Hey guys, HITLER WAS A BOX ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RxBOlEzlJY4.html Also, I had major issues editing this video, so there’s some glaring editing mistakes within it even though I spent quite a while trying to fix them in post. Taking steps to sort this though, including new lighting (arrived today) and contemplating a new camera setup too.
@@arronjameshook Probably the British because they had access to oil, rubber, trucks and lots of Lend Lease etc. But even they struggled in certain areas and overran their supplies at times (e.g. North Africa 1941)
@@codyraugh6599 accept that is exactly what he got pushback for. Making the claim that Germany only lost to the commies because it wasn't a 'real' free market economy.
Never commented on RU-vid before but you've challenged my knowledge on WW2 more than anybody I've either read or watched. That's why I became a Patreon. Keep up the good work.
@Blesava Konjina He didn't develop his argument well but I thought it was a good one. Because price signals are lacking military supply is almost bound to be less efficient than civilian
A lot of those Trucks and Jeeps from Lend Lease were left in Poland after 1945 helping to rebuild the country. They survived up to 1970s in some places working on farms or delivering products to and from factories. My grandpa said that the best motorcycle you could get was lend lease Harley Davidson. You can still find them cars, trucks and motorcycles in various museums and sheds around Poland. I've also seen few rusted wrecks of GMC trucks and Jeeps in a small village of Antoniów in Poland back in 2010/11.
I didn't know that. I wonder how bad Poland was under soviet liberation 1944/late 1950s compared to west Poland 1939/1940 under soviet occupation. I wonder if Poland had it better under German occupation or the soviet union. I would think The Jewish community had it better under soviet control but the soviets wasn't angles there to help.
@@lovetolearn5253 Considering the fact that the Germans planned to murder 85% of the Polish population after winning the war, enslaving the rest - They were better off under the Soviets. Search Generalplan ost, it destroys any notion that it would have been better under the Nazis in eastern Europe, than under the USSR.
@@lovetolearn5253 Think about Katyn, and you'll know right away which one was worse. Of course the Soviets lied about that (too), and blamed the Germans.
@@enwurdgibsmedat1517 aluminum does indeed rust. Extremely violently actually. Unlike steel, the oxide layer doesn’t easily flake off. That being said, it does get shed when in water or with lots of air current blowing past it. If you’ve ever touched pure aluminum metal, you’ll know the white powder that’s always left behind on your hand or clothes, that’s the oxide “rust” coming off.
Not easy to organize equipment, shells, food/drink, shitters and shelters for 3 million men. I think that Russians are always been slightly better in logistics than other europeans, because of huge territories they had. Russia is not densely populated so it requires some understanding in this matter. There are very rare occasions when they come to battlefied outnumbered and outgunned. Even if you managed to surprise them, prepare to fight with huge amount in a month.
On behalf of the Russian people, I'd like to show my appreciation for you clarifying the situation on logistics and land lease, as well as your other work. Many people around here would prefer to underplay the importance of Land Lease as a reaction to the widespread western stereotypes about the USSR in WW2 and the red army in general, which they find offensive. I think neither viewpoint is fair towards the people who fought and won that terrible war. You are one of the most bias-conscious historians I've ever seen, and it is a breath of fresh air, especially considering how many historians both here and abroad tend to be skewered towards one or another agenda or political perspective. Thank you for what you do.
When I did my Russian studies (in the US) in the late 90's and early 00's it seemed like Lend Lease had a fairly positive view among Russians and especially Red Army veterans of that era. It was a period where people felt like they could openly discuss their own experiences that had been suppressed during the Soviet era, and because the internet was becoming a thing we had access to a lot of information and personal ancedotes coming out of Russia. We read and heard a lot of stories about how important Lend Lease was to their war effort and that they had a positive view of the US and UK - which is probably why the Soviets did what they could to wipe out physical traces of it and deter discussion of it after the war ended. All of that equipment was rounded up and melted for scrap, replaced with inferior domestic equipment, a theme that those vets in their 70's and 80's at the time talked about often. It's unfortunate that contemporary politics is affecting discussion about these things so much now.
I cannot agree more, Nami. That can meat in the tranches and the trucks are in almost every book I read covering the war from 1943 onward. The Willys are in every movie. The land lease made war way easier and we should not forget this help when the country fought in its the darkest time.
@@BigSmartArmed That's a laughably bigoted view. Of course, while talking about Soviet secrecy and misinformation, you aren't even able to see that your rant about Ukrainian fighters is exactly that. The possibility of many members of a major ethnicity within USSR desiring to leave the Union and acquire independence is so subversive to the communist ideology that it needed to be replaced with scaremongering about hostile US/CIA operations. That's a far more exciting and dramatic explanation than the bleak reality of Holodomor, forced collectivization, and multiple ethnic and class purges, that were the real cause behind the formation of Ukrainian SS battalions and UPA. And as a Russian-speaking Ukrainian who is good friends with some veterans, including one guy from "Nazi" Azov, reading your delusions made for a good laugh. If only Americans were as good at this as Russians desperately want them to be, this war would already be over.
You know, you're not the only Russian watching TIK's video, and no one gave you the right to speak on behalf of a 140+ mil nation. Why can't you just speak for yourself?
I asked my dad: "When did you know the war was over?" He responded: "When the Americans landed in North Africa." He was born in Croatia in 1903 as an ethnic German, drafted in the Yugoslav army in his teens; drafted in the German army during WWII. In the invasion of Russia, German casualties mounted and Russian troops fought stubbornly even when surrounded. He felt America's industrial production combined with Allied manpower finished Hitler. Russian troops deserve all the credit in the world, however US bullets and beans shortened the war. Thanks for the video.
still without SU war would be over by 1942 and allies would be fuked and north africa would fall.germans troops would demolish anglo-american troops anywhere near europe and we all would be talking german today.the only reason we are not is because of miracle that Soviet Union produced between 41-43 and practically saved the world.lol gotta give credit where is due, no matter if they are commies.
@@tomazlah8238 There is no denying the sacrifices the people of the Soviet Union made, but why would the war be over in 1942? Germany still can’t invade Britain, and how does Germany get more men and material to Africa when it couldn’t even supply the men it had there already? Even if they took North Africa, there is no way ships full of oil would be making it back to Europe given the Allies dominance of the sea and air. With no food, no oil, and no viable way out of the mess they’ve made, their armies would dwindle and society would collapse. When the US nukes Berlin in 1945, few would see any point in carrying on.
@@jamesmcilvenny2294 lol if germany could focus on north africa , they are fuked. egypit would fall like a fruit basket. british and rest of commonwelth forces would get absolutellly demolshed anywhere near europe and germany could started to prepare for sealion, yes couple of years but probably doable at lest in 1944-47,im talking about ascenario were su is under germany off course.
@@tomazlah8238 If Germany had let Stalin into the Axis, that would have been a very difficult nut to crack. Thankfully Hitler was never going to do that. If Germany had not invaded Russia, I think they were doomed to lose anyway. If they had done the impossible and beaten Russia in 1941, yes the war would have been much harder. The ideal situation would have been if the Soviet Union had not been trading oil with Germany. If they had done so Germany would have run completely dry of oil and food in 1941 and the war would effectively be over. No oil, no tanks or planes. No food and the people stop cheering for the Nazis. Germany wouldn't even have had enough oil to invade the Soviets in June 41'.
@@jamesmcilvenny2294 Honestly this guy has no idea what he's talking about. Even if the Germans didn't push on the soviets the war was never going to end in Hitlers favour. Plus Hitler was always eventually going to go to war with the USSR and the US, he even says so in his book. He hated the soviets with a passion and he knew war with the US would be necessary to complete Germany's goals. But again even if they didn't attack the soviets the Germans would still have had an impossible fight, with the infinite resources on the side of the allies, the american production and numbers. It would have been a longer war, but it would have only extended the war long enough for an A bomb to be dropped on Germany first due to the policy of Germany first. They couldn't funnel any more troops into North Africa due to the Mediterranean slowly falling to the allies. Rommel was defeated long before El Alamein. It was only a matter of time.
“Your lending lease is worthless! It’s not helping in any way. Not even a little. Now, please don’t stop sending it. In fact send more. Not that it helps”. ~ the Soviet’s.
Stalin and Khrushchev also said they would have not been able to prosecute the war without Lend-Lease. I want to know how the Lend-Lease detractors think they could have won the war with only 1/4 of the number of trucks and 1/10 the railhead capability.
You forgot one of the biggest reasons - level of troop's morale. Defending their own country and later counter attacking for revenge, was way better morale booster than just attacking a foreign country. Soviets stubbornly preserved in defense, against the formidable enemy, and then it was easy for them to fly on the wings of victory toward German territory. And btw, German war atrocities certainly didn't help in scaling down determination of Soviet revenge, but rather the opposite.
You say this as if the Germans didn’t fight as Viciously as they did, remember even after the surrender in stalingrad thousands on Germans kept fighting. Both peoples are warriors
@@omarcepeda9121 I don't think @damyr says that "as if the Germans didn’t fight as Viciously as...". He is making a valid point in general, regardless of combatants nationality: Fighting first in defence of your own homeland and then in a "revenge" offensive pushing back your enemy, boosts your fighting moral much more than fighting first in the offensive, invading a foreign country, and then fighting in defense of your own homeland because your offensive failed misserably. It has nothing to do with being German or Russian. It could be applicable to any nationality.
In German propaganda it showed the Soviets as barbarians that you must fight to the end, that would probably influence them to keep on fighting because in there mind they would die if they didn’t (probably would die but there are some occasions of surrenders)
Well, where are they? My father had a horse and Mosin-Nagant in 1968. A couple of years later: "You're free now! Go, otherwise you end up in a sausage factory. Run free!"
