aircraft to russia by convoy

Given the aviation content, that I think is enough for now. Let me know if you do have an answers to the original question posted and I will re-open the thread.

I think Garry, you should consider getting that chip off your shoulder and start recognising that it was the Western nations, the US in particular that did so much to give us the freedom we now enjoy,

Yeah, I hear that all the time… If it wuzzn’t fur the good ole US of A you’d be speaking Japanese/German/Russian/etc etc. The thing is that the US didn’t do anything during WWII that wasn’t in its own interests first. They were happy to sell weapons and equipment to Britain but didn’t actualy lift a finger to help till germany declared war on them. Britain did nothing till Poland was invaded. Equally in the Pacific the US did nothing till it was attacked at Pearl harbour. Neither the US or the UK nor the French for that matter actually started fighting the Germans or Japanese till they themselves were attacked or their direct allies were attacked. Britain for example could care less about the freedoms and human rights of Austria or Czechoslovakia for example. The US didn’t care about anyone but itself and did not start fighting till it was attacked itself. It didn’t care about the European countries at all, not that it should. It didn’t care about many countries in the pacific either till it was attacked.
We can see that attitude continue today… you can say that Iraqi and Afghani people can thank the US for a vote, but how do Saudi or Kuwaiti people feel about that? Iraq had a dictator in control of oil, while Afghanistan has someone that annoyed the US. Countries that have nothing of interest to the US, or have it but play by americas rules don’t need democracy or rights. How many Afghans or Pakistanis or Iraqis are in Guantanimo with no rights at all? How many citizens get kidnapped by the CIA and taken to countries like Syria and tortured by the US because they are not US citizens and have no rights. The US attitude to non-US citizens is about the same as Nazi Germanys attitude to Slavic people. If they don’t benefit you you can put them down. I guess I should just be happy they don’t have the attitude they had to the Jews, communists, homosexuals, gypsies, and the mentally and physically ill, outright extermination.

Why do I get these freedoms from the west, while so many countries get ignored? Luck. It was in their interests at the time. And by the way New Zealand was a democracy quite some time before the US was despite being a much younger country. Universal suffrage before the turn of the 20th century. Men and women no matter what race. Neither Britain nor the US gave us that because they didn’t even have that themselves at the time.

I am sure you wouldn’t have that freedom in Russia even today,

What would the west care about freedom in Russia for? They have never cared about it in the past. Under communism there were the children of farmers that lead the country and the Union. Gorby was the son of a farmer. What chance of that happening under the Tsars? The people of Afghanistan, especially the women were never better off than when they were under communist rule. The alternative that the US brought… the taliban. Not by design but by neglect. They really didn’t care and were focused on irradicating communism whether it was a good thing in that particular case or not. When it suits them they have no problems turning a blind eye… look at their relations with China.

A Leopard doesn’t change its spots overnight,

Yeah, the germans are still germans and the Japanese are still Japanese yet we seem to have forgiven them. Don’t remember the Soviets ever doing to the west what the Germans and the Japanese did.

Get the men on parade, then shoot every tenth man,

Hahahahaha… funny you should mention that… the Russians didn’t invent decimation as a motivational tool. They didn’t invent Russian roulette either… that is a British invention. The inventor of the shoot every tenth man for motivation was a much older thing developed by people the west largely were civilised by… assuming you can call them civilised.

Uncle Joe is estimated to have liquidated 60 million in his Gulags, all ex prisoner’s of war were immediately sent to the camps, even his own son.

Joseph Stalin was a very bad man, yet the Western allies sidled up to him like he wasn’t so bad and told the world they could work with him, because at the time he was useful in fighting Hitler who was seen at the time as a greater threat.
Like Saddam he didn’t become demonised till after he stopped being useful.
Like Saddam he became the boogeyman and for a while all Iraqis were evil because Saddam was Evil. But then the US and the west decided that the best thing to do was to go in an seize Iraqi oil from Saddam. That meant they had to stop demonising all Iraqi people so they could claim that the Iraqi people needed democracy and go in and remove Saddam.
In the case of the Georgian Stalin however the US and the west will never be in a position to regime change there, so when talking about Russia the west talks of Stalin. Georgia is likely to become part of NATO but that Georgian Stalin will forever tarnish the name of Russia because of ignorance. Everything bad the Soviet Union did was a crime committed by Russia. All the oppression in Eastern Europe was not caused by those eastern european communists imposing laws on their own countries it was all Russias fault… not even the government of Russia, but every individual person in Russia.
Amazing that communism can create so much more personal responsibility than democracy ever could. The people of Russia are responsible for the actions of Russia but I am bad because I blame all of the US for things the US does.
Hahahahahaha.

Yeah, I know what is coming… if you love Russia so much why dont you just go and live there… if a moderator doesn’t use the excuse that this is off topic to censor it.

The thing is that most of those I have spoken to who actually fought in WWII fought because they thought it was the right thing to do. They fought to protect their mates. If they were fighting for basic human rights for all look at what is happening at Guantanimo and many other places around the world. At least in the Gulag you were told the trumped up charge and given a court hearing and then shot. More than non-us citizens are getting.

