"Lend-Lease shipments" Topic

Interesting documents with equipment quantities, only during 2nd ww:

link

I would love to see a list of the materials The Soviet union Send to Germany under the Nazi-Soviet pact.

Germany received from the Soviet Union 1 million tons of oil products, 185 thousand tons of manganese ore, 14 thousand tons of copper, 1.8 thousand tons of nickel, 111 thousand tons of raw cotton, more than 1 million tons of timber, 10 thousand tons of flax, 23 thousand tons of chrome ore, 15 thousand tons of asbestos, 214 thousand tons of phosphates, 2736 kg of platinum and 1.6 million tons of grain (mainly fodder), 36 thousand tons of cake.
In response, in October 1939, Germany was visited by a 48-person Soviet delegation, which included leading Soviet designers of military equipment. The delegation visited landfills, factories, shipyards, ships, got acquainted with technologies and equipment. The delegation was familiarized with the latest models of German military equipment.
Were received 35 samples of aircraft, propellers and piston rings for aircraft engines, taximeters, altimeters, speed recorders, oxygen supply system at high altitudes, dual aerial cameras, devices for determining the loads on aircraft control, radio direction finders, aircraft radio stations with intercom, devices for blind landing and other instruments for aircraft, aircraft batteries, engine test benches, automatic riveting machines, bomb trailers, sets of high-explosive and fragmentation bombs, 50 types of test equipment and many other products for the aviation industry. Two sets of heavy field howitzers of 211-mm caliber were received, a battery of 105-mm anti-aircraft guns with ammunition, the latest anti-tank guns, fire control devices, rangefinders, searchlights, and 20 case presses. A sample of the T-III medium tank, half-track tractors, diesel engines, etc. were supplied. German companies also manufactured equipment for laboratories, radio communication samples for the ground forces, chemical protection suits, including fire-resistant suits, gas masks, filter-absorbing installations, a degassing agent, a degassing vehicle, an oxygen-regenerating unit for a gas shelter, portable devices for determining toxic substances, fireproof , anticorrosive and special ship paints, samples of synthetic rubber, etc. All military equipment under the economic agreement was received for 81.57 million German marks, including 57.5 million for the naval department – warships and their weapons and equipment.
A significant amount of equipment was purchased for the oil refining industry, nickel, lead, copper smelting, chemical, cement, and steel wire factories. Equipment for the mines was received, including drilling rigs and 87 excavators. Germany also supplied three cargo-passenger ships, a tanker, iron, 15 thousand tons of high-grade and tool steel, 58 thousand tons of steel pipes, shipbuilding sheet, steel tape, rope wire, steel cable, duralumin, a significant amount of coal and other materials and goods.
An impressive number received from Germany in 1940-1941. the latest metal-cutting machines – 6430 pcs.
Samples of the latest German weapons purchased in 1940-1941 made it possible to assess their capabilities and a number of technical solutions used in them were used by Soviet engineers in Soviet military equipment.
Well – the Germans made a huge contribution with these supplies to the victory of the USSR over Nazi Germany.

Wasn't there a half-built heavy cruiser in the deal?

Not part of any "deal", but the ex-Lützow was sold to the USSR. All part of the absurd economics of the Third Reich. Unlike the manufacturing and technical equipment, this at least didn't end up biting them back. The Soviets never finished the ship. The Germans could have finished it themselves but that would have been just one more cruiser for the Royal Navy to sink.

Didn't they get a e shipment of Dutch Rubber by way of the trans Siberian RR.

The heavy cruiser "Lutzow" was 70% ready by the time of the attack on the USSR. The ship did not have the ability to move independently and only half of the artillery was installed on it. However, the entire Soviet heavy fleet was locked up in Leningrad, so it did not matter much then.. In the Soviet fleet it was renamed "Petropavlovsk". During the entire period of battles near Leningrad (1941-1944), the cruiser was used as a floating artillery battery. On September 17, 1942, it was sunk by the Germans, but raised by the Soviet rescue services and on December 30, 1942 again opened fire on the enemy. During her participation in the battles, the cruiser used up 1,036 203-mm shells, which caused enormous damage to the Nazis.

Yes, transportation through the territory of the USSR was carried out in the interests of Germany. But the USSR remained a neutral country – why not?
By the way, the USSR was ready to enter the war against Germany back in 1938, fulfilling the allied treaty with Czechoslovakia. But the West is not interested in. History could have taken a completely different path.

By the way, the USSR was ready to enter the war against Germany back in 1938, fulfilling the allied treaty with Czechoslovakia.

And how were they going to "enter the war", when they had no land border with Czechoslovakia?

The USSR asked Poland to provide a corridor for the passage of Soviet troops into the territory of Czechoslovakia. Poland refused (as we know, Poland itself then participated in the occupation of the Czechoslovakian Cieszyn region). I think if Great Britain and France had asked Poland to let the Russian troops pass, it would hardly have refused them.

