Lend-Lease: presentation and evaluation

Lend-Lease: opinions and estimates

Without exaggeration, it can be argued that no issue related to the second world war, is not in our country such violent disputes, as the value of the Anglo-American Union of Russian supplies of weapons, military and special equipment, raw materials, fuel and food. A very wide range of views, from the proclamation of this aid almost decisive defeat of the Third Reich and satellites Berlin to actually complete denial of its impact on the defeat of the Wehrmacht and other foreign armies who went along with the Germans in the Eastern campaign.

Meanwhile, a huge number of research publications on the topic of Lend-Lease in the print media, watching television programs devoted to it can be concluded that most of the participants in the discussion are often poorly versed in what they were arguing. Judgments are sometimes illiterate, superficial assessment, the findings for all that is usually made peremptory. The truth is, usually, is the focus. Try to understand this exciting historical dilemma soberly and impartially.

"Treacherous" allies

Immediately it should be stressed that there was no way it was yesterday. Already in 1947 he published a book, then chairman of Gosplan Voznesensky "War Economy of the USSR during the Russian war." On the supply of the Lend-Lease Act in general it did not say a word, but only reported that their share was equal to four percent of Russian production. With all this nedavneshny ally in the anti-Hitler coalition was called as the "grown fat on the blood of the people during the second world war monopoly capitalism of the United States of America," which "Now stands at the head of the imperialist and anti-democratic camp and became instigator of imperialist expansion in all parts of the world."

The figure shows four percent without any comments and raises many questions. Namely, it is unclear how the Ascension with her subordinates calculated. Find the volume of Russian GDP in terms of foreign currency has been problematic due to the lack of convertibility of the ruble. If the bill went to a unit of production, then it is unclear how the tanks were compared with the aircraft, and food — with aluminum.

All these years, Lend-Lease, though recognized, but seems to be passing, as something insignificant and unimportant. Found a similar attitude reflected in historical works and memoirs, and even a motion picture. In this regard, would be superfluous to recall an episode from the feature film "Set Target" (1975). In this tape, dedicated to the fate of Academician Igor Kurchatov, there is a scene of Stalin conversations with prominent Russian physicists in 1942. We are talking about the development in the United States and Britain of nuclear weapons, as it became clear Russian intelligence. On the proposal of the 1st of scientists to ask allies to share the fruits of research Stalin angrily throws: "Nothing they share with us will not. While the Russian people giving their lives in the struggle with the enemy, Churchill haggling over the 3-10-s "Hurricane"! And their "Hurricane" — rubbish, our pilots do not love this car. "

"The words of Stalin's" Hurricane "- rubbish" should realize almost as an estimate of the Lend-Lease, in other words as a statement that we drove one junk "

In this sentence there are four noticeable moment corresponding to the approach of those in power in the Soviet Union to lend-lease supplies. In 1-x, this opposition bloodshed and economic aid, and in fact — mercantile bravirovanie million killed at the front, who died on a particular fault Russian government. The British with the Yankees is absolutely nothing to do with it. Favorites of these states chose to put on the main altar of the common victory of real value, sometimes for the sake of saving lives of fellow citizens openly substituting its own allies, as did, for example, the English against the French in 1940. In Russia, the same place where the common man has never set at naught, has always preferred to pay with blood (remember the catch phrase of Field Marshal Apraksina, uttered in the XVIII century, "Man women still give birth, and for horses with gold cry!"). And to blame someone, not including ourselves, there is nothing!

Second corresponding point lies in the words "Churchill trading." In other words, the case is presented in such a Makarov that the assistance from the United States and Britain have had a knock, overcoming resistance from Washington and London. It is totally not true. Throughout the war, the Allies sought to perform all requested Russian Union of delivery. Disruption of their maturity in most cases, was associated with only neuvvyazkami transportation.

What's all the same for the "trade", then indeed, the Americans and the British representatives of the Russian mind sometimes, especially when their demands are contrary to the allies or abilities, or common sense. For example, in 1941 some confusion caused by the application kazhdomesyachnuyu sent to the USSR 300 bombers and 100 fighters. Particularly so, and not the contrary, despite the fact that the Army was reddish defensive battles in the criteria for the rule of enemy aircraft in the air. In addition, the British experts could not understand why the distant Russian bombers, if the radius of the acts of these machines is not even enough in order to reach the Romanian oil fields, not to mention the country of Germany, in which the more fortunate can strike the royal air force. The fact that almost a day after Moscow's emissaries just agreed with these arguments, has created the first doubts about the validity of Russian wishes.

By the way, for similar reasons fluctuations appear constantly. In 1944, for example, a scandal in connection with the Russian bid for the supply of an additional 50 diesel engines for marine hunters. It caused some tension with the Yankees, because these engines were equipped with landing pontoons needed for the landing in Normandy. That's why one of the officers of the U.S. military mission in the USSR visited the Russian shipyard, which has previously commissioned these diesels, and found that only three motors installed on the ships, and the other 123 … zarzhavevayut as unnecessary.