@@jussim.konttinen4981 he mean because the US was capable of doing so many trucks that the allies didn't need horses to pull carts to keep working the logistics
@@crawdaddy7667 Monty had hardly anything to do with most of the planning and the plan didn't even fail...the operation failed because the plan wasn't executed
@@crawdaddy7667 The Germans found the memoirs of an Allied general and niece mentioning preparations for a paratroop attack in the Netherlands. The Germans were preparing to receive paratroopers. This attack was part of Operation Market Garden, and this is the reason for the failure of Market Garden
Maybe the Lend Lease was not so vital for the Soviet infantry divisions, but it was crucial for the mobile units like Tank Corps, because heavy American trucks could transport heavy artillery pieces at the same speed with tanks.
"Amateurs talk tactics, but professionals study logistics." Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC. It would be cool to see you do a video of the American logistics in the European theater during the war. The red ball express from D-day to the allied capture of Antwerp and from there to Germany's surrender.
I'll point to a quick read by SLA Marshall: "The Soldier's Load." US logistics then and now seems to have this unique problem of a large and expanding capacity, but with poor efficiency comparatively. Aka the problem of having more supplies than you need.
@@gengis737 They also thought that no one would go around the Maginot line. And their tanks were no where near logistically sound as Germans were (at least in the early war). Char 1bs were not reliable and very slow vs the more numerous and maneuverable German tanks.
@@tanith117 French did know that Germans could go through Belgium. They put their mobile force on the left of Maginot line to join Belgian army. But when Belgians denied entrance until the very day of the German offensive, and Dutch required help too, the French CinC overstretched the mobile force, depriving himself of any reserve. Letting the Dutch alone would have keep a sizeable motorized force just at the exit of the Ardennes, tsouth of the gap between panzer and infantry. Also, French tanks were less logistically sound, but more powerful, better armored. Somua and even H35 could play a role, while Pz I and II were just training vehicles. Germans ad the good fortune to use czech tanks, thanks to Chamberlain.
"Lend-Lease supplied the boots that marched to Berlin" Me: yep the trucks certainly helped Video: No, Lend-Lease _literally_ supplied the boots that be marching into Berlin, 14.5 million pairs sent to the Soviets from 1942-43 Well that got a chuckle out of me. Edit: Also TIK, of all the videos I enjoy the most the ones delving into Logistics. It really shows how important such a system is and that even the greatest battle plan is worthless unless one has the capability of ensuring said plan gets the necessary material needed to make it a reality. And that materials can even be something as mundane as a new pair of boots or toilet paper; something I even forget when taking account of the parts, ammo, food, fuel and other essentials just one soldier needs; let alone a division or an entire Army Group.
@@zava5025 It's not economically efficient ir good for the taxed/supplier nation (i.e: USA in Cold War(, it's a sort of wealth redistribution on international scale. It may be military or diplomatically good for the supplier nation though, in Cold War case, it helped US to stop Soviet influence.
Actually: Soviet trucks sucked: No 5 ton trucks as the Studabakers were, very few 1 ton trucks where most of their trucks Soviets did make were 1/2 ton and almost none of them were 4 wheel drive whereas nearly ALL LL trucks were 5 ton trucks and 4 wheel drive. Every 5 ton truck = 5-->10 soviet trucks.... Why TIK did not bring this up, I do not know.
@@rayjon237 Not true. It was the Gaz-51/61 that looked like the Studebaker, but that's it. different engine, brakes... The Soviet analogue would be the ZIS-151, but also had a different engine, brakes...
A connection I never made before. During the Spanish civil war, the Soviets "saved" the Republic's gold in Moscow. Later they paid for Lend Lease with gold. Regardless of any moral issues, you have to admire Stalin sometimes. He could be a smooth operator when he wanted to be.
You can add Romania to that list. When Romania entered WWI, they transfered all their gold to the Tsarist Russia for safe keeping. Suffice to say that after the 1917 revolution, the Romanians never saw their gold again.
What the word means for anyone annoyed by words no one uses in actual english: "curmudgeonly" - adjective (especially of an old person) bad-tempered and negative.
A minor addition on lend-lease. The Soviet nonaggression pact with Japan was from 41-45. So those US trucks were being shipped to Kamchatka where the Sovi8had an army without a front to fight on. Meaning all they had to do was load up and drive west to reinforce.....
You left out all the food supplies the US sent to Russia. That greatly helped their population and Armies. They had lost so much agricultural land in 1941. And this also reduced the need for Soviet farm labor manpower. A cousin who was in the US Merchant Marine made deliveries to Iran for shipment onwards to Russia. He said the amounts of everything were massive. And the Russian agents at the Ports were pilfering and selling valuable parts of cargo on the black market even before it got to Russia.
Not true. Most of the supplies arrived were either rotten food or broken down equipment, since companies in US didn't care about quality, but rather a massive profit they made
You must have information no one else has. Including the Soviet's. Fact is they got quality trucks, food, aviation fuel, special metals, a complete radio communication system by Motorola, airplanes and on and on. Learn it, love it, live it. American generosity and support were overwhelming while at the same time fighting on different parts of the globe. And bombing the bageebers out of the Germans too thus drawing the Luftwaffe away from Russia and tying up over 10,000 of the deadly German 88 guns that otherwise would have been sent to the east. I could continue but you definitely need to do some honest research.
@@douglasturner6153 oh really? My great grand father was a soldier on the eastern front during ww2, he went all the way to Poland and then shrapnel got in his leg so he had to retreat. And right before Poland he had American supplies arrive, and guess what they found? I already described it above. And it wasn't just a singular thing, it was nation wide, how do I know that? Because after the war, he became an officer and was reviewing different reports in that regard. Do some research? I think Americans think they know too much, and overstate US's contributions in a war So yes, I do have information most people don't have
That was standard communist propaganda. They resented the fact they needed all this help to survive. So disparaged it later on. If he was an Officer he was part of that system. And rear cadre's corruption often left front line troops shortchanged, something my cousin saw. Stalin made a deal with fellow gangster Hitler and carved up several countries. He hoped Hitler and the western powers would get in a long drawn out war on their own territories and he could later on scoop up the pieces. That cynical plan backfired big time and the Soviet people ended up bearing the brunt of war.
My Russian dad has always told me that the American Studebaker trucks were the workhorses of the Soviet logistics during ww2. They were perfect for the Russian terrain and were much better than the Soviet counterparts. They didn't teach us that in schools though. In fact I was once physically punished by my teacher for bringing up Lend-Lease during a history class.
@@reaperbsc Russians still believe the lies and poisons about the Soviet empire and how great it all was, well they couldnt do anything without the hated capitalistic west.
TIK, excellent video! Your points on Soviet logistics are very reminiscent indeed of the situation facing Slim in northern India. At that point the Japanese controlled Burma and the British were holding a defensive line in northern India. In between the two was a wide stretch of very difficult, hilly jungle. Various idiots in British high command wanted Slim to cross this and attack the strong Japanese forces in Burma. Slim said no. He knew the Japanese would attack and wanted them to come to him. Why? Because when they did so they would have to supply their forces through this very difficult jungle. They would end up starved of supplies. That is what happened. The Japanese crossed this difficult zone and attacked. Their best forces were almost totally destroyed and suffered severe losses from hunger and illness due to supply difficulties. Meanwhile Slim was fighting on prepared home ground, reasonably close to his supplies. Then when Slim went on the offensive, this jungle zone presented much less of a problem because the best Japanese forces had already been destroyed and Slim had superior logistical capabilities due to things like Dakota transport aircraft. The Japanese forces were unable to benefit from their supply bases inside Burma as many of their best troops had already died in the northern Indian offensive.
How about doing a video of the Movement of factories from the path of German Advance to safety and the subsequent reestablishment of those factories. That would be fabulous.
well organised, and must have been prepared well ahead, which beats the rumours about Stalin´s surprised by German´s attack, let´s imagine usa were invaded and moved industry to Canada ... never
well the movement of that factories was a big problem for diferent reasons.One it`s that you need a lot of trains to move and probably not at the best moment(the same trains were needed to move supplies to the front).
We built a steel mill with iron mines etc. In Utah for that very reason. Other facilities were also moved away from the coasts to provide some contingency in case of invasion or bombing.
@@RENEBACON I think he wasn't surprised the German invaded but was surprised on WHEN they invaded Imo he had the plan in early draft when barbarossa happens
I think in this case you're actually blinded by your ideology. Or you haven't explained your point very well in your first video. I cannot understand how you could organize a war economy with a free market. The Americans and the British hadn't a free market either. The politicians gave orders to the army, the army told them what that would cost and then the politicians either stole the money from the tax payer, or they printed money. I don't see, how this is a free market. Even worse, I don't see how you could organize a "free market war" at all. People generally don't kill each other for money, and especially not if the risk is so high, like in ww2. They would just buy the resources of the east, from the people in the east. It's easier, safer and cheaper.
I can agree with this. You could definitely argue that the pre-war competitive economy put the US in a better position for the war (although I would challenge that, as I suspect that the massive strides towards industrialization that the Soviet Union made in the 1920s and 1930s needed a control economy, and a government that didn’t care much about the millions who suffered and died to achieve it), but the US government exerted massive control over private businesses during the war. They would tell companies “you make this in these quantities” or “you aren’t making enough, this other company will make them too at this royalty”. The US government determined who got what raw materials to use in production and told them what civilian goods they weren’t allowed to produce. Oh, the Soviet economic system definitely created issues before, during, and after the Second World War but it also had benefits in rapid industrialization and concentrating the economy on the military.
You can't steal money from a tax payer. It's already stolen. In the USSR, the factories are government owned. In the USA, the government hired companies to make product, but the companies were still their own independent entities
TIK i really appreciate your use of sources and your analysis of the eastern front's complexities. Even if I dont completely agree about everything you say there is so many thought provoking insights from these videos. Keep it up man!