Since the Soviet Union had cooperated with the Nazis in politically dividing up the Baltic countries to get a free hand to invade them, deport populations and kill political leaders in those countries, invade Finland, dividing up Poland in a supportive military campaign, in taking territory from Romania, etc., all under the guise of the secret Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, you lost me with the "neutral country" comment, Cuprum2.

The Soviet Union was a willing partner with the Nazis as long as it benefited (as did the pact to the Nazis). Both sides lying to one another, but working together.

36 thousand tons is a lot of cake !

(I know, it was for the horses, but …)

Before entering into cooperation with Nazi Germany, the USSR made efforts for almost ten years to create an anti-Nazi coalition in Europe. But it was the West that repelled all the efforts of the USSR, not wanting to create such an alliance. I think it will not be difficult for you to find, if you wish, information about all the international initiatives of the USSR in the pre-war period. Just ask.
And yes, if your efforts to create a collective security system are of no interest to anyone, then you will make a deal even with the devil himself – this is a matter of the country's survival in an inevitable future war. And no one had any doubts that such a war would take place.
So back in 1938, the USSR was ready for war with Germany – and this is a fact. But, after the West supported Hitler's aggression against Czechoslovakia, it would be foolish to count on his prudence.
And let's not forget that at this moment the USSR is actively in conflict with Japan in the Far East and has a very possible prospect of a war on two fronts.

I'm not sure that your attempt to justify the Soviet Union's attacks on small neutral countries, or of Poland actually work to your credit.

Sorry. All countries have done slimy things, most don't try to pretend that they were justified when exposed.

Perhaps the real fear of the communist system and its reputation kept folks from cozening up to the Soviet Union? Which reputation fully and dully earned its place in history.

Let's leave the general questions of ethics outside the brackets – a conversation about history should be conducted in the context of those historical events and an analysis of the then possibilities, and not using the knowledge you now have about how everything will end.

So what can you object to the specific facts I have given here?

The Soviet Union was a non-involved nation state (not at war or allied to any state) prior to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact 1939, then took advantage of its agreements with Germany until 1941 (to attack, invade and occupy "neutral" countries), and once it became a victim of the Nazis, was an invaded state at war.

Being neutral implies that one is free of attacking another state by means of threats or force. Hiding behind a secret pact with Hitler to invade Finland, the Baltic states, Poland and forcing others to hand over territory and populations, does not allow one to claim that there was not a secret agreement that allowed one to do so. Not an ally of Germany, but not a neutral either.

Let me be clear, most major countries are guilty of it. The US has certainly done so, so I, as a citizen of the US, am not claiming that the Soviet Union. or Russia today is a singular example of such. I'm simply saying, don't pretend or believe that the Soviet Union at the time, did not ally its interests with Germany and benefited hugely until Hitler turned on it.

You have the wrong approach to historical events. It is impossible to assess the events of the past based on modern realities. This is just silly.
Of course, the USSR combined its interests with Germany and benefited from this. And it was done right. Prior to that, the USSR wanted to unite its interests with France and Great Britain – but these countries were not interested in such a development of events. So what's the problem? Real politics, not idealism, is the path to the survival of the country and the nation.
What can you say about the occupation of Iran in 1941 jointly by the USSR and Great Britain? Is this an act of aggression? Undoubtedly. But such was the need … What can you say about Operation Catapult? Same.
When you talk about the actions of the USSR under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, you do not take into account many points. Do they justify the USSR? It depends on which side you look at.
Finland was offered an exchange of territories. The reason is that the main base of the Soviet Baltic Navy was at a distance from the range of a shot of heavy artillery from the territory of Finland. This is how the historical circumstances developed. In the conditions of the approaching war, this is a great threat. To deny this is pointless. What's the way out?
The Baltic countries, in any case, would not have been able to maintain their independence in a war. The only question is, whose troops would occupy these territories. The example of Belgium and Holland is in your sight.
The USSR brought its troops into the territory of Poland only when the war with Gemania for it had already been unconditionally lost. See what Churchill said about this.
To say that the USSR seized Bessarabia (Moldavia) is stupid. These territories were captured by Romania by force during the Russian Civil War. The USSR has never known this annexation and returned its own territories at the earliest opportunity. So what's the problem?
The pact with Germany is a great victory for Soviet diplomacy. Yes – this victory smells bad. But it brought the USSR undoubted benefits in the coming war. And all other options for action in those conditions were worse.
There is nothing more to discuss here. If you want to live and destroy your existential enemy, it's silly to be afraid to get your clothes dirty in Your beautiful and pleasant-smelling corpse is unlikely to change the situation to the opposite. The USSR won, among other things, thanks to this pact. Everything else is excessive reflection. In war, any means are good.

Thanks for confirming my statement.

Hi Cuprum,

You wrote -
"Finland was offered an exchange of territories. The reason is that the main base of the Soviet Baltic Navy was at a distance from the range of a shot of heavy artillery from the territory of Finland. This is how the historical circumstances developed. In the conditions of the approaching war, this is a great threat. To deny this is pointless. What's the way out?
The Baltic countries, in any case, would not have been able to maintain their independence in a war. The only question is, whose troops would occupy these territories. The example of Belgium and Holland is in your sight."

If, as you state, the Soviet seizure of Finnish Karelia and the Baltic States and the eastern reaches of Poland were all driven by the prospect of an impending war with Germany, why did the Soviet Army not then withdraw after that threat had been resolved in 1945?

B

These are rather difficult questions, they cannot be solved in a nutshell.
For starters, Finland, despite valiant resistance, lost its war in 1939. She lost the opportunity to resist. If the USSR was interested in the occupation of this entire country, it would have done it already then and hardly anyone could have prevented it. But the USSR did not do this.
But after Finland took part in the war against the USSR already on the side of the Nazis and again lost its war, it suffered well-deserved damage, including territorial damage. By entering a war, you take on all the risks of possible defeat – isn't that so? By the way, in 1954 the USSR returned Finland to the Porkkala Peninsula. You didn't know that, did you?
The Baltic states were occupied illegally – here I agree. Why did the Soviet troops not leave afterwards? By right of the strong – the USSR needed their ports. And not only the USSR – Russia has been striving to get these lands since the 17th century. Well, such was and is the economic need of Russia. You can look at the situation now – the Baltic countries are again hindering Russia's maritime trade, which means they will again be under the threat of Russian occupation in the event of an aggravation of the international situation. This is geography and economics – alas. I acknowledge the existence of a Russian threat to the Baltic states. At least – Russia will always try to return them to its own zone of influence.
There is only one problem with Eastern Poland (just do not call these territories when you talk to Ukrainians and Belarusians))) – these are territories with a predominantly Ukrainian and Belarusian population. Ask them if they want to be part of the Polish state? There are no less difficulties there than in relations with Russia. This problem is many centuries old and it is watered with the blood of millions of people. As for the post-war period, the USSR returned part of the territories to Poland (the cities of Bialystok and Przemysl with adjacent territories – 21,275 square kilometers), and other territorial losses of Poland were compensated for by the territories of defeated Germany.
After the end of World War II, Soviet troops voluntarily left the territories of Austria, Yugoslavia, Denmark, Finland, Romania, Bulgaria, Iran, Korea.

By the way, the USA still hasn't left the territories of Germany, Japan and Korea)))

OK, now you cracked me up with your last line (smile). Really, you think that the US stayed in Germany, Japan and Korea to occupy and control them (how about to help defend them against the Soviet Union)? Deported their citizens, arrested and killed their educated and political leaders, and forced Russian populations onto them? Want to compare the Soviet occupation of East Germany with the supposed US occupation of West Germany? Perhaps they stayed in Germany, Japan and Korea due to their fears and experiences of the Soviet Union. Just saying.

I don't think the Poles think that being compensated by the mass deportation of Germans and being given their land, while being forced to leave their land for the Soviet Union to seize was a deal.

The Soviet Union occupied Poland, the Baltic States, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc., by brutal force from 1944/45 until the collapse of the Soviet Union. I'll not waste my time pointing out the Soviets giving arms and training to forces that then invaded other areas of the world to bring the benefits of communism to their peoples.

I don't think anyone would claim, and I certainly would not, that the US has clean hands and should not be criticized, but really, try to be honest and realistic about the history of the Soviet Union (and Russia) since 1944/45 and its impact on the peoples of eastern Europe and the far east.

And none of this has any relationship to gaming.

Yes, that's exactly what I think. The United States remained in Germany, Japan and Korea in order to control and occupy them. Can you tell me where Germany's gold reserves are? And did the United States bring it back on a recent request? When did the USSR threaten Japan with seizure? I personally do not know even a hint of a similar situation. Just as I don't remember that the USSR was planning the seizure of Korea.
The USSR has not been for thirty years – but the occupation forces of the US are still in these countries.

The US also deported its own citizens – are you aware of the fate of Japanese American citizens during World War II? But there was no real threat to the territory of the United States, unlike the USSR.
Repressions against anti-Soviet ethnic Russians were no less, but rather even more than against citizens of the country of other nationalities. There was no national oppression here – there was precisely class repression. They are not the same thing.

It was exactly the deal. If the Poles do not think so, they can declare this publicly and demand that the borders be returned to the state of 1939. But for some reason it seems to me that they will not do this. But the USSR has long been gone)))

I do not understand why you consider the Soviet troops present in the allies in the Eastern Bloc as occupiers, and the American troops present on the opposite side on the same terms as defenders. In my opinion, this is a politically biased position)))

The USSR did nothing that the Western countries did not do during the Cold War. Moreover, of the "rebel" forces that the USSR supported, only the Palestinians are now left. But with the US-fostered jihadists, everyone still has to fight, including the United States. So do you have the right to make such claims to the USSR? He was more selective in the choice of supporters)))

And yes, I see no reason for further dispute – we have outlined our positions, but we are unlikely to come to an agreement.
Thank you for the conversation – it is always useful to look at events with two eyes)))

Cuprum, you make some reasonable points, and I agree that there are precious few "White Hats" (nickname for 'good guys' in American western cinema) anywhere in the realm of global politics.

But, IMO – to paraphrase the Great Bard – "Thou protesteth too much".

B