Aircraft to Russia

I think Garry, you should consider getting that chip off your shoulder and start recognising that it was the Western nations, the US in particular that did so much to give us the freedom we now enjoy, I am sure you wouldn’t have that freedom in Russia even today, A Leopard doesn’t change its spots overnight, are you old enough to remember the wharfie’s striking on account of the Moscow canal being dug by hand with slave labour, remember the 10.000 Polish officers at Kaytin, Get the men on parade, then shoot every tenth man, Uncle Joe is estimated to have liquidated 60 million in his Gulags, all ex prisoner’s of war were immediately sent to the camps, even his own son. Sorry to digress Brewberry, but my good deed for the day is to unbrainwash a certain person.

James, you are definitely right: your knowledge is limited if you think that Stalin’s Eastern Bloc was defensive.

If Stalins forces were not defensive why did they stop where they did? Why did they not keep Austria and Finland, and other countries they occupied. If Stalin really wanted land he could simply have deported the populations of all of Eastern European countries to Siberia… there was plenty of space for them there, and removed Poland, Roumania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc etc from the map. They weren’t on any maps from 50 years before. The Map of Europe was redrawn after WWI, why not redraw it after WWII.

The reality is that areas of Soviet occupation were agreed to by Britain and the US before hand. If the Soviets had occupied territories they weren’t allowed they withdrew. Claiming it is somehow Soviet aggression is ridiculous. Rossevelt and Churchil signed those papers too.

Do you mean that Churchill should have sent the RAF to the USSR? Or just that the level of training in the Soviet Air Force was so pathetic that the Soviet pilots needed so much more time to convert onto a new type?

I am suggesting that those planes sent late in 1941 weren’t in any condition to be used straight away, and there certainly wasn’t 2,000 ready to use Hurricanes defending Moscow in December 1941. Training in the Soviet Airforce was also poor because the vast majority of their airforce was obsolete, like polikarpov I-15s and I-16s, so their best pilots, up against experienced German pilots fresh from campaigns that had wiped out most European airforces except the RAF meant that their experienced pilots didn’t have the oportunity to pass on tactics or lead lesser pilots. Fortunately the vast majority of the 4 thousand odd planes the Germans destroyed in Russia were sitting on the ground lined up at the sides of runways so many pilots survived that otherwise would not have.

I see, they were fighting the Red Army in the streets of Warsaw! I always thought they fought the Germans…

They were fighting the Nazis to take power so they could dictate terms and be part of the future government of Poland. They quickly found they couldn’t defeat the Nazis unsupported and turned for help to the west and to the Soviets. The west wanted to help but were in no position geographically to do so. The Soviets weren’t going to support political enemies taking over a capital the west had already signed over to them. Remember Stalin was such a good friend of the polish… Katyn Massacre anyone? For Stalin Poland was a country between the Soviet Union and Germany.

Its purpose (in your way of putting things) was “not to defeat the Nazis, it was to try to take control of France’s capital before the Yanks and Brits got there”.

Did they do it to save US/UK lives, or was it for pride, and a bit more independance?

The Western allies made sure his orders could not be carried out. Stalin made sure they could.

Which shows that Stalin saw Poland as merely a buffer state between him and what became NATO, while the UK/US saw France as a future ally and part of NATO to face those evil Ruskies.

The Yalta conference was in 1945, several months after the Warsaw Uprising.

My mistake. Must have been a different agreement, Stalin certainly saw Poland as an enemy tainted by democracy and capitalism and being under his control he took steps to purge them of this.

Never heard of the British or Americans killing the intellectual elite of their colonies by thousand, just like that.

They had their natives do that. Any uprising agaisnt their rule was called communist insurgence and was generally bloodily put down. Of course most of that blood letting before communism was given different names and the savages who led these seperation parties were called savages so no one might suggest that they were intellectuals that didn’t want to be ruled by a foreign power…

The problem (not for you, I understand) was that there had been a different elite before and this had to be dealt with in the way that Messrs Hitler and Stalin thought right, to make room for the new one.

And you think Britain and the other western colonial powers only went to places with no existing social heirarcy? Did they only bring light where there was darkness? Particularly in the ME they drew lines on maps dividing up land between themselves regardless of who lived there before. They actually created royal families by picking people and making them kings… the Saudi royal family… the Kuwaiti royal family… look at a map that is more than 80 years old and Saudi Arabia and Kuwaite didn’t even exist…

I just viewed a video showing Hurricanes taking off from the carrier Argus bound for an airfield near Murmansk, it even had one shooting down a ju88, I would love to give you the URL, but Garry would only rubbish it so I will not give him the opportunity.

Why would I rubbish it?

…but having said that, for every plane that went by carrier much more went by crate… and if those Hurricanes stayed in the Soviet Union what aircraft went back on the carriers to protect the convoy on the way back?

Regarding British, American, and Dutch colonisation, no way can it be compared to the Russian take over of the Ukraine where the whole population were virtually starved to death, ..

The colonisation of America involved biological warfare, and encroaching on Indian lands made some indian tribes fight because of the loss of buffalo herds forced them to starvation.
Australian Aboriginies had no concept of land ownership before the white man came… suffice to say it wasn’t till 1967 that Australian aborigines stopped being counted in the census as Flora and Fauna.

at least the Brit’s and Yank’s put something into the countries whilst addmitingly exploiting them, perhaps that is why Indians,

You mean like the Brits put convicts into Australia, and American mob money bought up everything in Cuba so that the average cuban was a slave in his own country?

How many foreigner’s thought it expedient to fight for the Russian’s?

The French, the Finns (eventually), the Ukrainians, the Siberians, the Georgians etc etc. The British liked the Russians from 1914 to 1917 and again from 1941 to 1945.

Another point that is always overlooked is that the devastation in the USSR was mostly self inflicted, caused by their scorched earth policy, leave nothing for the enemy.

The scorched earth policy did not include the extermination of 30 million Soviets. When you burn a field of corn to prevent your enemy getting it it is no real loss as you could not use that corn. By preventing your enemy getting it you are preventing them using that to continue fighting against you. Many cities and tracts of land were captured, lost and recaptured many times with both sides applying a scorched earth policy during retreat.
What really cost them during WWII was not withdrawing quickly enough. The huge encirclements in 1941 cost them almost 3 million lost soldiers… not to mention equipment, ammo and other supplies… but of course these were regular troops. Properly trained troops. Those that replaced them received newer equipment but had a fraction of the training and no experience against the battle tested Germans.
They lost more men in 6 months captured than were captured for the rest of the war. Of the 5-6 million Soviets in German prisons less than 1 million returned.

Agreed. There would be little sense in risking the invasion of Britain by sending vitally needed aircraft elsewhere and thus putting permanently to an end the possibility of supplying other allied combatants with equipment .

And I am not criticising them for it.
It gave the Brits a feeling of helping the cause for the cost of a few planes the RAF doesn’t need anymore… the RAF had just ordered the creation and production of the Mustang, with the Alyson engine replaced by the decent Rolls Royce engine, so they could afford to give away their Hurricanes and Aircobras sent by the US. The main thing they would have used the Hurricanes for is the ground attack role, but then they had Kittyhawks for that role too.

Is this the moment to point out that when we were fighting the Battle of Britain it was at a time that Stalin was sitting smugly with his expedient non-aggression pact with Hitler and the third Reich.?

Absolutely. The battle of Britain was none of the Soviets business. Why would they interfere? Stalin talked with the UK and France before signing up with Germany. All the UK and France could offer was verbal support. Germany was offering half of Poland and the Baltic states. Poland was no saint either. When Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland managed to “gain” some territory too.

However we are well off topic, and while there’s interesting ideas to be discussed it’s clear that there’s too much need to push agendas by some – I’ve no idea who was a good guy, but I can see some dirty hands. I’m out.

Churchil once said something along the lines of history will regard me well because I intend to write it. The west has also been regarded well in the west for the very same reason. Stalin was a very bad man that was responsible for the deaths of millions. No one however has clean hands. You can’t get into a position of power without getting your hands dirty.

As to what the Russians put on the QP convoys, I’m still interested, like Jerry.

In some areas of raw materials the Soviets were exporters… up intil Germany attacked german benefitted from those exports. Would suggest however that for the west to go on so much about lend lease that the value of anything sent in return was relatively low if anything was sent at all. I am inclined to think nothing was sent back via the northern passage.

Back to my point…club members touring the USSR as late as the 80s reported seeing many of the old lend lease vehicles still in use.
One, writing about a visit in the late 70s saw a convoy of dozens of the trucks not far outside of Moscow, hauling potatos.

Can they confirm they were actually ex-lend lease trucks and not vehicles based on that design. The big German BMW bikes with the sidecar with direct shaft drive to the sidecar wheel was directly copied by the Soviets and is still produced in a modern form. Seeing that one might think that captured German motorbikes are still being used in Russia today.

Of course they made trucks post war, but perhaps not enough to meet all their needs. Otherwise why use an old piece of Yankee machinery?

Put it this way. Why scrap their entire fleet of Su-27s so they can put the 100 or so Su-27Ms they could afford into service during the 90s? With no threat the Su-27s do the job, why spend money to replace something that doesn’t need replacing?

An excellent Russian-authored Engish language website is dedicated to the trucks and indicates they were a very important part of the Soviet war machine. He also confirms that many remained in use post-war.

Of course logistics transport means are important, that goes without saying. The real point is that if the US had not supplied those trucks the Soviets would simply have had to have made more of their own trucks to fill the gap. They might also have been less inclined to honour agreements about who gets to control which country in the post war period.

Much was made about how many US trucks were sent, but then if they hadn’t been sent they could simply have made their own…

I’m not so sure…

Due to an addition to my old car collection, I’ve recently joined the Studebaker club.
From their magazine and web forum it seems that most of the Studebaker heavy trucks produced during the war were sent to Russia since it was decided that US forces would rationalize its heavy truck fleet with GMC vehicles.
(Here a conspiracy buff might suggest that the US was pawning off second rate goods, but the Studebakers were very good trucks, as they remained in production for US civil use well into the 50s).

Back to my point…club members touring the USSR as late as the 80s reported seeing many of the old lend lease vehicles still in use.
One, writing about a visit in the late 70s saw a convoy of dozens of the trucks not far outside of Moscow, hauling potatos.
Of course they made trucks post war, but perhaps not enough to meet all their needs. Otherwise why use an old piece of Yankee machinery?

An excellent Russian-authored Engish language website is dedicated to the trucks and indicates they were a very important part of the Soviet war machine. He also confirms that many remained in use post-war.

On the topic, I know the Russians received a Supermarine Walrus ex-RN after it was towed to Murmansk by a freighter when lost after the convoy had scattered and the crew had returned to find their Cruiser (Norfolk?) not where it should have been. That’s a story back to front. :rolleyes:

A new Pegasus engine was offered, supplied and went via the southern route, via India and Iraq?!

IIRC as late as 1950 various British civil servants were demanding the Russians pay for the aircraft, until it was kindly ‘written off ‘with someone a little more au fait with the real world and a cold war. All in the National Archives.

As to what the Russians put on the QP convoys, I’m still interested, like Jerry.

Guys,

An interesting discussion, as has been pointed out at times straying away from aviation, keep it civil and we’ll let it run.

BR
Moderator

James, you are definitely right: your knowledge is limited if you think that Stalin’s Eastern Bloc was defensive.

I had more respect for your understanding of history to think so – as I said, it’s more complex than that. However it wasn’t an attempt at global control, nor the universal revolution, nor an attempt at a classic empire, nor the US’ global economic diktat. It is explicable, without babble about ‘evil’ as a defensive strategic plan. Of course predicting the unbalanced ideas of Stalin is a little difficult as assumptions of rationality are inappropriate as well. Appreciating where you stand, it seem to influence your view a little too much.

Never heard of the British or Americans killing the intellectual elite of their colonies by thousand, just like that.

Do some more history, then. Only in the 20th century have we managed to achieve the phenomenal rates of death we did. However Britain’s colonialisation of India, Australia, New Zealand, and North America was pretty messy at times – including actual and attempted genocides of everyone, not just ‘elites’. ‘Bombing people back to the stone age’ was a low for the US in Vietnam. Of course Stalin stood alone as a paranoid genocideal dictator; no one in Britain or the US has ever come near, but no-one’s hands are clean including Poland’s own pre-1939 treatment of their Jews. I’m not attacking Poland, the US or Britain – that’s just some of the things that happened and each case is different as well as illuminating others.

It’s often overlooked that the US refused to fight the Pacific war to re-establish Britain, France and Holland’s empires in the area, which was a main reason for their failure to re-establish themselves, and thus indirectly, disasters like Vietnam, Korea and Pol Pot. Not a US responsibility, just an inevitable series of disasters.

However we are well off topic, and while there’s interesting ideas to be discussed it’s clear that there’s too much need to push agendas by some – I’ve no idea who was a good guy, but I can see some dirty hands. I’m out.

Cheers

The number of Hurricanes the Brits would have sent if the battle of britain was still going would have been zero.

Agreed. There would be little sense in risking the invasion of Britain by sending vitally needed aircraft elsewhere and thus putting permanently to an end the possibility of supplying other allied combatants with equipment .

Is this the moment to point out that when we were fighting the Battle of Britain it was at a time that Stalin was sitting smugly with his expedient non-aggression pact with Hitler and the third Reich.?

Moggy

aircraft to Russia

I just viewed a video showing Hurricanes taking off from the carrier Argus bound for an airfield near Murmansk, it even had one shooting down a ju88, I would love to give you the URL, but Garry would only rubbish it so I will not give him the opportunity. Regarding British, American, and Dutch colonisation, no way can it be compared to the Russian take over of the Ukraine where the whole population were virtually starved to death, at least the Brit’s and Yank’s put something into the countries whilst addmitingly exploiting them, perhaps that is why Indians, Filipino’s, South Africans and even Kiwis fought for us, How many foreigner’s thought it expedient to fight for the Russian’s? Another point that is always overlooked is that the devastation in the USSR was mostly self inflicted, caused by their scorched earth policy, leave nothing for the enemy.

brewerjerry, it’s your thread, let us know if you think we’re too far OT here.

From my limited knowledge…
Stalin’s need to expand the margins of Russia’s buffer zone […] was more defensive than […] the US’ post-war global involvements. Never good or justifiable, but Stalin’s Eastern Bloc was always explicable, and tactically understandable as defensive rather than offensive.

James, you are definitely right: your knowledge is limited if you think that Stalin’s Eastern Bloc was defensive.

And of course they came with built in pilots ready to fly… they launched directly from their shipping crates and went straight into battle attacking enemy planes…

Do you mean that Churchill should have sent the RAF to the USSR? Or just that the level of training in the Soviet Air Force was so pathetic that the Soviet pilots needed so much more time to convert onto a new type?

The purpose of the Warsaw Uprising was not to defeat the Nazis, it was to try to take control of Polands capital before the Soviets got there and took control. They weren’t trying to take control from the Nazis, they were trying to take control from the Soviets.

I see, they were fighting the Red Army in the streets of Warsaw! I always thought they fought the Germans…
But, seriously, you might remember that the Paris Uprising broke out at about the same time. Its purpose (in your way of putting things) was “not to defeat the Nazis, it was to try to take control of France’s capital before the Yanks and Brits got there”. In both cases, Warsaw and Paris, Hitler gave orders to wipe out the entire population and to raze the entire city. The Western allies made sure his orders could not be carried out. Stalin made sure they could.

Of course Polands allies or Roosevelt and Churchil had already sold out Poland at Yalta,

The Yalta conference was in 1945, several months after the Warsaw Uprising.

How do you know they were lend lease? The Soviets had a licence production agreement for the DC-3 (C-47) and produced their own Dakotas under licence… ie they paid for it and owned its domestic production.

The Soviet-built variant, the PS-84/Li-2 was rather different from the Dakota in many ways. For maintenance purposes it would be silly to send these to Bari. During the war the Soviets took delivery of lots of actual Douglas aircraft, to add to their own production.

what the Soviets had done in Eastern Europe is exactly the same as what the colonial powers had done for centuries… Britiain, Spain, France, Germany, the Dutch, the Portuguese, even the Americans more recently.

Never heard of the British or Americans killing the intellectual elite of their colonies by thousand, just like that.

In the case of Stalin the elite class was simple to create… the communist party heirarcy performs that role.

The problem (not for you, I understand) was that there had been a different elite before and this had to be dealt with in the way that Messrs Hitler and Stalin thought right, to make room for the new one.

After the war the United State cancelled all lend-lease debts except that of the USSR. In 1972 the USSR and the United States signed an agreement that the USSR would pay $722 million of its debt by July 1, 2001.

Hmmm… Strange, what was it then we had only last year finished paying the Americans for…:rolleyes: Club Membership perhaps…

Looking at it your way, why did the Soviets continue to use Lend-lease tanks in front line units right until 1945?

For the same reason they kept using their T-26s even after combat clearly showed they were under armoured. They tended to mass them into seperate units so that the logisitics train for that unit could standardise fuel and ammo and parts etc.

You might find it interesting that first Hurricanes were sent to the USSR in late 1941 (rather than to the Far East where the RAF was so desperately short of decent fighters).

And of course they came with built in pilots ready to fly… they launched directly from their shipping crates and went straight into battle attacking enemy planes…
If the Brits were able to spare the planes it suggests even the brits realised the Soviet need was greater than their own. Churchil doesn’t strike me as the sort of person to give communists equipment british soldiers would be needing. The number of Hurricanes the Brits would have sent if the battle of britain was still going would have been zero.

That’s a good question. One may only ask, why would Roosevelt and Churchill aid Stalin, their political opponent in the world?

But what sort of aide did they give? Did Stalin receive B-29s and top secret bomb sights and proximity fuses and nuclear weapon secrets?
The purpose of the Warsaw Uprising was not to defeat the Nazis, it was to try to take control of Polands capital before the Soviets got there and took control. They weren’t trying to take control from the Nazis, they were trying to take control from the Soviets. Of course Polands allies or Roosevelt and Churchil had already sold out Poland at Yalta, even if the pols had pushed the nazis out of Poland before the Soviets got their poland was in the Soviet area of post war europe. How can you blame Stalin when Roosevelt and Churchil signed the paper too.

Oddly, in the summer 1944 Soviet Air Force Dakotas (Lend-lease aircraft) were based at Bari, Italy, dropping supplies (British/US-supplied weapons, ammunition, medical stuff, etc.) to communist partisans in the Balkans.

How do you know they were lend lease? The Soviets had a licence production agreement for the DC-3 (C-47) and produced their own Dakotas under licence… ie they paid for it and owned its domestic production.

At the same time Soviets did not allow the RAF/USAAF to use their airfields (not a word about aircraft or supplies) to support Poles in Poland.

The Soviets were using the nazis to defeat their political opponents in Poland. Allowing the western allies to deliver support they did not want the poles to get would make no sense. If they wanted the poles to get such aide they could easily have delivered it themselves.

Of course, you are right, Poles in Poland were Stalin’s political opponents. I guess any nation trying to feel independent in their own country were seen by the Soviets as their political opponents.

Like the US and Britain then and now Stalin wasn’t interested in Polish problems. His most immediate problem was that Germany had just laid waste to his country. Britain and France and the US were obviously not really friends just allies of convenience. He knew when Germany was defeated that their lack of things in common would lead to a new world order and confrontation. He had ensured the Germans would remain properly controled by the Yalta agreement largely splitting up europe and germany. Eastern Europe was going to be a buffer zone, and call it what you like, what the Soviets had done in Eastern Europe is exactly the same as what the colonial powers had done for centuries… Britiain, Spain, France, Germany, the Dutch, the Portuguese, even the Americans more recently. Go into a country and create a local elite that has power because of your presence. They will control and run the country but they owe their positions to you so you can control them. In the case of Stalin the elite class was simple to create… the communist party heirarcy performs that role.
Look at the problems the British and French had after WWII with their asian colonies. The war there ended so abruptly and they couldn’t get troops there quickly enough. The Japanese had wiped out their ruling elites and countries like Indochina and china were hotbeds of revolution. They wanted independance, but the mother countries didn’t want them to get that so they used Japanese soldiers to curb and control the local populations. You can imagine how popular that made Britain and France. A little bit of stiring by the communists and “nationalism” broke out all over the place.

Are you referring to what Stalin did in September 1939, to help Hitler deal with Poland?

No, I said Russians. WWI, when Russia was a seperate state.

That may be difficult to grasp if you have not lived under communism. Having read carefully what you wrote I suppose you haven’t, have you?

Most of the countries that have had communism have been relatively poor countries. Russia was a peasant state when it became communist. I have read books written in the late 1800s by British soldiers about how the Russians can’t be trusted… they are half asian… they want India for themselves… it seems the mistrust of Russia has occured before it was communist and now it continues after it is no longer communist. What may I ask has communism to do with good or evil?

But, no, I’d rather not have to live under any actual Communist regime.

But most communist countries have had to deal with economic isolation from the rich powerful western countries. Communist China is a poor country relatively, but the Chinese people seem to me to be the excellent type of person for a good state. Good attitude to education and good work ethics.
I will bet you large amounts of money that Chinas communist government, that hasn’t been a problem in the past will start to become more and more of a problem as the situation changes in China as it becomes more prosperous.

Saudi Arabia gave its men the vote in 2005 and has still not given women the vote. The fact that its mineral wealth gives it a large amount of money for relatively little effort suggests that its real problems have not been giving democracy to its people, but bending with the wind for its major clients and making sure that certain people are happy. If Russia had been able to do that there is no reason why Russia could not have coexisted with the west and spend all those trillions of dollars wasted on weapons on something more useful to Russian people. It wasn’t communism that was the problem, it was the external pressure and economic isolation. There is a reason why the west likes to use economic sanctions on countries that dont do as they are told. It is very effective and even if it fails other countries see the poverty it creates and learn to tow the line.

A very interesting topic developing here, let’s not get into tit-tat discussion, but try and illuminate some of the facts?

From my limited knowledge…

Looking at it your way, why did the Soviets continue to use Lend-lease tanks in front line units right until 1945?

You use what you’ve got? Everything you’ve got? Otherwise (for instance) why were the British using their own designs rather than ‘just’ Shermans?

You might find it interesting that first Hurricanes were sent to the USSR in late 1941 (rather than to the Far East where the RAF was so desperately short of decent fighters).

The urgency increased exponentially on December 7th. Prior to that time supporting an ally, however unpalatable (Churchill was always an anti-Bolshevik, and Roosevelt was hardly their friend, but war makes odd bedfellows) fighting an actual war, rather than trying to shore up a peacetime force (albeit one at clear risk) seems explicable. Stalin had given up the ‘universal revolution’ long before and didn’t give a damn about anyone’s independence – unless you were a neighbour, then he’d decide. His later paranoia and megalomania didn’t help.

Of course, you are right, Poles in Poland were Stalin’s political opponents. I guess any nation trying to feel independent in their own country were seen by the Soviets as their political opponents.

Stalin’s need to expand the margins of Russia’s buffer zone was more important than anything else to him – but it was more defensive than Hitler’s Lebensraum or the US’ post-war global involvements. Never good or justifiable, but Stalin’s Eastern Bloc was always explicable, and tactically understandable as defensive rather than offensive.

That may be difficult to grasp if you have not lived under communism. Having read carefully what you wrote I suppose you haven’t, have you?

The use of the term ‘evil’ isn’t much use in a historical discussion based on facts, however natural or understandable a statement it might be. ‘Communism’ isn’t ‘evil’; it’s a political system that in Stalinist Russia was an appalling disaster, internally and to the Soviet’s neighbours and satellites. There’s merit in some Communist ideas just as much as there’s faults in Capitalism both practically and as a concept. There’s merit in most political systems, amazingly. But, no, I’d rather not have to live under any actual Communist regime.

The irony that the greatest war to defend ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ essentially hinged on propping up one of the twentieth centuries worst totalitarian systems to defeat the other one is one of the quirks of studying history. Without Russia not fighting Japan and fighting Germany, the ‘west’ would have lost or entered a stalemate – a debatable view, of course!

Patton wanted to just roll on into Russia in 1945. Hmmm. 😮

Lend lease let the Soviets build what they built better, in the form of KV-1s and T-34s while the US built trucks for them.

Looking at it your way, why did the Soviets continue to use Lend-lease tanks in front line units right until 1945?

If 2,000 hurricanes had arrived in time to fight the Germans over Moscow in December 1941 you might have been right.

You might find it interesting that first Hurricanes were sent to the USSR in late 1941 (rather than to the Far East where the RAF was so desperately short of decent fighters).

Why would Stalin aid his political opponents in Poland?

That’s a good question. One may only ask, why would Roosevelt and Churchill aid Stalin, their political opponent in the world?
Oddly, in the summer 1944 Soviet Air Force Dakotas (Lend-lease aircraft) were based at Bari, Italy, dropping supplies (British/US-supplied weapons, ammunition, medical stuff, etc.) to communist partisans in the Balkans. At the same time Soviets did not allow the RAF/USAAF to use their airfields (not a word about aircraft or supplies) to support Poles in Poland.
Of course, you are right, Poles in Poland were Stalin’s political opponents. I guess any nation trying to feel independent in their own country were seen by the Soviets as their political opponents.

Seem to remember the Russians joining another European war at the wests insistence to add a second front for them.

Are you referring to what Stalin did in September 1939, to help Hitler deal with Poland?

communism is evil. What exactly is actually evil about it?

That may be difficult to grasp if you have not lived under communism. Having read carefully what you wrote I suppose you haven’t, have you?

I would suggest looking up Lend Lease WW2 on google for some info on what was shipped to utopia.

Took your advice and look at some of the things I found…

According to the {lend lease} system, the materials destroyed, lost, or consumed during the war should not be subject to payment after the war. The materials that were not used during the war and that were suitable for civilian consumption should be paid in full or in part, while weapons and war materials could be demanded back.

During World War II, the U.S. spent a total of $49.1 billion on the Lend-Lease Act. This included $13.8 billion in aid to Great Britain and $9.5 billion to the USSR. Repayment in kind – called “reverse lend-lease” – was estimated at $7.8 billion, of which $2.2 million was the contribution of the USSR in the form of a discount for transport services.

On the basis of those documents, the Soviet Union received 18,763 aircraft, 11,567 tanks and self-propelled guns, 7,340 armored vehicles and armored troop-carriers, more than 435,000 trucks and jeeps, 9,641 guns, 2,626 radar, 43,298 radio stations, 548 fighting ships and boats, and 62 cargo ships. The remaining 75 percent of cargoes imported into the USSR consisted of industrial equipment, raw material, and foodstuffs. A significant portion (up to seven percent) of supplies was lost during transportation.

After the war the United State cancelled all lend-lease debts except that of the USSR. In 1972 the USSR and the United States signed an agreement that the USSR would pay $722 million of its debt by July 1, 2001.

IIRC it was “We lend you equipment, you lease us facilities”. What exactly did “those in the west” lease from the Soviets, apart from a few airfields near Poltava?

Lend means give the use of without charge… When you lend a friend a pencil you don’t charge them for it… that would be hiring or plain selling rather than lending.
Lease seems to me to be rather a case of we have this stuff we are not using, you can use it if you use it against the germans but we want it back afterwards.

Oddly, the Soviets continued to use this unwanted stuff until the end of the war. Clearly, either they weren’t able to build enough themselves, or the “unwanted” Shermans and Airacobras weren’t that bad.

Perhaps you should take more care when you read.

I said… and you even quoted me…

Most of the hardware was hand me down stuff the British didn’t need or want any more.

It was unwanted by the British.
The Situation the Soviets were in they would accept crappy western castoffs because they had lost most of their own equipment during encirclements and were moving their industries several thousand kms out of bomber range.
The 6 months it took to shift industry and restart production there were no Shermans sent… you might want to check you information… the US didn’t even decide to extend lend lease to include the Soviets till October… how much lend lease do you think they managed to send during the month and a half between deciding to send and when the Germans were stopped at the gates of Moscow? Shermans didn’t even enter US ranks till they were made in 1942.

So why did they accept Lend-Lease supplies at all if they could make all that stuff themselves?

They could have made their own trucks if they wanted. They didn’t because America made them for them. When you get married you don’t pay for flowers and catering and then bring your own flowers and food to the event. The armour they were getting from lend lease was substandard. T-34s were smaller targets with better guns and were cheaper and easier to make. Why get the US to send M4s and M3s and the Brits to send Valentines and Churchils when they could already make better vehicles. Lend lease let the Soviets build what they built better, in the form of KV-1s and T-34s while the US built trucks for them.

The Soviets got lots of raw or semi-finished materials during WWII, and IIRC US light alloy was used to build Soviet aircraft that faced the Americans in Korea.

What are you talking about? Soviet Migs in Korea were not made of American aluminium. The Soviet Union was an exporter of light alloys in the 50s. The German engines they initially used (for their immediate post war prototypes) had twice the lifespan and more power than the German made equivelents because the Soviets had better domestic metal sources.

It is churlish to say that the West sent only rubbish to them in their hour of need, 2000 Hurricanes would have been a godsend to our desert air force, as would those Bostons, bomb sights or not.

If 2,000 hurricanes had arrived in time to fight the Germans over Moscow in December 1941 you might have been right. The fact that they arrived later just meant they were less and less effective against contemporary German fighters. They even had engine overheating problems keeping up with the Soviet bombers they often escorted.
Bostons were not needed either. They already had plenty of twin engine light bombers… SB, Pe-2/Pe-3, Tu-2, Il-4, etc etc. What they needed was longer range modern bombers that were faster and higher flying. They already had DB-3s and Pe-8s in the four engine bomber category, but B-17s would have been useful. More twin engine bombers… well the position was already filled so although they took them they weren’t very enthusiastic about it.

Stalin was to show utter contempt to the Brit’s and Yank’s time after time, refusing to aid Warsaw, not allowing the Americans to use their air base’s to shuttle bomb, demanding a second front ETC ETC, this animosity carried on for many years after the war despite the good will shown to them.

Why would Stalin aid his political opponents in Poland? Demanding the western allies stopped playing around in north africa and Italy was quite reasonable considering what the germans were doing in his country at the time. Seem to remember the Russians joining another European war at the wests insistence to add a second front for them. When things went bad for the Russians what did the west do? Sent in troops as did Japan to interfere in their civil war. Not very friendly at all. Stalin knew the west wasn’t his friend so he squeesed them for everything he could get. After killing 30 million Soviets and applying scortched earth tactics back and forth for the best part of 4 years is it any wonder that Stalin might feel America got value for money.

I saw a doco last night showing Ewan McGregor on his round the world motor bike trip and as they went through Russia and the Ukraine there were women in fields with hand held hoes tilling the fields. Roads were gravel and often disappeared for periods. This was in 2004!
With winning the space race and largely maintaining parity with the rich west many forget that Russia and the former Soviet union republics were peasant states… and you describe them as a disease.

I do not condemn the people, but the system, whether you like it or not communism is a dreadful disease.

Yet the world deals with China… It has become like a religious war with the western people of the world… communism is evil. What exactly is actually evil about it? Detention without trial or lawyers? You know my answer to that.
Free health and free education and a retirement structure that meant old people got pensions and were looked after. Yeah… that is a deadly disease… people should be grateful they have jobs and you’ll never live long enough to get a pension… you have to live to 80 now to get that and of course education costs money so of course only a priviledged few can have that…

As to whether or not the Soviets paid top dollar there is much to suggest that Britain paid a far higher price for war aid than did the Soviets and in may instances the Soviets avoided paying anything at all.

The Soviets paid in blood and gold. Britain paid by becoming the US’s b!tch but in the modern world where the natives already have machineguns and Britain no longer rules the waves they needed a skirt to hide under and shout from anyway.

Lend lease is a very complex subject.
First of all it was LEND as well as lease, yet those in the west would charge the Soviets top dollar for everything.

Lend-lease is indeed complex. As to whether or not the Soviets paid top dollar there is much to suggest that Britain paid a far higher price for war aid than did the Soviets and in may instances the Soviets avoided paying anything at all.

The roll of one Harry Lloyd Hopkins as Roosevelt’s right hand man (or as some would indicate puppet master) and who’s machiavellian plotting had much influence on US foreign policy during WW2 should be considered.

Matters are far to complex to even attempt a resume here so I shall point readers to an illuminating book on the topic of the relationship between the powers:

‘Friendly Fire: The Secret War Between the Allies’ by Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior with additional historical research by Robert Bryden is a revealing read.

The same team of researchers also produced, ‘Double Standards: The Rudolf Hess Cover-Up’ and ‘War of the Windsors: A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy’ also provide very revealing illumination on some of the backround movers and shakers during the last century and its two world wars.

Aircraft to Russia

I do not claim to be a historian but I think the only thing Hitler did right was to invade Russia, in my opinion Stalin would have overrun Europe when the western allies had weakened him, Stalin had twice the number of divisions just waiting for an easy conquest, those T 34 tanks were in production long before Barbarossa. Churchill and Roosevelt had no choice but to aid them simply to keep them in the war, not because they were our friends, fortunately for us the German SS and Gestapo thugs were more a menace to the Russians than Stalin was, instead of being hailed as liberators, as they were in the beginning, they were detested with very good reason. It is churlish to say that the West sent only rubbish to them in their hour of need, 2000 Hurricanes would have been a godsend to our desert air force, as would those Bostons, bomb sights or not. Stalin was to show utter contempt to the Brit’s and Yank’s time after time, refusing to aid Warsaw, not allowing the Americans to use their air base’s to shuttle bomb, demanding a second front ETC ETC, this animosity carried on for many years after the war despite the good will shown to them. I do not condemn the people, but the system, whether you like it or not communism is a dreadful disease. I would suggest looking up Lend Lease WW2 on google for some info on what was shipped to utopia.

First of all it was LEND as well as lease, yet those in the west would charge the Soviets top dollar for everything.

IIRC it was “We lend you equipment, you lease us facilities”. What exactly did “those in the west” lease from the Soviets, apart from a few airfields near Poltava?

Most of the hardware was hand me down stuff the British didn’t need or want any more.

Oddly, the Soviets continued to use this unwanted stuff until the end of the war. Clearly, either they weren’t able to build enough themselves, or the “unwanted” Shermans and Airacobras weren’t that bad.

Much was made about how many US trucks were sent, but then if they hadn’t been sent they could simply have made their own… they already had licence production agreements for lots of western vehicles, the Dakota was one example.

So why did they accept Lend-Lease supplies at all if they could make all that stuff themselves?

Considering the purpose all these supplies were being put to for most of the war I think the US should have been paying the Soviets rather than the other way around.

Perhaps it would have been wise of the Soviets to make that condition before they accepted the first delivery? But in a way the Americans paid their price. The Soviets got lots of raw or semi-finished materials during WWII, and IIRC US light alloy was used to build Soviet aircraft that faced the Americans in Korea.