Who won WWII?

[ReluctantSamurai]

God I always swear that I won't ever make comments on revisionist history topics like this, but there are some glaring mis-understandings about LL here that need some clarification...

First...the "only" 4% contribution to Soviet domestic production is often used in such discussions (usually quoting Soviet sources), and always mis-represented and worse, mis-understood. Most folks who bandy such numbers around show an obvious lack of understanding as to how economies, particularly war economies, work. It is not simply an additive "building block" arrangement where you just count "beans and bullets." When considering LL, one has to consider what this aid allowed the Soviets to do and accomplish when Gosplan (essentially the war-time planning board) sat down at the beginning of each fiscal year to decide how to allocate the budget.

Mark Harrison (an accomplished and world renown economist of the WW 2 Soviet economy) in his book Accounting for War (highly recommended for anyone serious about gaining a true picture of the effects of LL) states:

For the record, it is worth noting that 'only 4%', although probably not an outright lie, certainly presented a misleading view of the real volume of Allied aid to the USSR. [...]....by 1943, Allied aid was contributing one tenth of overall resources available to the Soviet economy.

10% vs 4% doesn't seem like much of a difference, but what it allowed Soviet planners to do was. By mid-1942, the Soviet economy was on the verge of collapse just like happened in WW 1. So many men had been conscripted into the army or into the factories, and so much resources, both stockpiled and current were being fed into the war effort, that the agricultural/rural sector of the Soviet economy was ready to collapse. Out in the countryside, near-starvation was the norm, and the lack of services such as medical treatment, availability of parts for farm machinery, etc, was causing a loss of the will to fight and certain rebellion if not remedied.

Equipment from LL such as tanks, aircraft, trucks, etc, etc, etc, would have little direct impact on such a situation. But......if the Soviets don't have to produce as much, or any, of the items received from LL, then they can devote resources elsewhere and starting in 1943, they did just that. Gross investment in their economy showed a positive number for the first time since the war began, and public outlays (money devoted to non-military areas of the economy) rose dramatically. It's quite possible that Stalin would've been on the receiving end of an October Revolution had things continued the way they were headed....

Without going into an endless diatribe about a complete inventory of what was sent, several items stand out as being crucial.

We are all used to reading the accounts of the Soviet juggernaut rolling across the frozen steppes of the Ukraine and Byelorussia, and finally Operation Bagration pushing the Nazis back into Germany, but how was this accomplished? There are several reasons, none of which are more important than the Soviet will to defeat the Germans, but that might not have been enough.

The first singular item is the GMC "deuce-and-a-half"...tens of thousands of them. Soviets continued to produce their own trucks right up to the end of the war, and certainly could have built enough trucks to satisfy army use. However, in doing so, how many less tanks and other equipment would the Soviet army had to do without? Lots. US trucks were plentiful, ruggedly built, and without them I seriously doubt we would have seen too much Soviet 'blitzkreig' overrunning thousands of sq. kilometers of German-occupied territory in stunningly short amounts of time.

Second singular item is canned food, popularly known as Spam. Given that the Soviet agricultural system had taken the largest hit from the war, both in terms of workers and lost productive farmland, having readily available food that the army could consume 'on the march', should not be under-estimated. Even Soviet soldiers had to stop to eat

Third singular item is radios. What contributed greatly to better Soviet tactics concerning armor and aircraft? The fact that 'tankers' could actually talk to each other on the battlefield, or fighter aircraft vectored to areas under threat from the Luftwaffe, cannot be brushed off as simply accumulated experience, although that's certainly a very important factor. It was the widespread availability of radios that allowed Soviet formations to react quicker to German moves, and those formations to operate more cohesively when in combat.

Fourth singular item is aluminum. One can add non-ferrous alloys to that. In 1941, Soviet imports of non-ferrous metals amounted to 4.7 million dollars US (corrected in terms of 1940 values from Accounting for War Table J2). In 1942, that amount went to 60.4 million; in 1943 125.3 million; and in 1944 it was 178.8 million dollars....a simply huge increase. Now harkening back to all those sweeping Soviet offensives of 1943-45, another vision we all have seen is the hordes of Il's accompanied by an even bigger horde of Yak 9's dominating the battlefield. So what, right? A tribute to Soviet industrial effort, and ingenuity.

Nyet.

Ask yourself this question: Where did the Soviets come up with all the aluminum for the engine blocks and other lightweight portions of their aircraft that allowed them to fly further, faster, and stay in the air for longer periods of time? Yep.....good old Lend Lease.

I'll get off my soapbox for now, but before you folks start throwing around numbers and all kinds of other information about Lend Lease, I highly recommend you read any of Mark Harrison's books on the subject and learn a few things beyond the usual fluff....like I did.

Oh, and as to who "won" WW 2? If neither the US nor Russia had been involved, short of atomics, many of us would be speaking German right now.