of advances against the Wehrmacht by the Red army accelerated dramatically, because by then the added infantry and support mobility allowed the Soviets to sustain their offensives and intensify their pace. From June 22, 1944 to October, 1944, the Soviets came close to matching German performance in speed of advance in 1941, because their supply, logistics, support, artillery and infantry units - at least for the first echelon divisions - were fully supplied with trucks and other material, and this *was* in part due to Lend Lease. That speed of advance would have slowed without those supplies, but in no case can an argument be made that the Germans would have held off or defeated the offensive. Stay away from subjective judgments before you have all the facts.

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

Actually many do to a degree. Mark Harrison? David Glantz, Anthony Beevor take positions of cautious optimism that the red army may have been ablet o win but with great difficulty. Mark Harrison even uses economic figures to prove the dangerous levels of over mobilization and lack of labor for consumer goods which lingered in the Soviet economy. I do not take the position of saying the Soviets would have lost because geographically Russia gives so much room to escape and regroup. The logistics would have killed the Germans off. Also in the presentation I constantly mention the peak deliverables figure. I even say the strategic initiative for the Soviets was already decided before lend lease came in droves however it would have been difficult to win an unconditional victory like they did. Actually the tank figure for Moscow is wrong the British supplied much more than 60. But I agree that this shouldn't be used as a decisive argument. I just mentioned it to introduce the allied perspective and you are taking it as if that is my position. I completely agree lend lease had little to do with Uranus and Stalingrad however Uranus and little Saturn were heavily bogged down by logistical problems that did not allow them to kill of the remaining German evacuees from the Caucasus.

@ddbrady3787

6 жыл бұрын

"However, I believe they would have never won rather they would have had a truce with Germany had the allies not participated at all" is not the same thing as "cautious optimism that the red army may have been ablet o win but with great difficulty." Good luck blitz.

@yoyohoolahoop3705

6 жыл бұрын

You say "Stay away from subjective judgments before you have all the facts." - but you have also said "Lend Lease did not change the ultimate outcome - it merely moved the timetable." as well as "That speed of advance would have slowed without those supplies, but in no case can an argument be made that the Germans would have held off or defeated the offensive.". Both statements are also subjective judgments - you have no evidence to prove them.

From "Food and other strategic deliveries to the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease Act, 1941-1945" , 46% aluminium, 43% of copper, 33% armour steel ,52 % of cobalt, and 56% of rails. Enough food to feed 6500000 people a year was also delivered by the west. Aluminium is useful in aeroplanes, cobalt is necessary for various engines. In addition the west helped with the industrial tools necessary for the upgrade and rebuilding of the factories in the soviet union (although I can't quite remember the specifics or the source for this so feel free to disregard) A naive economic model might conclude the soviet would have only half the planes and tanks that they did have without aid (I am unclear as to the timing of these things though). This might be sufficient to push the soviets further east, however in a counter factual the soviets may have eventually had the Americans and Brits go to Russia if they did poorly enough.

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

interesting although I cite total armament production contributions toward the end. The allies leased 10% of Soviet planes however this does not count planes made from raw materials you cited that were supplied through lend lease.

@SarevokRegor

6 жыл бұрын

Well if you want high direct production , books.google.com.au/books?id=-BN64vwKSkQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Lend+lease+aid+zhukov+ordnance&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1suXIkovaAhXHa7wKHUIBCO8Q6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&q=Ordnance&f=false , "Russias lifesaver : Lend lease aid to the USSR in ww2", from Sokolov page 8-9, ordinance (ammo and explosives) was 53% from allied production, 92.7% of new railcars/equipment was western ( although existing stock of rail engines means this added something closer to 10% freight capacity, I'd have to look up a source for that though), and 32.8 % wheeled vehicles (although as captured german vehicles made up 9% of vehicles it would be up to 36% of the fleet, if you assume soviets do bad at capturing vehicles without aid they would have 58% of the vehicles they had in real life). Additionally Sokolov calculated 30 % increased production of airplanes coming from western aid to their production lines.

@Jagnole101

6 жыл бұрын

Blitz Of The Reich regardless of number of US planes given to Russia, the ones they gave them can’t be ignored. P39s were modified by the Soviets by dismounting the guns on the wings and keeping the guns in the center...most notably the 37mm. 5/10 of the Soviets aces flew P39s. Although the Yak and the Ilyshun(spell check) had more numbers, you can’t tell me the P39s usage wasn’t felt

@SarevokRegor

6 жыл бұрын

Regarding the importance of 1941-1942 and them not getting much lend lease aid in those years , as little as 60'000 tonnes of aluminum would be sufficient to double their aircraft production, and 200'000 tonnes of armour plate 2 or 1.5 increase to tank production in 41 & 42 respectively (using 33% armour plate from previous posts). Whilst these are not necessarily the quantity that they received (particularly likely in 41 regarding armour plate) , it is only 260'000 tonnes, whereas lendlease delivered 360 000 ton & 2500 000 ton in 41 & 42 respectively. (and this is only counting US deliveries and ignoring the British empire) Essentially all of the bottlenecks to aircraft and tank production discussed can be lifted via 260 000 tons .

@SarevokRegor

6 жыл бұрын

You can also get lend lease deliveries from here , books.google.com.au/books?id=A_w_EoObv-EC&pg=RA1-PA25&lpg=RA1-PA25&dq=report+to+congress+on+lendlease+aluminum&source=bl&ots=pAvckwgVke&sig=_PEf9-ZKmNe7y5TzDlTl4vedQjE&hl=en&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwj_8r3MvozaAhVJF5QKHXrMDmYQ6AEwAHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false , which suggests that the us was exporting 40'000 tonnes of Aluminum per year in 1942, although not just to the soviets . ( page 26)

21:13 According to your very source, 16% is for 1943 only. According to another paper by the same Harrison for 41-45 Lend lease amounted to around 7-8% of Soviet GNP.

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

'(But whether "the same period" meant 1942-43, or "the war economy period" as a whole, was left irritatingly vague. ' Yes 'It shows that by (not only 1943) 1943, Allied aid was contributing 14 per cent of the total of resources available to ("absorbed" by) the Soviet economy, and represented 16 per cent of domestic output.' Remember that this counts 1943 peak of deliverable's plus 1942 and 1941. warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/lendlease.pdf However on page 41 it states that net imports were 11% 16% 14% of GDP between 1942-1943. The issue is that the above quote (by 1943) makes it seem that the average net import % was roughly 14% (13.5 if we average 11 + 16). He doesn't give a % for 1945 although lend lease was still much stronger in 1945 than in 1942 for example so the average was still about 14%. I believe I did over state lend lease at 16% but not much.

@smithnwesson990

4 жыл бұрын

Hell Zukhov is on record and quoted saying how they couldn't load rifle cartridges. American explosives and gunpowder saved that. More importantly he states how an incredible ammount of steel was givin allowing them to make tanks and how they couldnt move their artillery without American Studebaker trucks. Now take all thise trucks steel and gunpowder away and now you have an srmy that cant move quickly and cant bring artilery forward to mount counter offensives or attacks. It's like Russians feel people are calling them incompetent if they admit to ammount of help given and how it changed the war. Russia would most likely have negotiated peace if it was up to them alone but it wasnt. The world was at war yet because of the massive dying on the eastern front it has been made to look like that was the war itself

@UserName-om6ft

9 ай бұрын

without the millions of US and Western troops defeating the Germans in Western Europe, Italy, and North Africa plus without the US giving the USSR billions of dollars worth of guns, ammo, tanks, planes, trucks, jeeps, tractors, trains and locomotives, boxcars, train rail tracks, tires, steel, explosives, aluminum, wire, rubber, gun powder, fuel, food, clothes, blankets, cotton, army boots, radios, and other crucial military and logistical equipment through US Lend Lease then the USSR would have been steamrolled by Germany, In total, 92.7% of the wartime production of railroad equipment by the USSR was supplied by Lend-Lease, including 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars which augmented the existing stocks of at least 20,000 American locomotives and half a million American railcars. Much of the logistical assistance of the Soviet military was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks, 1/3rd of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4th ton and Studebaker 2+1/2 ton were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations and clothing were also critical. Lend-Lease also supplied significant amounts of weapons and ammunition. The Soviet air force received 18,200 aircraft, which amounted to about 30 percent of Soviet wartime fighter and bomber production (mid 1941-45). About 13,000 Lend-Lease tanks were provided to the Soviet Union. A particular critical aspect of Lend-Lease was the supply of food. The invasion had cost the USSR a huge amount of its agricultural base, during the initial Axis offensive of 1941-42, the total sown area of the USSR fell by 41.9% and the number of collective and state farms by 40%. The Soviets lost a substantial number of draft and farm animals as they were not able to relocate all the animals in an area before it was captured and of those areas in which the Axis forces would occupy, the Soviets had lost 7 million of out of 11.6 million horses, 17 million out of 31 million cows, 20 million of 23.6 million pigs and 27 million out of 43 million sheep and goats. Tens of thousands of agricultural machines, such as tractors and threshers, were destroyed or captured. Agriculture also suffered a loss of labor, between 1941 and 1945, 19.5 million working-age men had to leave their farms to work in the military and industry. Agricultural issues were also compounded when the Soviets were on the offensive, areas taken back from the Axis had been devastated and contained millions of people who needed to be fed. Lend-Lease thus provided a massive number of foodstuffs and agricultural products. When the German army captured Ukraine, the USSR was on borrowed time because they had lost their breadbasket and food source, guess who kept the Soviets fed? The USA, during WW2 Lend-Lease data show that about 5.1 million tons of foodstuff left the United States for the Soviet Union. It is estimated that all the food supplies sent to Russia could feed a 12,000,000-man strong army a half pound of concentrated food per day, for the entire duration of the war. The Soviets couldnt even produce enough high octane aviation fuel for their planes so they had to rely on Lend Leased fuel

Can’t we just agree that the war would have lasted longer without lend lease.

@BlitzOfTheReich

5 жыл бұрын

das ist treue

@fulcrum2951

4 жыл бұрын

No, because the internet needs to spread the salt

@nickdanger3802

4 жыл бұрын

The war in Europe would have lasted exactly three months longer because the USA tested the first atom bomb in July 1945.

@trumpstinyhands

3 жыл бұрын

Fact

@deason2365

2 жыл бұрын

No it would have ended pretty quick

Blitz, it was mentioned that Land Lease contributed quite a lot Rails to the logistics restoration efforts of the USSR. How come this proportion is this high since rail production was pretty mature for the Soviets, was also backed by independent resource base (semi qualified labor, iron, coal etc)?

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

I think the great distances in the Soviet Union simply needed a very well developed infrastructure. The Soviets simply did not have the manpower to focus on consumer goods + armaments + their infrastructure. If they over mobilized their labor force they would risk destroying their consumer economy. You could see inflationary pressure on basic goods like bread and what not, which is something people rarely talk about in war. We just focus on armament production and ignore the real economy.

Looking at thins like some raw materials, logistics(trucks, rails etc) food, clothing, then Land Lease was a great of help. Without it things would be much harder and bloodier.

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

that is true

Hey, Make a video about the Marshall Plan too. ♡

I just want to encourage you to produce more content. The views will come, your videos are very informative, good job!

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

thanks a lot! whenever I see these types of comments I get a warm feeling in my heart.

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

Also I encourage you to subscribe if you haven't!

@rickywiehr7044

6 жыл бұрын

Did that after I found the first video from you!

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

Hurrah!!! I just released another on anthropology. It's a little left field but still worth watching. Remember to also share with your friends. :D

If the USSR says it was a measly 4% they wouldn't have bothered with it. If they could have defeated Germany on their own then why need Allied Aid,Armaments, raw materials? They were on the ropes. Allied aid propped them up.

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

to a certain extent yes. It alleviated the consumer goods economy and allowed them to collect revenue via import tariffs.

You need to script your videos to cut out all the thought pauses and incorrect description words used. Lots of erms too. Apart from that (sorry if i come across as negative) your videos are awesome. Sub'd and im now going to watch your back catalog. Thank you

@BlitzOfTheReich

4 жыл бұрын

Most of my videos are scripted so this is more of an exception to the quality.

This is a solid presentation, but I wish you had stressed how much food the USA sent to the USSR during the war. The USA effectively kept the Red army from starving.

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

I do mention that throughout the video but I don't stress it too much. I agree with you. However on the 21:00 mark I do talk about agricultural shortage and what not so it is related. Thank you for the compliment.

@smithnwesson990

4 жыл бұрын

Absolutely. Not only food but millions and millions of boots ect.

Nikita Khrushchev declared: "Without Spam we wouldn't have been able to feed our army." Smith, Andrew F., ed. (2012). The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Food and Drink in America. Oxford University Press. p. 343.

@BlitzOfTheReich

4 жыл бұрын

yes I have heard this quote somewhere before. I believe Stalin also acknowledge it. I recall finding that in a Harrison paper.

@vuktodic1356

3 жыл бұрын

Well yes and no soviet food production before the war was 56 m tons of food per year so its june of 1941 when barbarossa ended it was around 29 m tons of food in comparison us delivered and rest of allies 4.5 m tons of food so i dont know if that is some critical food that soviets need because they cant produce themselfs but if you calculate everything i can make some rough numbers but sovists from 42 to end of war in 45 basically produced 120 to 140 m tons of food this is including capturing areas altough 4.5 m tons of food can feed like 11 or 12 m peoples by soviet standards its only on one year if you calculate american standards so 2500 cals it can go 10 m or even lower so i dont know if that is propaganda or it was a some specific type of food that soviets could not produce in big quantities but thats why i avoid using quotes from some peoples who said it like 70 years ago even tho he did say it does not mean he was right i can also say that us lend lease did nothing and if im stalin or some nikita then its probably right because i said it which is absolute bullshit i could start quoting from other peoples and we can end up with quotes from some who said lend lease won the war and from some that said lend lease did nothing which means forever we go with that theory

@nickdanger3802

3 жыл бұрын

@@vuktodic1356 Food and other strategic deliveries to the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease Act, 1941-1945 histrf.ru/uploads/media/default/0001/12/df78d3da0fe55d965333035cd9d4ee2770550653.pdf

@UserName-om6ft

9 ай бұрын

@@vuktodic1356 In total, 92.7% of the wartime production of railroad equipment by the USSR was supplied by Lend-Lease, including 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars which augmented the existing stocks of at least 20,000 American locomotives and half a million American railcars. Much of the logistical assistance of the Soviet military was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks, 1/3rd of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4th ton and Studebaker 2+1/2 ton were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations and clothing were also critical. Lend-Lease also supplied significant amounts of weapons and ammunition. The Soviet air force received 18,200 aircraft, which amounted to about 30 percent of Soviet wartime fighter and bomber production (mid 1941-45). About 13,000 Lend-Lease tanks were provided to the Soviet Union. A particular critical aspect of Lend-Lease was the supply of food. The invasion had cost the USSR a huge amount of its agricultural base, during the initial Axis offensive of 1941-42, the total sown area of the USSR fell by 41.9% and the number of collective and state farms by 40%. The Soviets lost a substantial number of draft and farm animals as they were not able to relocate all the animals in an area before it was captured and of those areas in which the Axis forces would occupy, the Soviets had lost 7 million of out of 11.6 million horses, 17 million out of 31 million cows, 20 million of 23.6 million pigs and 27 million out of 43 million sheep and goats. Tens of thousands of agricultural machines, such as tractors and threshers, were destroyed or captured. Agriculture also suffered a loss of labor, between 1941 and 1945, 19.5 million working-age men had to leave their farms to work in the military and industry. Agricultural issues were also compounded when the Soviets were on the offensive, areas taken back from the Axis had been devastated and contained millions of people who needed to be fed. Lend-Lease thus provided a massive number of foodstuffs and agricultural products. When the German army captured Ukraine, the USSR was on borrowed time because they had lost their breadbasket and food source, guess who kept the Soviets fed? The USA, during WW2 Lend-Lease data show that about 5.1 million tons of foodstuff left the United States for the Soviet Union. It is estimated that all the food supplies sent to Russia could feed a 12,000,000-man strong army a half pound of concentrated food per day, for the entire duration of the war.

To be fair, the Bolsheviks got more aid from their National Socialist allies before June of 1941. Of course, Stalin did make sure that his socialist comrades in Germany got plenty of support and supplies too.