After that the Americans wanted to study the need of the USSR in aluminum, nickel, copper, and alcohol, which were also included in the request for additional deliveries in 1944. But commissar of foreign trade is not too far in the form of diplomatic dismissed as in the inspection, and to provide the required materials. But other sources dotoshlivym Yankees became clear to use, namely, sheets lend-lease aluminum as the decking on the quays and warehouses, the sale of Russian Union of British and American goods to third countries. This being said, the comments are superfluous.

What's all the same capabilities for allies, they were not infinite, especially in the initial period of the war. For example, June 30, 1941 U.S. Secretary of State on the table lay the first Russian proposal for the early delivery of 3,000 bombers, the same number of fighters, anti-aircraft guns, 20 thousand, 50 thousand tons of toluene, equipment for military enterprises … Total — 1 billion 837 million dollars ! The bulk of this amount was supposed to pay the bill in the coming five-year soft loan, the rest — barter. Propagation of the USSR Law on the Lend-Lease it still did not go.

Russian requests provoked considerable excitement in Washington. And
simple enough: after all, for their execution would violate obligations to the UK and other countries, disrupt the schedule of deliveries and quickly convert on a issue of missing or missing products. Even one hundred percent of the seizing of the U.S. Army anti-aircraft guns of all calibres, Moscow's desire to be able to meet only a third part! Was limited and production of aircraft (in the 3rd quarter of 1941 the average 1700 per month), most of which flow directly from the assembly spread to British island. For the production of the requested Russian side as high-octane gasoline would be useful two or three years!

Third point was the expression: "Hurricanes" — rubbish "from which flowed entirely reasonable 4th:" Our pilots did not love this car. " Both of these points makes sense to consider the complex. The words "Hurricane" — rubbish "should realize almost as an estimate of the Lend-Lease, in other words as a statement that we carried one old, useless by the Allies, and all the latest and the best thing they have left for myself. As this statement is true, it is possible to understand the example of the same "Hurricane."

Yes, he is, as of 1941 year These fighters were considered not the most modern. Yes, their tactical and technical characteristics were worse than the performance characteristics of "Spitfire", but the latter is not enough by the British, but first they could deliver a lot and do it quickly. On the other hand, impeccable aircraft as, in general, and nothing else in the world does not exist. "Hurricane" on a number of characteristics inferior to Russian Yak-1, but was significantly superior to I-15 and I-16, made up the lion's share of the park of the Red Army Air Force in 1941 and about 80 percent of the cars of fighter aircraft of the northern front, where the main and received British aircraft. In addition, they were equipped radio stations, and on the build quality and technical reliability of an order of magnitude superior to Russian fighters at least some type.

To learn how to properly claim that man paints the machine, not the machine a man can be seen in the example of 151-th Air Force wing king, who fought on the Russian North. During the two-month stay in the Soviet Union is allowed to weather the English pilots normally fly only one week. And for that little gleam of time they could well show themselves and their aircraft. The ratio of losses and loss-wing opponent was 1:15.

But the question of love or do not love in general purely personal. It's clear that "Hurricane" when we first met do not come much to the liking of our pilots. Not much that all the information in the cockpit of the British language, which no one knew (as opposed to the present day in the 30 years studied a foreign language in the Soviet Union was a German), so besides all the units of measurement are metric — feet, miles, gallons, etc. The method of placement of devices is also conformed to by Russian planes. Was completely different and the entire system of maintenance of aircraft.

The list is almost endless. Transplanting from I-16 to the "Hurricane" or with a T-26 on "Valentine", our pilots and tank crews have experienced moral and psychological shock from contact with the products of the industry with more than the highest level of technical culture than Russian companies. A similar feeling, although to a lesser extent (though another time), each of our experienced driver — an expert or amateur, peresevshy with Russian car to a foreign car. But the shock quickly passes, get involved and have no desire to again control the "brainchild" of Nizhny Novgorod, Tolyatti and other native plants. Roughly the same thing happened during the war tankers and pilots, "tasted" lend-lease cars are not particularly attracted back to the Russian.

Biased stories

It seems to be proof of this can be found in the memoirs of veterans. But no such luck. Find impartial evaluation of the Lend-lease vehicles in the memoirs, published in Russian while, just unreal. With all of this word was given only to those people who have encountered the case of imported machines on kutsee time. Here are some common examples.

Officer tanker GS Shishkin: "One time came," Valentine. " When they learned that the South American tanks come to us, everybody started to run to the zampotehu complaining of a tank — that one hiccup, then the other, began to find all sorts of reasons, that change on the South American tank. They came to us … Oh, it looked at what it did for the tank … -That our tanks were roughly trimmed inside, there is scale, and nodules from welding could be saved. And here it vlezesh — myagenkaya leather, gold written signs everywhere — "entrance", "exit", "fire". But gasoline engines burn like a candle. Tracks from "Valentine" were rubber-metal. For the parade, they were not bad, but a little fight in the criteria of the slope, and it flies. Volodya Somov, about whom I have read, somehow picked up a sledgehammer, climbed onto the tank as punched in the armor, and a sledgehammer entered by 20 mm! It turns out, as we later explained, their viscous armor. A shell hit her, and no splinters. The gun is weak. Were not fully adapted to the war. Later these tanks burnt, in my opinion, specifically. Below me, such tank burned down … No, make war on him badly. You sit down in it and already afraid. No comparison with T-34. "