Thank you! I don't want you to always agree with me on everything. My goal is to get you to think, and so disagreeing shows you're not just blindly following what I preach, but going out there and looking into this stuff yourself 👍
More than anything this just highlights how weak the premise of the German logistics video was. It didn't fail because of their supply system being state run. It failed because of: 1. Large distances involved. 2. Strong Soviet resistance. 3. The Two Front War. 4. German Fuel crisis. 5. Allied blockade. 6 Poor Soviet infrastructure.
But all those reasons don't refute the hypothesis of bad logistic caused by state run economy. Those are just external factors that make logistic harder, but they don't necessarily explain the inefficiency of logistical efforts.
"More than anything this just highlights how weak the premise of the German logistics video was. It didn't fail because of their supply system being state run." Did you ignore the latter half of this video? The economic calculation problem was still a factor for the Soviets, it's just that the Soviets could throw more resources at the problem. And I did say in the previous video on German logistics that having problems doesn't show how EFFICIENT they were being. Just because the Germans or Soviets faced problems, and whether they overcame them or not, doesn't mean they were more or less efficient than each other. All it shows is that one side (the Soviets) had fewer problems, and more resources to throw at the problems they had. But if they had "rationally regulated their interchange with nature" (Marx) using prices, rather than leaving it up to a centralized bureaucracy, then they would have had a much easier time of it.
@@TheImperatorKnight "But if they had "rationally regulated their interchange with nature" (Marx) using prices, rather than leaving it up to a centralized bureaucracy, then they would have had a much easier time of it." Citation very much needed. No military ever operated in this way. If anything modern militaries have MORE centralized logistics. You can read it in the lessons the US themselves learned from the war. The lessons are all about standardizing material and procedures, cutting double responsibilities and supply lines and recognizing logistics as a military science that requires expertise. I can't link to sources because youtube is removing comments with links.
As if any modern army in the world works as a free market entity. You'd have to go back to 14th century Europe and free mercenary companies for that and even that enterprise had constraints. In total war all economies are manipulated and the countries distort prices with regulations, borrowing and straight up money printing, it's no different for US and Britain. For instance the US had almost all domestic private car production frozen for the duration of WW2, rationing of various products, money printing and more.
Toralian89 i wouldnt say tried either, ancap literally cannot exist, it would collapse in on itself in 3 hours. even the ancient people knew you needed atleast some form of organised authourity, even if the capital couldnt enforce anything, towns and stuff did.
Of course it is a state led model. The difference is that the Americans in WW2 essentially created massive production orders and told the existing industrial base in the country to meet them through a bidding process, and then distributed material as needed. There was little nationalization, for example (the statutes in law for that came after the war under Truman). The US benefitted from not being under bombardment, of course, but it would be a mistake to call it a socialistic system in WW2, instead of a mixed market entity under heavy regulation. American rationing in WW2, at least of food supplies, was entirely unnecessary and was used more as an anti-inflationary tactic to counter the money printing. Goods shortages were not a significant thing, the war material drives were done more for morale purposes than anything else, and even gasoline, the one thing that arguably did need some rationing for, was not something that would have been a problem for in any other period than in 1944-45 when the US Army was in Northwestern Europe. The Soviet Union was different entirely in that production was handled through economic planning that already before the war was dependent on an informal black market economy to meet quotas. The Soviet evacuation of war material and factories, often lauded, was something of a failure in that they did not sort out the evacuated materials for 1-2 years. A common type incident was, take a tank factory in Kiev, and send the ball bearings and heavy equipment and industrial work force to Chelyabinsk, but send the raw materials in stock and the existing production order information to Novosibirsk, while the rolling stock would be destroyed by German bombing on the return trip. It was, quite simply, a mess. Now, Soviet production was very good for a few specific things. They were excellent at tank production, aircraft production, and meeting quotas in a short period of time through overtime procedures and 24/7 operation. They did, however, have problems with the softer elements of wartime materiel, and with coordination between plants.
@@magnusyarbrough5527 Even if ancap did exist longer than 3 hours, how long would it take for it to fall to another country? No foreign government would allow such a society to exist. Its like the revolution in Europe, no Monarchy will allow it to exist and spread
Stalin's purge of the "Intelligentsia" in 1934 left Russia with few people who were qualified to maintain and operate their factories and railroads. By the time Germany turned on Russia the Russian infrastructure was already in a state of disrepair.
Hey TIK. Thank you a lot for your videos! I've got a lot of interesting facts about my country [Russian Federation]. There are some moments (from several videos, not only from this one) where I don't agree with you: 1) Citizens in the "socialistic" country were considered as slaves .... face palm ... Freedom its the ability to make own decisions. When war started, in villages where lived my family (father's line - Ural region, mother's line - Altai region) - all men came to war ... no one forced them. My grandfather after the Moscow counterattack in December 1941, after battle for Rjev, after a heavy injury - asked to be transferred to blockaded Leningrad... to the dangerous place on our planet in these days. ... All this was his free will. People from former USSR can tell you the same about their relatives. 2) Its a typical mistake to think that GULAG and repressions were widely applied to USSR population: only several percent of population were repressed and they mostly deserved it (because they made real crimes, like murders, corruption or etc.). In my family, one of my grand-grandfathers, before the October Revolution, was a village headman. During the Stalin era he wasn't repressed because during Civil war he didn't allowed to White army to kill bolshevics in his village. He was a Christian and did not allow evil to happen. Later it saved him his life. His son (my grandfather's older brother) was a scientist and worked in some (R&D) institute in Leningrad. During clearing the Party in 1937 he was repressed (one of his colleagues wrote a denunciation against him). He was sent to Alma-Ata in Kazahstan, for building a new factory. He was a director of this factory.
Again: 1. Industry relocation to Urals and Asia. The greatest logistical feat of all times. Done in the heat of Barbarossa. I wouldn't call that inefficient planning. Although just before the war those plans were shelved as improbable and terminated. Then Soviets had to improvise. No market economy thinking could get anybody there. still done Brilliantly. TIK didn't touch the topic.. hm?1 2. Fighting on your own soil doesn't help logistics much. Especially given that war (frontline) could go anywhere and 80% of your industries were wiped out by German invasion. Red Army had always to build new infrastructure from scratch and in time. 3. Lend-Lease a logistical nightmare in and of itself.. it distracted critical logistical resources before it helped. Getting lend-lease stuff to the frontline is a logistical problem. Since opening of the second front was postponed twice, and opened up only when it was imperative to block Red Army, and not defeat Wehrmacht, I think it is OK for Stalin to prioritise production and rely on what the Allies can do.. deliver boots and trucks.. ok and jeeps and fuel and aircobras. ok ok.. and gunpowder. )) Communist Logistics must have been brilliant... a flee might live on an elephant and not believe in the existence of one, western scholars could thus have limited perspective and nit-picking the facts that feed their stereotypes and understanding. Even if Soviet logistics were 95% effective.. western scholars are more interested in the 5% that was not. And I don't care for their credentials.
@@PavewayJDAM they must. Evacuation (1) is about moving stuff away from the front line ,. 2. & 3. Is about moving stuff to the front line. In both cases USSR chose to make it happen against all odds. Amateurs think strategy and tactics, pros think logistics, bolsheviks think both and think big. My point is Wehrmachts logistical problems were the luxury problems to have, and we should stop taking Wehrmacht centric view of the situation. Every loser has reasons to lose, let alone excuses, not that winners didn't have even more reasons to fail.
You just lied about the Allies only opening "second front" to block the Soviets. The D-Day landings were the 3rd Front in Europe and 4th Front for the USA. So I have absolutely no reason to take anything else you said seriously. You don't even have credentials or sources. Why do you lie?
@@chaosXP3RT The stewed canned meat from USA as part of lend lease was also called "second front". Why didn't you include that too as your Nth front? The real second front was still low intensity warfare compared to the Eastern Fronts... Bilateral ceasefires in the west are a strong indication of Western Allies trying to double-cross USSR and make separate peace with Germany. Fortunately by this time Hitler became totally detached from reality and pushed his luck... this time into the abyss. That part of history they will never teach you in the West nor will you find documentaries. But those ceasefires were closely watched by Soviet side.
@@chaosXP3RT I do not detract from the exploits of the Allied soldiers on the second front, but the opening of the "second fronts" was mainly after the turning points on the eastern front, namely on the Kursk bulge and Stalingrad
I'd be interested in hearing about how different governments organized research and development of new equipment, production of equipment and supplies, and logistics. We often hear about the worst results-when the system completely fails. But there are probably interesting examples of different approaches taken, what worked and didn't work, how the organization adapted and changed and so on.
Hi TIK, I've been a avid viewer for several years now, and I really appreciate the different perspectives you give on the topics you cover, especially WW2. That being said, I have an issue to take with you in these last two videos on logistics. Military planning in general, and logistics in particular, are complex matters, and as such, Army officers have created guidelines to facilitate such things as calculating how many supplies a unit needs. Systems are in place to give an approximation of necessities so the supply channel can predict what's going to be needed. In parallel, every unit, down to the smallest level will give feedback so the logisticians can adjust their predictions and distribute resources rationally (in a perfect world this would lead to a 100% efficient system). As such I don't agree with your argument that logistical needs are impossible to predict, or that there is an infinite need of supply, and as such it is impossible to be efficient or even to calculate efficiency. These are just some thoughts based on my military education, keep up the great work, cheers!
The issue you are seeing but can’t identify is these videos are not about logistics but ideology. It is rather easy to identify if your logistics is working correctly even in a completely moneyless system... How much are you producing How much are you using How much can you deliver How much can you deliver to a given area If you are not producing enough to meet your usage how much you can deliver is meaningless. Germany could produce enough at least until 1943, they could not deliver it due to lack fuel trucks rail and roads. Could they have been more efficient perhaps, would it have mattered perhaps, but no matter how efficient they got at transporting supplies it was never going to make fuel they didn’t have appear out of thin air. The example given by TiK of soldiers bidding on bullets is just stupid and totally unworkable. I completely agree with Tik on capitalism supplying the needs of the free market when business can weigh the cost of getting a widget tomorrow vs next week. Soldiers do not have that luxury when being shelled or when being tasked with taking a city. Germany lost the war due to lack of fuel and rubber period everything else was a series of cascading failures from that inescapable fact. Conversely the US had enough oil to spray it on dirt roads to make quick and serviceable roads. The Russians with 409,000 2.5 ton trucks gained at least 818,000,000 pounds of logistics capacity at 2 tons a truck that was the supply capacity to supply 483.45 German divisions at 846 tons a day and do so at nearly 10 times the distance from the nearest railway than the Germans. WW2 was won by factories and trucks and not rifles and tanks, and anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t understand WW2.
@@beefy1212 I completely agree. As I said I like TIK for his different approach to history, but I also appreciate his opinions on politics and ideology, even though I don't agree with many of them.
The "infinite need of supply" is stupid in and of itself. There is only so much supplies of any kind that you can use (as a unite) and after certain threshold even more supplies would acctually hinder your ability to fight (finding in the piles of stuff exactly what you need fast; loosing these supplies due to more efficient bombing [more ammunition and explosives into the mix] etc.). At some point if you have so many supplies (even reserves of soldiers) it would be more benefitial to create new units instead.
Great as always TIK and helps explain lots of other aspects. I have finished reading Vasily Grossman's novel Stalingrad in its repaired uncensored version (it was originally published under the title For a Just Cause). Even in its hyper patriotic genre, two big things are apparent: 1) The Soviet people survived by barter - particularly food. They got any immediately available food and would barter it where they could. They would barter anything for anything on the non-food front too. They could not live by rationing alone. Those in charge of supplies are always diverting stores to get favours. The black market network was extensive. 2) The author mentioned US trucks pulling anti-tank guns and driving logistics. There is also a surreal moment where a US parcel from American women to Soviet women at the front is opened and the Soviet female nurse is bemused to find it contains, perfume, lotion, stockings, a fancy dress and a dressing gown. While the author would claim to the Stalinist censors that this pointed out the idle pursuit of the war by the capitalist nations, you can clearly see how it revealed how Communism had actually failed to provide the products and quantities that its citizens needed. Capitalism had so much surplus that it could produce such fripperies.
@Justus Immelmann Yes Grossman refers to tinned meat in the novel as well and to a Soviet reader it would be clear what this referred to, as the Soviets did not produce tinned meat until US spam arrived and Stalin liked the idea but didn't want it to show how poor Soviet supplies were. After the war tinned meat stew became a staple Soviet army and civilian diet. Another example of Soviet reverse engineering.
@osamu takeda Actually Lebanon was doing really well until it was plunged into a religious civil war in the 70s and never recovered. The Philippines isn't a capitalist country it was a dictatorship for decades and remains a US/Spanish post-colonial mess, currently run by an elected autocrat. Your cherry picking doesn't address the points made in any way. You seem to think capitalism is an ideology - it is not, it is merely an economic system derived from the free market. Communism is an ideology that seeks to total change the human mindset and replace it with something intrinsically alien to human nature. The two are typically placed in a false opposition, because of Marx's theories which are outdated and have been demonstrably proven wrong by history. Russia had all the ingredients to become the next USA at the start of the 20th Century - vast natural resources, a huge labour force and a population with some technical genius. All of that was burnt in the pyre of Communist ideology along with the death of millions. In order to survive people had to participate in a culture of lying and corruption, culminating in the near global catastrophe of Chernobyl. Russia is culturally limited by the major impetus of societal change having to come from the central government, thus they exchanged the tyrannical and corrupt autocracy of the Czar for that of Lenin and Stalin. You should try reading some Russian and history and literature to get a better appreciation of this.
Lend Lease was a great help to the Russians. One fact, not covered, was that each of the vehicles sent to Russia was LOADED with spare parts. Such as motor and transmission repair parts and complete engines, transmissions, drive assemblies, steering gear, shocks, and leaf springs, etc. It was said that the longshoremen who loaded these vehicles remarked that there were enough parts carried on the vehicles to build a second vehicle. Eisenhower commended that the Jeep was one of the items that won the war. Stalin said that it was the Studebaker. It's a tad hard to supply your troops when they are surrounded.
Well done video as usual. I too have wondered how the Soviet logistics stacked up vs the Nazis. I knew from Glantz’ books that lend-lease played a large role in Soviet operations (and also keeping their people from outright starving to death) but did not really have an overall picture of how their circumstances differed vs the enemy. You answered some questions here. Thanks for the great work.
this video aged like fine wine. Russia not having enough trucks to supply their invasion of Ukraine has largely stalled the advance. Did Putin study history at all while he was a KGB agent?
Lots of variables. Industrial base capability, logistics infrastructure, packaging, shipping queues, etc. which is why the US has dedicated government facilities for manufacturing military unique items (tanks, ammo, etc.). A US Army division ships with 30 days of supplies. Which is why the Army should buy dedicated shipping containers that convert to housing (an almost instant base). You can see entire base concept models where containers are used for almost everything (walls, guard towers, hospitals, housing, motor pools, revetments, etc.). For an Army on the move, digging in every night is a huge time consuming workload ...which is why trenching machines (Ditch Witch) would be very useful. The British logistics study found a huge % of manpower on the battlefield was ordering, organizing, unpacking/packing, and shipping supplies. The US Army switched to standardized sets that were shipped forward. Most of the $1m/Soldier cost per year in Afghan was logistics. The USMC FOB energy experiment was successful in that it saved moving tons of fuel. Remember a division is a small city with all the functions of a city. The logistics tail being a point of vulnerability. Which is why the Atlantic seabed is a boat graveyard. I’d also argue that targeting should be revisited. If you need to destroy 30 tanks, you need mass target solutions (say a hypothetical 120mm smart Metal Storm mortar system)(or see DARPA’s solution) vs individually shooting 30 + missiles to kill 30 tanks. The Gorman targeting study basically concluded the defender couldn't shoot fast enough to stop a Soviet swarming attack. See ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pqZFi0jNZdI.html as well.
Great narrative. Going through Infantry Officers Candidate School during the Vietnam War and spending a year running supply convoys I can say that the USA military totally appreciates the importance of logistics in winning wars.
If you're just going strawman your critics by cherry picking certain concerns and ignoring others, that's just laughably petty. Come on, there were plenty of people critiquing your attempt to force the economic calculation problem into everything on grounds different to "oh but the Russians did it better so your wrong."
I have to say something about what you said at 1:15 more or less in the video. It is not true that critics are bad if you can predict them. If I say that the earth is flat and I predict a critic about actual footage from the space, that doesn't make the actual critic bad when somebody point it out. Edit: the time link now works
Well it is bad if they're so obvious with bad criticism he's already in the work to dispel it before they even move. I'd argue the criticism is bad because it's like they put 0 thought into why the situation isn't EXACTLY the same, despite all the variables that changed from 1941 to 1944-45 for the eastern front. In fact, I'd go as far as to say the situations in 41 and 44 are so completely different you'd have to be brain dead to think the scenario is the same. One look at raw numbers of the two forces facing each other down in 41 compared to 44 or 45 would tell you that the beast is entirely different. His point wasn't 'they're bad because I can predict them', but rather they're so bad I can predict they're bad criticism'. The two sentiments being completely different. One is saying they're bad because they can be predicted, the other is stating he can predict them because they're bad at it.
@@NeiasaurusCreations Yep. In the case of the Flat Earth example, they might predict the Footage from Space argument, but they cannot refute it, except by accusations of photoshop. :D Whereas TIK can predict and refute his critics.
@@NeiasaurusCreations you are right, my point is that only because the critic it's predictable it do not make it bad, or the critics bad. A critc is bad if it is false or fallacious, whether it is obvious or not, similarly those who write it.
It would be great to see a video about land-lease towards the Sovietunion. I heard opinions that it was crucial, opinions that it was negligible. I heard that they supplied the majority of trucks and I heard that they supplied a minuscule percentage of tanks. What was the percentage of the supplies that were lost at see?
i think it was worse for Germany as they were fighting on several major fronts against several major powers as well as being bombed Daily by the US and UK,and the Soviets had lot's of Lend lease from the Commonwealth and the US on top of having far more raw materials and manpower than Germany,and that's why things probably went better for the USSR even if their logistics were poor
But only in the very end in 1945. If we're talking 1943-1944, it even got wider. The most narrow part of the Eastern front probably was the line between Königsberg (nowadays Kaliningrad) in the north and the black sea towns, e.g. Odessa, in the South. After that the Axis Armies and the Red Army also had to spread wide because fighting entered the countries in southeastern europe, e.g. Romania. Sure, Romania did switch sides then, but this didn't stop fighting, since the Germans were still there. And they had to fight in Bulgaria too and in Hungary, so the frontline for over a year extended several hundred kilometers into difficult terrain. If they wouldn't have soundly beaten the Germans on their own homesoil beforehand, this would've probably caused a massive problem for the soviets, needing time to haul up supplies for the push into the balkan countries meanwhile the strong enemy would counter push. But that strong enemy wasn't there so the elongation of the front didn't hurt the soviets that much. And since 1943 Allied Forces had set foot on mainland Europe again, first with the invasion of Sicily and then Mainland Italy and then in June 1944 with the Invasion of France, binding significant numbers of German Troops, which could not be transferred to the east. The frontline only became shorter again towards the end of the war from end of 1944 onwards, when the Red Army reached for eastern central european countries like Poland, Hungary, Austria and Czechoslowakia and the front became naturally shorter because, again, there is a geographical tight spot of europe between Stettin in the north at the baltic sea and Triest in the south by the Adriatic Sea.
US: supplies over half the aviation fuel the Red Airforce uses during the war "iT diDnT rEaLlY MatTeR!!" edit: correction in comments, point still stands
Mostly during second half of the war against nazis that went defensive. And it mattered, sure. Just not in a "would've never won the war or got to Berlin without that fuel" way.
It turns out that Soviet aircraft couldn't run on the high quality, high octane American avgas. They frequently had to mix it down with their own fuel to use it. However, they had a lot of allied aircraft that required the high quality fuel, so it kind of all evened out.
Still would have lost the war ultimately as combination of various factors. However, with better logistics would have captured more Soviet territory including Moscow. Another very good video by TIK here
13:18 General Balck said that the units operating on the front lines always needed 5x the supplies that was calculated by the General Staff. He also mentioned the same exact issues that the Soviets experienced, the trains with the supplies arrived but just sat there for several days and the supplies were being enjoyed by the rear area troops instead of the frontline troops who really needed them.
It's Historical fact that the USSR was practically built on Lend/Lease. Oil, copper, rubber, nickel, steel, gunpowder, livestock, food; not to mention tens of thousands of engineers and logistics experts were all sent to build and manage the railroads/factories/shipyards/refineries etc.
The Moscow museum to the Bolsha Voynya has a large section on Lend Lease and its contribution to winning the war. I was pleasantly surprised when I toured the newly opened museum in 1995, at the 50 year celebration of the Soviet victory over the Germans.
Nikita Khrushchev in his memoir: "One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me." Marshal Georgy Zhukov: "People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own." Some details: America clothed, fed, outfitted, and supported 60 Soviet divisions (Division then 15k-17k soldiers, soup to nuts). A T-34 is useless when it runs out of gas - war is 99% logistics. Russian historian Boris Sokolov notes America covered the "sensitive points": gasoline, explosives, aluminum, nonferrous metals, radio communications, etc to the tune of a half-trillion dollars today. It included 400,000 jeeps and trucks, 14,000 aircraft, 8,000 tractors and construction vehicles, and 13,000 battle tanks. Infantry walks 3mph, mechanized infantry moves at least 30mph (tank speed). You have to be mobile to fight war. The FDR administration - riddled w/ fellow travelers and communist spies (the First Lady herself was a communist sympathizer) - gave the USSR official recognition in 1933 in spite of its own State Department. FDR's own ambassador to the USSR became a staunch anti-communist after what he saw there during his tenure. We also gave them nuclear material, something completely off the historical radar but it did happen after the shipments were noticed and documented by Major George Racey Jordan. Even before the war the U.S. sent factory engineers to bring their factories up to speed. As w/ WWI, the Germans were taking on the world. 30% of the German military remained in the Western Theater as a bulwark against Great Britain and the United States. The Soviet Union had no such problem. Then there is the Hitler factor. Ignoring his generals, Hitler ordered half of Army Group Center to swing south to Kiev, immediately causing General Heinz Guderian to fly to Germany and personally protest to Hitler - to no avail. This critical delay meant they were caught by the Rasputitsa (rainy season) and winter in the push to Moscow. Guderian knew the key to defeating Russia was a knockout blow to the capital. There was not going to be a Stalingrad-type battle - the plan was to encircle it and let starvation and disease do their magic a 'la Leningrad. The city was then to be razed to the ground and erased from existence. After they pull off a grand encirclement in Ukraine and are pushing to Moscow, they are getting farther and farther from their supply base and pushing the Russians back closer and closer to theirs - the only infrastructure worth a damn in the USSR being centered around Moscow, all the rail lines, all the good roads. The Soviets hit them with a fierce counteroffensive on Dec 5, 1941 and the Germans take more casualties than in Poland and France combined I think. Hitler issued a dig in order and they stabilized their lines. After that, it becomes Hitler trying to do too much with too little and no focus but the key is American Lend-Lease taking hold. As w/ WWI, America made the critical difference. Since Frederick the Great the Germans knew they had to fight "short, sharp wars" - wars of dynamic movement - and the German generals were reading about what in their military magazines? The great tactical generals of that mindset. Now the Soviets can move too and they are learning not to stick around for the encirclement, but to conduct a tactical retreat. Another key point overlooked: Unlike the Allies, the Axis never coordinated together. Japan could've easily trounced the Soviets by invading in the East, but they never worked together like the Allies. All of this is moot, they were toast once America became the enemy and kept Britain and the USSR alive and developed the technology to turn their cities to ash. However, the German achievements in the Eastern Front were astonishing even w/ 30% of German forces tied up in the West -that includes Luftwaffe, German Navy, even piles of the incredible 88mm gun, which instead of destroying Russian tanks in the East had to be tasked w/ flak duty defending German cities from Allied bombers. After the war Charles de Gaulle toured Stalingrad and an aide overheard him say "My God, what a people!" The aide asked, "The Russians?" De Gaulle replied, "No, the Germans." By which he meant they moved 3.8 million personnel the distance of London to Turkey and won spectacular victories that, but for American involvement, would've been total victory. America and Britain, for their part, in the words of Churchill, won the war but lost the peace. Eastern Europe would fall to a murderous regime who would also be critical in the fall of China and concomitantly, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela. This same regime would have thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at the very allies responsible for their survival after Operation Barbarossa. I'll give the last word to General Patton, the only individual I know of who had clarity on the issue: "We promised the Europeans freedom. It would be worse than dishonorable not to see they have it. This might mean war with the Russians, but what of it? They have no Air Force anymore, their gasoline and ammunition supplies are low. I've seen their miserable supply trains; mostly wagons draw by beaten up old hoses or oxen. I'll say this; the Third Army alone with very little help and with damned few casualties, could lick what is left of the Russians in six weeks. You mark my words. Don't ever forget them... Someday we will have to fight them and it will take six years and cost us six million lives."
The Japanese doesn't want to make a second front when their main objective is to hold on to South East Asia, just saying. And plus the Soviets were having doubts about Allies plans after 1944, when victory is at hand, the allies try to turn faces with the Soviets using propaganda and stuff, ruining the alliance with the Soviets, and plus the Soviets have to give the allies tribute in return (gold, platinum, titanium, etc...), since it's a Lend-Lease of course. Allies treatment for the Soviets on the political front also made a negative sight to further break away the fragile alliance that both doesn't want to held near the end of the war. This affected Stalin's mind, which have been deteriorating by health problems already, creating more distrust between them. On my point the Allies use the Soviets to fight and when the time is right they would come in and reap the reward for themselves while also undermining Soviet's effort in the war and to make a fortune out of it. Politics was a mug's game and still is now.
One specification: Germany wasn't attacking the Soviet Union or the Allies alone, It had many allies around them, striking together, especially in Barbarossa vs the USSR. The US had to obliterate one of its allies in the other part of the world, Japan.
You only mentioned "food" Lend Lease aid a single time in this video, but this was a MAJOR FACTOR in contributing to the Soviet victory. Just like the war machinery could not run without oil, the entirety of the Red Army could not function without FOOD. The capture of the Ukrainian bread basket areas and the drafting of men from the other farms of the Soviet Union drastically cut back the agricultural output of the Soviet Union during the war. Many historians have documented how the civilian population in the Soviet Union were put on severely calorie restricted starvation rations during the war. The soldiers of the Red Army on the other hand were NOT on starvation rations - quite the contrary. Once Lend Lease food started arriving, the Red Army soldiers ate better than the both their home civilian population AND the German Army. American C-rations were regarded as gourmet food by the Red Army soldiers. Beef stew cooked in a common pot and enjoyed around a campfire! (Individual Soviet Army soldier memoirs mention this - you can easily imagine how good this was for morale in the Red Army). This, as you might expect completely changed the calculus for the average Red Army soldier - surrendering to the German Army and becoming one of their Hiwis wasn't so desirable anymore, nor was desertion to return back home - there was NO FOOD there to come close to what they were getting from American Lend Lease C-rations. Napolean once said that an army marches on its stomach. The slash and burn tactics of their Russian opponents to deny food supplies to the French Army was a major cause of its defeat and the severe casualties it suffered during its long retreat from Russia. Alone amongst ALL the combatant countries engaged in fighting during WWII, the United States actually INCREASED its agricultural food production during the war, despite the widespread drafting of men who were farmworkers. This was how the migrant labor program from Mexico started. So yeah, FOOD was a major component in the success of Lend Lease - it's a big enough topic, and so thoroughly ignored by historians in general, that you really ought to do a whole video about this.
I remember my grandfather telling me about the Soviet army passing through our town(western Romania). The convoy was two months long. For two months they passed day and night on rail, on horse, on foot, some soldiers almost barefoot, on tanks, on trucks, on... camels. most of the trucks were "Studebacuri" the Romanian name for the Studebaker American trucks.
Tik, I recommend debunking The Untold History of the United States in which he claims that the lend lease did little to nothing. They also talk about the US as well and would love to hear your opinion on this documentary.
To be fair in the beginning of the war when it was needed most the lend-lease wasn't that important. Out of 17 million tons of supplies between June 1941 and July 1943 only about 4 million or 23% was delivered to the USSR, the rest being delivered when the Soviet Union was already winning in 1944 and 1945.
@@ghostrider.49 "to be fair" Bullisht. You're being completely dishonest. The Lend Lease aid was most critically needed when the Sovcoms began their maneuvers west.
@@chuckschillingvideos I'm being dishonest? The only one being dishonest here is you. I'm basing my opinion on facts, you on the other hand base it on your all American pride, you seem like the classic arrogant American who can't stand someone saying "Murica didn't do it all" even when someone like me actually recognizes the significance of the lend-lease but doesn't overplay its significance, like you. So you say, the Soviets needed the lend-lease in order to advance west? Wrong, because when it started becoming significant(circa 1944) the Soviets had been advancing for a YEAR, it's as simple as that. If the lend-lease was so important, then how come the Soviets survived basically without it by 1944 actually WINNING against Germany? It's literally basic logic, and moreover, the Germans were running out of oil. Hence, they could not wage a war for much longer after 1944. It's as simple as that. And don't even mention the logistics, the Soviets proved they were capable of big offensive operations in their counterattack in December 1941, and their retaking of the vast lands of the Caucasus from November 1942 to February 1943.
@@chuckschillingvideos In the costs of war, these supplies accounted for less than 5% of weapons, about 11% of aircraft, 17% of the tank. There was much more "civilian equipment" - cars, motorcycles, but also textiles, shoes, food and other civilian needs. Unfortunately, the weapons could only be used in the summer, because they often froze in the winter due to their construction. I do not question this help in any way, but it is not worth revaluing it. Even without it, the USSR would have defended itself, but the war would probably last a year or two longer. Leningrad defended itself from its own resources, the advance before Moscow was also stopped by the Soviet army on its own. Help, - The USSR paid for these supplies - gold, diamonds. But the USA were not the only ones to help the USSR - for example, Iran supplied fuel to the USSR for most of the war at reduced prices, which was forced by the Allies. And surprisingly - Mongolia supplied about half a million horses, which were able and willing to work even in the freezing frosts. Mongolia also supplied large quantities of meat to the USSR during the war. While aid from the West is still being talked about, supplies from other countries are hardly talked about at all, although, for example, the supplies to the horse have been very significant and have resolved supply supplies in the rear even better than American cars.
He literally explains in this video why some of these generalizations are wrong. The comments arguing that "Lend lease didn't really help" are directly addressed in the video, which apparently people didn't bother watching.
Germany had smaller front lines as the Russians pushed them Westward. This didn't help them because they still depended upon horses. Trucks were definitely the reason why the Russians could advance quickly.
"I want to tell you what, from the Russian point of view, the president and the United States have done for victory in this war, the most important things in this war are the machines.... The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war." -Joseph Stalin The United States shipped $50 billion ($608 billion in 2020 money) worth of materiel under the program, including $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union. In addition, much of the $31 billion worth of aid sent to the United Kingdom was also passed on to the Soviet Union via convoys through the Barents Sea to Murmansk. Most visibly, the United States provided the Soviet Union with more than 400,000 jeeps and trucks, 14,000 aircraft, 8,000 tractors and construction vehicles, and 13,000 battle tanks. However, the real significance of Lend-Lease for the Soviet war effort was that it covered the "sensitive points" of Soviet production -- gasoline, explosives, aluminum, nonferrous metals, radio communications, and so on, says historian Boris Sokolov. Under Lend-Lease, the United States provided more than one-third of all the explosives used by the Soviet Union during the war. The United States and the British Commonwealth provided 55 percent of all the aluminum the Soviet Union used during the war and more than 80 percent of the copper. Lend-Lease also sent aviation fuel equivalent to 57 percent of what the Soviet Union itself produced. Much of the American fuel was added to lower-grade Soviet fuel to produce the high-octane fuel needed by modern military aircraft. The Lend-Lease program also provided more than 35,000 radio sets and 32,000 motorcycles. When the war ended, almost 33 percent of all the Red Army's vehicles had been provided through Lend-Lease. More than 20,000 Katyusha mobile multiple-rocket launchers were mounted on the chassis of American Studebaker trucks.
@@MrEmiosk That needed to come via lend lease, since the trucks ran on gasoline and the Soviets did not have adequate refining capacity to make adequate supplies of this product.
@@FriedrichBarb In the costs of war, these supplies accounted for less than 5% of weapons, about 11% of aircraft, 17% of the tank. There was much more "civilian equipment" - cars, motorcycles, but also textiles, shoes, food and other civilian needs. Unfortunately, the weapons could only be used in the summer, because they often froze in the winter due to their construction. I do not question this help in any way, but it is not worth revaluing it. Even without it, the USSR would have defended itself, but the war would probably last a year or two longer. Leningrad defended itself from its own resources, the advance before Moscow was also stopped by the Soviet army on its own. The USSR paid for these supplies - gold, diamonds. But the USA were not the only ones to help the USSR - for example, Iran supplied fuel to the USSR for most of the war at reduced prices, which was forced by the Allies. And surprisingly - Mongolia supplied about half a million horses, which were able and willing to work even in the freezing frosts. Mongolia also supplied large quantities of meat to the USSR during the war. While aid from the West is still being talked about, supplies from other countries are hardly talked about at all, although, for example, the supplies to the horse have been very significant and have resolved supply supplies in the rear even better than American cars.
I think alot of people ignore the lend lease was massive amounts of things like radios too, this let the Soviets focus on making guns over more technical things.
If you look at Operation Barbarossa, Soviet logistics were even more nightmarish than German logistics was later on. The Soviet Union had a massive tank army but lacked spare parts, fuel, ammunition and experienced crews to use it adequately. The situation improved later in the war, when the Soviet army had learned logistics the hard way.
Great video. I remember reading Von Mellinthin's Panzer Battles that his discussion of Russian operations as referring to the Americans putting the Red Army on wheels, which is why they were so much more mobile than the Germans ever were.
In the costs of war, these supplies accounted for less than 5% of weapons, about 11% of aircraft, 17% of the tank. There was much more "civilian equipment" - cars, motorcycles, but also textiles, shoes, food and other civilian needs. Unfortunately, the weapons could only be used in the summer, because they often froze in the winter due to their construction. I do not question this help in any way, but it is not worth revaluing it. Even without it, the USSR would have defended itself, but the war would probably last a year or two longer. Leningrad defended itself from its own resources, the advance before Moscow was also stopped by the Soviet army on its own. The USSR paid for these supplies - gold, diamonds. But the USA were not the only ones to help the USSR - for example, Iran supplied fuel to the USSR for most of the war at reduced prices, which was forced by the Allies. And surprisingly - Mongolia supplied about half a million horses, which were able and willing to work even in the freezing frosts. Mongolia also supplied large quantities of meat to the USSR during the war. While aid from the West is still being talked about, supplies from other countries are hardly talked about at all, although, for example, the supplies to the horse have been very significant and have resolved supply supplies in the rear even better than American cars.
@@RENEBACON If western aid was so useless, why was Stalin whining for arctic convoys and a second front throughout the war. The fact of the matter is that a second front was in being at all times. The battle of the Atlantic, the Mediterranean theater, and after Pearl Harbor, the Pacific War which released Siberian units from the Japanese front. No allies, no Persian oil as that would have been kept by the US and Britain. This is not to diminish the accomplishment of Russia during WWII, but noone should underestimate the contributions the Allies made in support of each other during the war. One should also keep in mind that while the West aided Russia against Hitler, no such support came from Russia in regards to the Japanese. It was only after the war was practically over the Russia broke its non-aggression pact with Japan.
@@RENEBACON Your "sentense" is bullshit. The US were supplying the Allies before 1941 and the SU after 1941, and were destroying Germany by air and Japan all-around by 1942, even getting into the ground vs Germany and Italy by 1943.
@@RENEBACON If anything it was the SU (which was huge in Europe, of course) that pounced at the right moment when the US cleaned up the problem in Asia.
Socialism can do logistics, but it is like juggling. How well it is implemented depends on the juggler. So wartime which is easy to focus on for a centralized power, this has been done for centuries. When you throw in more and more things to juggle, the harder it gets. Capitalism can distribute more across a larger pool of jugglers making adjustments easier.
That's just in any army similar "jugglers making adjustments easier." may end up behind bars or in penal units. Because instead of increasing efficiency, they will make the logistics system more corrupt.
No, sorry, that's not how competition works. When you have competition, somebody wins. When somebody wins, they've aquired a monopoly position. A monopoly centralizes power. It does not distribute it.
@@gustaveliasson5395 except that it’s not 1 single competition that determines the permanent juggler. There are endless amounts of competitions, offering a chance for the best to win.
Another factor that is not mentioned was less of the unintended variety in the fleet mix. The Soviets used about a dozen common types from 5-6 main manufacturers (GAZ, ZIS, GM, Dodge, Studebaker). The Axis likely had dozens if not hundreds of types of vehicles from Germany and all over occupied Europe, which complicated maintenance and repairs.
TIK, those who say LL doesnt help ARE trolls :) My grandpa, lieutenant, was fighting at very beginning from june to august 1941 and then from february to may 1945 finishing war in Berlin. In between he was POW at western camp where were english and french captives. There is no family in USSR whom ancestors wasnt involved into this terrible war. So, what I want to say that even in 1945 early months my grandpa was very grateful for LL. Also, being historican myself I know very well how LL helps USSR. And many knows how Allies helps our country. Ofcourse LL wasnt the main factor of USSR victories, ofcourse Red Army will come to Berlin anyway. But LL saved thousands of soviet lives and time to achieve this. Despite later events like Cold War and today's difficulties, many remember about Allied help and thankful for this. It would be nice if you dig this theme more deeply and give to those trolls exact numbers or percentage of what LL was delivering comparing to domestical USSR production. Many know there were trucks, tanks, airplanes, boots etc. But also rubber, aluminium, oil products and more other strategical materials. If I am not mistaken 80% of toluene received by soviet industry at 1943 was from LL. Imho its very interesting theme and by such video you may shut up those trolls forever, at least about importance of LL :)
As someone who gets called tankie a lot, I would like to say this about the LL part. I think the people who say that the LL did not help just misphrase their point. What they mean is that the LL was not a real gamechanger, as in it did not change the outcome of the war. It CLEARLY helped the soviets tremendously, saved potentially millions of soviet and axis lives, greatly decreased the strain on soviet logistics and shortened the war. However I would not consider it decisive, especially given the relative scope of the LL per year and the absolute disarray the Germans were in in 1941 onwards
@@konstantinkelekhsaev302 That seems to be the consensus. It's a dreadful thought that the Soviets might have suffered even more casualties than they did
@@alanpennie8013 Except soviets weren't purging european people like nazis, what built up civilian casualties that some take as military. ~10 mil dead from both sides is so bad anyway. No one remembers italian, spanish, romanian and other fascist governments that participated in this bloody war. It was so unfair.
When discussing supply chains the explosives supplied to Russia and vast quantities of locomotives 11000 and lathes and tyre factory’s x2 and vast quantities were sent via west USA to Russia to production facilities then to the front line, these supply lines or via Iran or north Russia were far greater than German logistics, allies logistics and production out performed German
They weren't more automatized before the lend lease. "I want to tell you what, from the Russian point of view, the president and the United States have done for victory in this war, the most important things in this war are the machines.... The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war." -Joseph Stalin The United States shipped $50 billion ($608 billion in 2020 money) worth of materiel under the program, including $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union. In addition, much of the $31 billion worth of aid sent to the United Kingdom was also passed on to the Soviet Union via convoys through the Barents Sea to Murmansk. Most visibly, the United States provided the Soviet Union with more than 400,000 jeeps and trucks, 14,000 aircraft, 8,000 tractors and construction vehicles, and 13,000 battle tanks. However, the real significance of Lend-Lease for the Soviet war effort was that it covered the "sensitive points" of Soviet production -- gasoline, explosives, aluminum, nonferrous metals, radio communications, and so on, says historian Boris Sokolov. Under Lend-Lease, the United States provided more than one-third of all the explosives used by the Soviet Union during the war. The United States and the British Commonwealth provided 55 percent of all the aluminum the Soviet Union used during the war and more than 80 percent of the copper. Lend-Lease also sent aviation fuel equivalent to 57 percent of what the Soviet Union itself produced. Much of the American fuel was added to lower-grade Soviet fuel to produce the high-octane fuel needed by modern military aircraft. The Lend-Lease program also provided more than 35,000 radio sets and 32,000 motorcycles. When the war ended, almost 33 percent of all the Red Army's vehicles had been provided through Lend-Lease. More than 20,000 Katyusha mobile multiple-rocket launchers were mounted on the chassis of American Studebaker trucks.
@@FriedrichBarb it's all correct but also correct is that you can do things with tanks etc but maybe they are a bit overrated, with people you can achieve anything. It's a terribly sad time in history and one that my elders took an active part in on two fronts, one ending up a Lt. Col. The innocent stood up and loyalty did what they thought was required when they were acting on the failings of two or more? or groups of leaders who failed to act correctly at the right time Peace costs lives
2000 locomotives is the official and exact number, not 11000. USSR had 28000 pre-war locomotives, so these 2000 is just 6% of total. Please keep your propaganda vibes for the kids.
The support from the Allies to the Soviets was instrumental. My great grandpas who were in the war said that they were eating food from the Americans all the time.
Another factor that I don't believe was touched on: the Soviets did not face partisan activity, or if they did it was small scale. The Germans, on the other hand, faced massive uprisings from Soviets who had been bypassed - often cutting the logistics altogether and forcing the diversion of large amounts of troops to help protect the logistics.
Maybe the Soviet payment in gold and inability to "pay with paper" had to do with the Ruble being a closed currency so it didn't have value outside of the country, so they needed to exchange with something else of value.
i doubt UK paid LL in paper. and i think definitely not in UK paper since the debt was in USD. Now you can say that instead of paying in gold, which UK could not produce, it paid US with goods and services, which is rather equivalent to gold. I think TIK was in a spiral he just could not stop. :)
I assume that was mostly a joke. At the time such transactions between countries were completed in gold. One of the reasons lend-lease was put into place was that the British were rapidly exhausting their gold reserves under cash and carry. In addition the gold and other rare materials were transferred to the US during the war as per the lens-lease agreement. The Soviets weren’t exactly in a position to ignore their obligations at that time. When the Soviets finally made payments for lend-lease in the seventies it was a complex transaction about trade agreements etc.
One thing I would add to your comment about Soviet logistics compared to German logistics. Inefficiencies in the system and the stupidity of communist ideology aside, one point you make, perhaps without realizing it, is that for all their failings, the Soviet leadership put more effort into logistics than the Germans. There was (eventually) a rational system for logistics. And from Overy's book "Why the Allies Won" we see that immediately after the start of the war that the Soviets did take logistics seriously (even if, as suggested by your sources, in 1941 and 1942 they placed a lower priority on it). If they didn't take logistics seriously, why did Stalin ask for trucks, rather than tanks? I would suggest that the collective experience of Stalin and his generals during the Russian Revolution and subsequent Civil War showed them the importance of logistics. I would like to suggest that you brought forth one reason for the poor state of Soviet logistics in 1941-1943, the lack of rail lines. By the winter of 1941-42, the Russians were reduced to few rail lines (in some cases single tracks) that could transport men and material to the frontline areas. This made their supply system inefficient. One source you quoted indicated that Soviet logistics improved during 1943 as the north-south rail system was recovered from the Germans, and rail traffic no longer had to go through Moscow. This not only shows why Moscow was so important to the Soviet war effort (it was perhaps the most important rail hub in the USSR), but also how badly they Germans had disrupted the Russian rail network. A single rail hub can handle only so much traffic, and back-and-forth traffic on a single track is very inefficient (one reason the Canadian Pacific Railway spent so much money on laying parallel tracks wherever possible). The capture and holding of Rzhev by the Wehrmacht in 1941 reduced the ability of the Soviet Union to move supplies around in bulk by rail, and is the reason the Germans fought so hard to keep it. Once this vital hub was retaken, Soviet frontline logistics probably became more efficient (going from a linear back and forth movement to a more efficient circulatory movement of rail traffic), and aided the Red Army's advance. Obviously the USSR had way more oil and gas than Germany did, but it is still interesting that the Germans didn't try developing ways to get around the fuel issue, or focus more on rationalizing their logistical system (which you demonstrated in the last video as being a convoluted Gordian's Knot of conflicting fiefdoms). Instead, as you have indicated, they preferred to coerce client states for these resources or steal them instead. The fact that they started Barbarossa expecting to steal enough Soviet locomotives and rolling stock to solve their mass transportation issues is a prime example of the Wehrmachts poor logistical planning. This is not to say that Soviet logistics was vastly superior than German logistics, rather the Soviet Union had a better appreciation of the problem and dedicated more time and effort to resolving the problems. And, unlike their German counterparts, they at least did a better job of it.
Exactly the question I wanted to ask. I assume they were even worst after the most important parts of the country were occupied. And Soviets did organised their industry to minimize the use of transports. (no sub-producers, build everything in one factory)
This is an important point that hasn't been mentioned. Not only did the Russians evolve a different production philosophy in order to lighten the burden on transport, they also 'value engineered' their tanks to use components of a lower standard but which would last for the six months or so that a tank would be in use; at the end of that time it would probably have been irreparably damaged. Germany, in contrast, was turning out beautifully engineered tanks, frequently modified, which led to lower production and greater difficulties in keeping them operational because the correct versions of components would not be available.
During the war,because of Lend Lease,there was a shortage of everything in the American market. There was even a rationing of foodstuffs. America was sending everything it had to the Soviets and British.
Even while Britain was still rebuilding its army after Dunkirk and mainland Britain was still partially at risk of German Air attacks, the Japanese were on the advance in Asia etc. It was still sending tanks, planes and other stuff to the USSR.
His central point in the previous video was 100% correct…there’s zero rational basis for logistical calculation in the absence of a market. NONE. A point the critics don’t even attempt to refute.
Take a look at the movement of the front lines in WW1 and ask yourself, if they "barely supplied any bullets" how those movements (and concomitant offensive and defensive actions) occurred. I'm not stating that the Russian Empire ran an effective or efficient logistical system in WW1 but if the Imperial Russian Army received no supplies how the heck did it stay in action for 3 years against the Imperial German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires? You're perhaps trying for a politcal own on TIK regarding the methods of governance but if you take a close look at what happened to cause the Russian Empire's logistical (and other domestic) failures in WW1 and then take a look at where the Soviet Union was most significantly assisted by Lend-Lease you might notice some interesting things.
@@KatanamasterV the Russian Empire received supplies. She received Japanese arisaka rifles (a Fedorov submachine gun was later made for their caliber), light machine guns, Adrian's helmets, shoes and much more. And the front did not move for one simple reason, it was a peripheral front, which after the defeat at Tannenberg could not significantly change the situation. It is enough to look at the number of German troops on the western front and on the eastern front. Yes, there was a Brusilov breakthrough, but it was a tactical victory that eventually led to nothing.
@@pozhiloy_monstr 1. I agree that they received some from the Japanese, as well as others, but manufactured more, both supplies and weapons, than they received from all other parties combined. The Russians however were chronically short of arms, ammo, and all types of equipment. Doesn't change that the Russian Empire did supply vast quantities of material to the army, just not enough of it. Given the size and scale of the conflict though running short is not exactly surprising. 2. I recommend you recheck your maps for the war, secondary front or not (and I think thats debatable if you include the numbers of Austro-Hungarian and Turkish troops instead of just the German numbers) the Russian front moved alot at the tactical and operational levels after Tannenburg and aftermath especially in the south, just not so much the strategic level. German centric view misses a ton of the Eastern Front action in WW1.
@@KatanamasterV the number of Turkish troops was not too large simply because of the geographical features of the front. The number of Turkish troops rarely fell over 300,000 people. As for the material equipment of the Turkish army, everything was even worse here than in the Russian one, so it is at least strange to perceive Turkey as a serious enemy.As for Austria-Hungary, it is also not the strongest opponent due to internal conflicts and weak industry. In addition, the Austro-Hungarians, in addition to everything else, had to fight in the Balkans and in Italy. Maybe there were tactical successes after Tannenberg, but this did not save Russia from a strategic failure, as a result, Russia lost Poland and the Baltic States, there was a relatively powerful industry in the Baltic states (the Russobalt factory), and in Poland a high-quality railway network built with French money. As for the German-oriented view, yes, you are right, the battle of Moonsund is very often overlooked, which in fact was based on the principle: "as long as they don't rub under their feet."
If u look at the facts, the Soviets won the war entirely thanks to Stalin's moustache. Have you even seen Darth Stalin destroys the Axis? It makes things much clearer
That was Budyonny's mustache. He took all the horses from Kazakhstan to form 666 cavalry divisions, and split german tanks with his stalinium sabre from 1917.
Another factor, that must have been relevant, was the multitude of types of vehicles being used and maintained. The variety of trucks given to the Soviets by the West was very limited, whereas the trucks used by the Germans had been confiscated from all over Europe. I remember reading, many years ago, that the German military had over 150 different makes and models of trucks to maintain with spares and mechanics with the relevant training and knowledge for those particular vehicles. Just keeping up with the maintenance of the trucks delivering the supplies must have been a nightmare for the Germans.
In USSR countries there is a lot of propaganda about 2 World War. Like for example those comments from last's week video. In 17 September Soviet Union attacked Poland and their history propaganda called this aggression "liberation" (yeah, killing and deporting). The same goes with "liberating from Nazi's occupation" which in reality was: terrorizing civilian population, stealing, rapes, killing livestock (for example, they needed single cow to feed them, so they killed every cow in a village). My city Słupsk (ex German Stolp) was destroyed by Red Army 3 days after being captured without much damage. People were feared of Soviet Horde much more, than Nazis.
Yes, the USSR received lend-lease trains and vehicles, more than it produced itself during the war. But why don't you take into account the huge namber of vehicles that were produced before the war?
1. Someone else (another person downplaying Lend Lease) said that the number of Soviet trucks that survived Barbarossa was ~210,000. 2. Soviet trucks could carry 6 tons of supplies. American trucks could carry 10 tons of supplies. Whichever way you split it, Lend Lease was important.
Yes, Lend Lease was important. For example, many katyushas were on the Studebaker trucks. The Russians were also supplied with aluminum and explosives in large quantities. But, to understand how many trucks the Soviet army had, it is important to take into account that they were not in the army. Most of them were used in production. They were supposed to get into the army in the event of the outbreak of war. Also, it seems to me important to take into account how many trucks Germany received from the French, Czechoslovakians and other European nations. Consider the role of Spain, Portugal, Turkey and Sweden in the Reich economy. (Yes, I know that America is much stronger than all these small countries, but it was Spanish tungsten that was used for anti-tank shells that destroyed many Soviet tanks.)
Their a reason Russia still can not make cars anyone in the world would Buy. The can only put them together for western company's. AvtoVAZ's AKA LADA Groupe Renault took control of the brand in 2016. Technical assistance from the French company started in 2008, after it acquired a minority AvtoVAZ stake
@@nuradinsadigi9148 The their owned by German Truck MFG know as Daimler. AKA Mercedes-Benz .Other owner is also EU/Cyprus contacted to Renault a EU company. Their putting together trucks of EU design. Advantage is the 3rd world labor rates in Russia. Now Lower then China and Poland,
One factor on German logistics vs Soviet logistics that is very worth noting: a lot of the plans for Operation Barbarossa were made with little to no consideration of logistics. I can't remember if it was Guderian or one of the other major figures in that advance who said it, but one dismissed considering the logistical challenges of their strategy as something like "economist pencil pushing" ...this is not a mindset conducive to setting up appropriate logistical support for the largest offensive in military history. By the time Barbarossa was launched, the plan was largely reliant on capturing Soviet trains because of course that's an option, Russia totally doesn't have a history of burning everything they can during their retreats when faced with an invasion. Oh wait... Conversely, the Soviet mindset was, if anything, overly obsessed with preparation. This _is_ the country that was somehow capable of disassembling arms factories in Ukraine, transporting them by rail across the Urals and reassembling them in a matter of months despite Stalin's refusal to heed any warning coming from his various intelligence sources saying that Operation Barbarossa was coming. The Soviet focus on mass production and maintaining logistical support is one factor that gave them a major advantage in their efforts over the German approach which seems to have made logistics something of an afterthought.
They would never have gotten to Berlin without lend-lease. The economic situation in the Soviet Union was so dire in the start of -42 that they would have had to surrender, or else the entire nation, including the Red Army would have starved to death or simply collapsed. They were saved by massive food aid. That is more essential than oil. An army marches on it's belly.
I think an interesting hypothetical to test the veracity of Lend-Lease would be to explore what might the outcome have been if America had supplied Germany with the same truck resources + fuel . . . from 1942 onwards.
well considering that Germany was always in desperate need of fuel that alone would have made a difference and the trucks would have allows Germany to be capable of a far greater level of motorization then it was ever able to achieve (I believe at its height it was 20% motorized)
Yes, you commonly hear the the Soviet Union was wonderful. I have actually heard this from Russian engineers and software developers. They tell me it was only rough the last year and a half before it broke up. Then I asked my coworkers who were Polish, Cech, Hungarian, Rumanian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian ......um, their recollection of the Soviet Union is not quite so positive. Then, after you put the largest amount of evidence ever collected, much from the Soviet archives, the story changes, and it becomes, "That wasn't socialism/communism!" At least I admit when the USA farks up. (Which it has, often, over its relatively short history.) But, hey, "That wasn't capitalism!"
Almost the only former Soviets that still actively defend the USSR are Russians, because the USSR was just a rebranded Russian Empire (Stalin even referred to himself as "like the tsar" at one point).
@@EndOfSmallSanctuary97 It was pretty hellish even for the privileged russians, but It was a disaster for Poland, Hungary, Czechia, Romania and all the other occupied countries.
The Lend Lease trucks for sure helped noticeably, but I think there's some other noteworthy factors: -Only half of those 400000 "trucks" were Studebekkers -The Soviet army drafted hundreds of thousands of trucks from the civilian sector -Many tens of thousands of trucks were captured from the Germans -Probably not all trucks that the Soviet army possessed (270k) at the beginning of the war were lost throughout it -Horses were still being used and contributed to the logistics
Also interesting fact about Lend Lease: In 43 onwards Stalin didnt really demand tanks BUT did want trucks...A supply route was set up through Persia and a huge truck assembly plant built on the Soviet border to feed the thousands of trucks into the USSR....
So some people in the east diminish the impact from lend lease because they dont like the west, and some people in the west (i say this from my own experience) say that the soviets would lost the war without the lend lease. Thats a shitty situation ntgl.
we in the west must always deny, downplay and/or diminish anything that Russians have ever done, that’s the name of the game in current political climate. God forbid we give country with very hard history that survived a lot a little credit. That would be blasphemy!
The what if scenarios are always tricky. When someone says no Lend Lease, do they mean simply the US is still fully committed to the war but simply isn't shipping massive resources or do they mean the US is neutral and refusing to support any of the combatants. Or heck do they mean that England negotiated a peace and now Russia is taking on Germany single handed.
It would have been very difficult for the Soviets to move like they did without American trucks. Logistics, logistics, logistics, tactics: the first 4 requirements to win a major war, in order of importance, with tactics being 4th.
@@nickbreen287 they are broke from the 90s when capitalism came, in fact the fact that they exists today is thanks to Soviet Union, that build industry, military forces, educated them and got them nuclear bomb. Russia havent done anything since.
Because our lord and savior Manstein (May peace be upon him) said it was mad man Hitler who did not listen to his general with them generally being against Fall Blau and instead wanting to strike Moscow.
The video about the war being about oil was the first time I heard about it. It immediately made total sense and explained so many things. For 70 years nobody really thinks about one of the most important factors behind the cause of war and the strategies and the war, and operational decisions during the war. Which surely must have been obvious to anyone making top level decisions on all sides. But the Cold War needs to make the Red Army look like a giant horde of savages that can steamroll even the top grade Wehrmacht successfully buried that entire aspect so deeply that seemingly nobody really asked any questions. For a war that well documented and analysed, that's truly astonishing.
@@aldinf512 Shortly after I started at university in Cultural Studies, I very soon found it hard to consider History a science. Explorative research is almost impossible. You always go into everything already having a conclusion that you hope you'll be able to proof.
Ah yes, shortages of supply during wartime are truly indicative of a failure of socialism. Just like how failure of supply of food in Germany during world war 1 was also a failure of capitalism, and not indicative of greater stress on the distribution networks. You have a whole video with some great information, and pull out a random "but socialism bad" to the detriment of your own point. Its absolutely baffling to me that you would make such a claim and terrible take in an otherwise very good video.
During Op. Typhoon AG 'Centre' needed 19,000 tons of supplies every day yet they were receving only 6,500 tons from 1 grosstransportraum regiment. Also they couldn't even muster reserves in 4 train stations close to AG 'Centre'. This resulted in huge supply issues. Eg Guderian's 2nd Panzer most of the time had only fuel for 1-2 panzer divisions (mostly 4th Panzer Division from XXIV Panzer Corps) of its 5 for 70-100km on single refueling