@BlitzOfTheReich

4 жыл бұрын

through the form of boooooombs

@DrCruel

4 жыл бұрын

@@BlitzOfTheReich Actually, the biggest aid was in the form of fuel. Stalin expected the war in France to be a long one, and his Nazi friends needed lots of fuel for their panzers and planes. The irony was that the French campaign was short, and the Wehrmacht got plenty of fuel from French gas stations during the mad rush forward. Those massive supplies of precious petrol would be used instead for the upcoming Eastern campaign, lasting all throughout 1941.

Forgot to mention more than half the Al. (for the T-34 and aircraft engines) came from the US.

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

interesting. can I have a source please.

Organic. As in grown from fertilizer

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

No I probably meant organic as in not due to unnatural forces? I need context.

@fulcrum2951

4 жыл бұрын

Most likely from the corpses usually found on the eastern front

Actually a good video about such a topic. Most important for me is that u tried to keep it as neutral as possible.

10:30 That's dead wrong, the USSR never "outproduced" Germany. You basically only count the sectors were the USSR produced more than Germany and ignore all others: shipbuilding, ammunition, vehicles others than tanks, electronics, rockets. It also miss the fact that the average German vehicles/plane was more sophisticated than its Soviet counterpart resulting in a higher production cost but better battlefield performance. It's like saying that a factory that produced 1,000 Fiat 500 in 1 year "outproduced" the factory that produced 500 Bentleys, it makes no sense.

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

Soviets literally outproduced the Germans in tanks, planes, artillery mortars, mgs, pistols, smgs, mortars, and more. Also German costs didn't equate to quality. For example the Tiger was good but vs T 34's it wasn't invisible and was much more costly- ie it wasn't worth it. Even then in 1941 the Soviets outproduced the Germans in tanks and many of their tanks were technologically superior like the T34 and KV1, although many lacked radios.

@RouGeZH

6 жыл бұрын

"Soviets literally outproduced the Germans in tanks, planes, artillery mortars, mgs, pistols, smgs, mortars," That doesn't prove that the USSR "outproduced" Germany. What about the rest? "Tiger was good but vs T 34's it wasn't invisible and was much more costly- ie it wasn't worth it. " How do you know? And why are you comparing a heavy tank with a medium one? Compare the Tiger with the KVs and the T-34 with the Pz IV if you want a fair assessment. Now the real thing: the German tank were more complex because they all had radios, better gearboxes, better optics, and an electric turret with mobile basket. All these fancy things made the average German more-capital intensive but it's part of what allowed the Germans to have a 2,7:1 tank exchange ratio vs the Soviet during WW2 despite being outnumbered (Soviet production advantage was 2,4:1). Quoting N. Askey: "There is no doubt that German tanks possessed many refinements, subtleties of design and high quality components which contributed to a relatively slow production rate. In comparison Soviet tanks had a generally rough and ready finish, and lacked many features which were assumed essential by German tankers and to a large extent by their Western Allied counterparts. There were of course considerably more Soviet tanks, which ultimately helped them to win the war. Nonetheless, it was these same refinements and subtleties of design which gave German tank crews the edge in combat at the tactical level [...]" Btw 20% of the German tanks produced were heavy (40 t and above) and 18% light (20 t and less). For the S-U it was 13% of them heavy and 26% light. By looking at weight only it's already clear that the average German tank was bigger and more capital-intensive. If you want to make a fair comparaison of tank production in both countries you have to take this into account. They were not building the same things. There is no doubt that if you take everything into account (number and types produced) the USSR "outproduced" Germany in tanks, but a the cost of the production of others vehicles. German/USSR numbers: Half-tracks: 21.400 / 0 Armored cars : 1.000 / 10.000 (in weight soviet advantage is closer to 3:1). Trucks: 347.000 / 267.000 Tractors : 33.479 / 34,114 (with civilian production for USSR) Military cars : 70.000 / 17.000 (with civilian production for USSR) Motorcycles: 139.700 / 27.816 Locomotives: 13.300 / 800 Rail cars: 217.000 (without 1945) / 2.635 (without 1st semester 1941) The situation for airplanes was exactly the same, maybe worse. The average German plane was bigger and more sophisticated, resulting a exchange ratio above 3-1 in favor of Germany during WW2. Germany also produced 36,000 V-1 and V-2 missiles, the USSR none. And that's only a part of production as I already said.

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

Literally look at page two and the other pages to see how Soviets outproduced them even though they didn't reach economic parity unti 1945. www.academia.edu/2865354/Stalinism_and_the_Economics_of_War 'Thus, not every country produced high quality weapons, but there was no strong correlation with economic development level. The Soviet Union had an excellent defence industry, despite being poor by European standards. Japan and Italy, the one a relatively poor country, the other nearer to Germany than Russia or Japan in development level, both produced high-quality ships and aircraft, only their number was deficient. Germany produced most weapons better than America, although America was the richest of the great powers. If the Russians made a priority out of tank design, and if it was the design of aircraft and ships that came first for the British, Italians, and Japanese, then the Germans made the quality of weapons in general their priority; Germany, as a medium sized industrial power, could not compete in quantity, but was still well enough developed to be able to compete in quality across the board' warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ww2overview1998.pdf ' On the eastern front the Russians also enjoyed a quantitative advantage over Germany, but the fighting power of the Red Army meant that they could beat Germany with a smaller quantitative edge than the western Allies required.' Also on page 37 you can see the specs of tanks and you'll see that the T-34 could compete with the firepower and armor of Panzer IV's and below. The KV-1 which was available way before the Tiger also eclipsed them all. It even have a better range than German tanks. The T-34 85 is missing which was even more powerful than the 76. So yes T-34's were superior to Panzer IV's and KV-1's could rival armor density yet it was introduced years before. Also in regards to planes it didn't matter too much because German planes were made for high altitude dog fighting whereas Soviet planes thrived in low altitude and turned better. Those Soviet numbers are only for the onset of the invasion in 1941. In total about 700k trucks were made for the USSR although about half were lend lease, yet others were from production and expropriation. SO 267k is way too low for Soviet war time production.

@RouGeZH

6 жыл бұрын

"Literally look at page two and the other pages to see how Soviets outproduced them even though they didn't reach economic parity unti 1945. " There is no thorough analysis of Soviet/German production here, so it's worthless. Harrison didn't study German production in depth so it's no surprise if he makes such mistakes. "Also on page 37 you can see the specs of tanks and you'll see that the T-34 could compete with the firepower and armor of Panzer IV's and below" Firepower is only a part of what makes a tank. Given their 2,7:1 ratio despite being outnumbered it seems that the Germans tanks enjoyed a consequent technical advantage (or the German crews were ubermensch, but I don't buy that). "The KV-1 which was available way before the Tiger also eclipsed them all" How exactly is this relevant to the discussion? That just means that the Soviet developed heavy tanks before the Germans, nothing else. Of course the KV-1 had superior armor, the Germans had no heavy tanks in 1941. But overall, during WW2, the average German tank was heavier than its Soviet counterpart. "Soviet planes thrived in low altitude and turned better" That's irrevelant. A Fiat 500 turns better than a Bentley, and still the factory that built 100 bentleys in 1 year outproduced the factory that produced 100 Fiat 500. You are just telling me that the Soviet had different design and doctrine, not that the USSR produced more. A plane with a stronger engine and studier construction (like the Bf 109/Fw 190) will always be more difficult to build than a lighter aircraft (like the Yak/LaGG). And ultimately that didn't matter because tactics based on manoeuvrability became obsolete during ww2, because the fastest aircraft and the fastest climber always have the advantage: if the enemy plane turns better, he can fly away, climb and reposition himself. In 42, 43 and 44 the Germans still had an over 3:1 kill ratio despite being outnumbered. Their engines were just stronger, and their planes sturdier. Again, superior aircrafts, not ubermensch. The same happened in the Pacific, where the lighter and more agile Japanese planes were butchered by the faster and heavier US planes avoiding dogfights. "SO 267k is way too low for Soviet war time production." That's the real number for January 1941 to May 1945. If your beliefs don't fit the data, change your beliefs, not the data. "Compagnion to the Red army" by S. Zaloga table 6.6. Same number in "Accounting for war" table C. 1 by M. Harrison, they used the same Soviet source. And I barely scratched the topic yet.

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

That is a very weak rebuttal to obvious defense contribution stats and armament stats. Again that is also why I mentioned armor, range, and so on. My point is for much of the war the Soviets had better tanks than the Germans and even in the late war they held their own. This fiat example is redundant it is to show that different planes thrive for different reasons. Also the fastest climber argument would be true for the air war over Germany but Eastern front dogfights were characteristically low to mid altitude. I can't find the info on Harrison can you please post. Every other online source is contradicting you.

Rebina (maobid)

@BlitzOfTheReich

4 жыл бұрын

what?

Not by real academics. I have watched thousands of hours from the Marshall Foundation, Dole Institute, the War Colleges, Oxford.

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

Mark Harrison - University of Warwick Gregory Freeze - Studied at Columbia and taught at Harvard Jonathan House - a fellow Dole Institute speaker Richard Tempest - Professor at Urbana Champaign and studied in Oxford Geoffrey Hosking - Studied in King's College London and taught at University college London Richard Sakwa- teaches at University of Kent and is well known for being used extensively in Russian departments at Uni David Glantz - Ex US artillery officer who accessed Soviet archives in ww2. Please enlighten me. Many of these are the foremost experts in Russian/Soviet history. What part of the video did you not agree with?

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

also videos of lectures only gives the surface of information. It is normal due to time constraints and the human ability to forget detail. Books are the primary source followed by lectures. I use both. And lend lease is mostly an economic issue.

Zhukov said that only 10% of all Soviet armament were from Lend Lease.

@BlitzOfTheReich

5 жыл бұрын

it is debatable among sources but I believe a lot of Soviet sources discount tariffs.

@kingnevermore25

5 жыл бұрын

Daniel McGREW Actually not, allies sent arount 2,3 million tons of steel during the whole war, Soviet Union produced 18 million tons of steel in 1941 alone (~58 million during the whole war).

@kingnevermore25

5 жыл бұрын

Daniel McGREW I dont understand this quote numbers show everything. Lend Lease gave 2,3 million tons of steel 1941-1945 Soviets produced 58 million tons 1941-1945. There was no lack of steel in the context of Lend Lease and Lend Lease didnt help much with regards to steel as the numbers show. Lend Lease provided around 4% of the total Soviet steel production.

@mitchverr9330

5 жыл бұрын

Steel quality is a thing, 2 steels are not the same, the steel from the lend lease was of exceptionally higher quality and used accordingly. No lack of steel, but a major lack of high quality steel developed specifically for usage.

@kingnevermore25

5 жыл бұрын

mitch verr Nonsense, Soviet steel is also of a good quality. Just because the Lend-Lease steel was of a better quality (which you still need to prove) doesnt mean that the Soviet steel wasnt good enough for the use in Soviet industry, on the contrary it was great.

Get this from the FSB? Former Soviet propaganda presentation recently declassified you translated? Poorly presented an executed

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

one person tells me I get this too much from the US perspective and the other tells me I got this from the FSB? I guess I did do a good job in objectivity.

Premier Joseph Stalin, in a toast at a dinner party at the Teheran Conference in ate October 1943, declared, “Without American machines the United Nations never could have won the war.”

Soviet Union had enough of their own trucks, and the Lend-Lease only supplied 25% of the Soviet foodstuff and just 4% of the Soviet domestic steel production.

@BlitzOfTheReich

5 жыл бұрын

You realize more than half of the Soviet truck fleet were lend lease trucks? Where are your sources?

@kingnevermore25

5 жыл бұрын

Blitz Of The Reich My point was that Soviets had enough of their own trucks. Soviets had 744,400 trucks and jeeps and 312,600 Lend-Lease trucks and jeeps (42%) reached the Soviet Union. Source: David Glantz “The Soviet-German War 1941-1945: Myths and Realities: A Survey Essay” p. 106.

@BlitzOfTheReich

5 жыл бұрын

That's 42% of those 744k trucks and Jeeps.

@kingnevermore25

5 жыл бұрын

Blitz Of The Reich Yes thats what i said.

@BlitzOfTheReich

5 жыл бұрын

42% is a very larger number. that was a significant portion of the Soviet arsenal. Do you think Operation Bagration would be possible without it?

Awful. Poorly presented, And a lecture with a point to prove, an opinion to sell. Not buying it.

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

Yes you are hurt by academic research.

@grandtrunkhotel

6 жыл бұрын

Seriously, this presentation ws academic. The only academic part was the boredom.

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

lol just insults and no substance. all academic data.

@daneershen4138

6 жыл бұрын

Blitz Of The Reich No. Your bias on academic research, picking facts that meet your personal beliefs. You argue one side of an argument, and pursue it omitting “inconvenient facts”. Academic research is neutral, presents all sides, and arguments from both sides, from there you may draw a conclusion.. I correspond regularly with a Russian, a former member of the East German Army, very knowledgeable on the Eastern Front, from the Soviet perspective. His Dad fought in WW2, as did mine. He and I disagree at times, but not about this, Lend Lease and it’s value. We both have large libraries of books we own.

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

Nope. I literally a had a library of books laying around that I picked and just went through all the books to give a balanced perspective. All the arguments posited here are from EVERY source I looked into. Please instead of arguing from anecdotes and imaginative authority, do give me books that could 'enlighten' me. Again you choose to ignore the role of consumer goods in a functioning economy as Stalin did.

Russians still using this equipment at Siberia

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

hehe are you referring to studbakers?

@kretinovalentino8054

6 жыл бұрын

Blitz Of The Reich according to Anthony Sutton Studebaker's has been used in Vietnam conflict.

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

that's very interesting I never thought that would be the case. Although I cannot say for sure if they use it in the present day.

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

Ahh my clone from another dimension. Greetings!

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

Hope you enjoyed the video. I'll be taking video requests as well to do new stuff in the future. :)

I'm sorry if I insulted you. You see, I was seriously looking for some wisdom about the Lend Lease issues on a number of different levels, not superficial crib notes about how great the US gifting was, I was insulted and frankly angry. Like i said that is now 3o minutes of my life wasted and I must go on, just as you must go on to dong whatever it is you do. Cheers and good bye.

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

Yes insulted and frankly angry. Where in this whole video do you get the idea about how Great US aid was. I was being as objective as possible and studied political economy. And in political economic terms the Soviet economy nearly collapsed in 1942 because of a lack of focus on the consumer goods sector. But if you call that limited and superficial it may because you are viewing this topic from a one dimensional position.

@kingnevermore25

5 жыл бұрын

Anon Ymous I have all the sources with regards to Lend-Lease to the USSR, together with German and Soviet armmamet and industrial production 1941-1945.

@dpm2515

Жыл бұрын

This was hardly pro-USA...if you think it was you don't know know history or are looking for propaganda that will confirm your biases

Reeks of Stalin propaganda!

@BlitzOfTheReich

4 жыл бұрын

Not at all. If you'd take a minute to watch my channel you'd know I hate Stalin. But I am sure you have your prejudices so there's no point in trying.

Ahh lend lease, not the cause of the soviet victory but provided the substantial relief in the soviet battered economy And also delivered a substantial amount of salt about the eastern front on the internet

@BlitzOfTheReich

4 жыл бұрын

Yep. I would say it did make a difference because there was inflationary pressure on the Soviet economy. Too many people focus solely on the military dimension of the aid.

@BlitzOfTheReich

4 жыл бұрын

I do agree with the incidentals argument you made, but inflation is extremely important as it affects the well being of the labor force and thus influences productivity.

@BlitzOfTheReich

4 жыл бұрын

@menckencynic autarky has nothing to do with it as inflation directly affected the price of goods like bread for example. The USSR was a command economy but it was still pressured by market forces. Germany tried hiding its inflation with price controls but these don't work indefinitely.

@BlitzOfTheReich

4 жыл бұрын

@menckencynic so you are going to conveniently ignore that the regime allowed people to sell their surplus for profit during the war, and eased restrictions on private properties? Again, no country is in a vacuum.

@BlitzOfTheReich

4 жыл бұрын

@menckencynic you haven't provided any evidence refuting what most Russian historians say.

This presentation was extremely limited and totally inadequate. It was very disappointing. The analysis was limited, simple, iand only from a US perspective. Hope it didn't come from the desk of a tenured professor. I would seriously question credentials. If it was from a blogger, I wish I had been warned so that I could have saved myself 28 minutes of my life.

@BlitzOfTheReich

6 жыл бұрын

Instead of hashing out insults how about you provide statistics? Honestly what is it with keyboard warriors throwing insults instead of making arguments. How is making political economic analysis of tariffs limited and totally inadequate?