The corresponding story. Quite clear that under the guise of "American" tank "Valentine" hiding "Stewart." So summed up the memory of the veteran. And not only memory, and logic: associate "Stuart" with the T-34, to put it mildly, incorrect. Naturally, "Stuart" terrible, because it is light tank and T-34 — the average. But then, the T-60 worse than the T-34 and T-70! Here is their something and need to associate with South American light tank! But apparently, these machines GS Shishkin not waging war. Very weird episode with the bumps in the armor of a sledgehammer blows and leave on his conscience. Armor is armor, and the concept of "sticky" does not mean that it dents from a sledgehammer blows. Most likely it's not that different, as the soldier's tale, deliberately aimed at belittling fighting properties of foreign technology.

Do not agree to make ends meet and A. Burtsev which acquainted with the lend-lease equipment in the 1st Saratov tank school: "The practice of driving and strategy were the T-26 and BT-7, and the shot of the tanks, which studied. At first, of "Matilda" and "Valentine", and later of the T-34. To be honest, we were afraid that we may issue to foreign tanks, "Matilda", "valentine", "Sherman" — a tomb. However, in their armor was sticky and did not give the fragments, but a driver was sitting separately, and if you turned the tower, and at that time you knocked out, then the driver is never out of the tank is not going to make it. Our tanks very best. T-34 — excellent tank. "

It feels like an annotation that need to read the Lend-lease vehicles, both veteran received in the same office. One can imagine that in our cars jumped out of the driver's plain and simple. In particular, of the IS-2, which the driver's hatch completely missing!

Burceva claims to the English machines are confusing, because the design of hatches of the driver allowed them to leave at any position of the tower. Hardly at the "Sherman" in this case is over the gun barrel hatches driver to open it unrealistic. But to do this on the basis of a conclusion that imported from other countries of the machine — "coffins" and "our tanks are the best", a few hastily. In exactly the same position could prove
to be a driver HF, well, something I have never heard that the T-34 of the driver due to the design of its own hatch died less often other members of the crew. By the way, most of the post-war Russian tanks at the location of the gun barrel of the hatches of the driver will not give up the last car. However, despite this, they are also considered the best in the world.

As much disdain for the foreign technology shows in their own memoirs and Marshall Russian Union I. Jakubowski: "Its combat vehicles we meticulously associated with the received to our standards adopted by several American and British tanks. The comparison was evident in our favor. Comfortable "Sherman" was the least maneuverability and weaker in the fire, had a narrow armor. "Churchill" sin is the same, in addition, had the caterpillars, which with great difficulty can be overcome even small climbs and descents.

At my suggestion, repairmen rivet on the tracks "Churchill" spikes. Massive machine somewhat improved its permeability. And the fact of its easy upgrade has received wide publicity in the 65th Army. The commander PI Baht often jokingly remarked at the appeal to me, saying how did you manage it our ally "Churchill" shoe. "

It should be noted that the fact that shoeing "Churchill" exists in almost all memoir, with all the attributes to each palm for myself. As for the "thin" armor, then as everyone knows (except the marshal, of course) before the "Royal Tiger" most tolstobronnym tank second world was … "Churchill".

As we see, the tone of these memoirs monotonous as uncomplicated. All of these tankers operated lend-lease vehicles occasionally or as I. Yukubovskii knew about it firsthand. In the 91-th separate tank brigade, entrusted the future of Allied forces of the Warsaw Pact, no "Churchill" and did not exist, so where and who he is "shoe" — is an open question.

A completely different tone from veterans who fought on the long-term of imported cars. To see this, it is quite acquainted, for example, with memoirs DF Vine or AI Pokryshkina.

In this regard, it is interesting to cite the views of Zhukov expressed during a conversation with the writer K. Simonov, held in the 60s: "Talking about our preparedness for war from the standpoint of the economy, the economy can not be gloss and such factors as the following assistance by the Allies. First, of course, from the Yankees because the British in this sense have helped us a little. In the analysis of all sides of a war it can not be discounted. We could be in a languid position without American gunpowder, we were not able to produce that amount of ammunition that we needed. Without the American "Studebaker" we have nothing to what it would be to carry our guns. Yes, to a large extent they generally provide our front-line transport. Issue of special steels that are needed for a variety of needs of the war, was also associated with a number of U.S. supplies.

In other words, then the development of the military industry, which was made in the course of the war and its transition to a war footing have been associated not only with our own military-industrial resources available to the beginning of the war, and with these deliveries. "

And that's what we talk about Lend-Lease Mikoyan: "Now just read that the Lend-Lease did not mean anything. He did not make a huge difference much later. But the fall of 1941, we lost, and if it were not for the Lend-Lease, no weapon, food, warm clothing for the army and other supplies, yet the question of how to deal turned out. "

So who is right? What do they have in reality — the lend-lease tanks? What was the role and importance of the lend-lease supplies during the war and the Russian majestically could we do without them? This will be discussed in future articles.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: