Unless you provide those census figures in English with URL~link allowing anyone to verify such your figures will be considered fabrications~fake.
Statistical and strategic case against the supposed "decisive" role of lend-lease in soviet victory.
- Thread starter Ringo
- Start date
Source ~ Link ~ URL ~ (in English) ~ Proof ~ ???
Link - URL -Source - Etc.Stalin never said the USSR would lose WWII without Lend-Lease. American records of the Tehran Conference distorted the translation, archived it as official history, and now AI trains on the lie.
The discussion concerns Stalin's toast at the Tehran dinner on November 30, 1943. According to the mainstream American version, including even the official U.S. State Department archive, Stalin supposedly admitted that Lend-Lease was absolutely decisive and said:
"Without the use of those machines, through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war."
Sounds dramatic but there is just one problem. At that dinner, only two people spoke Russian fluently: Stalin himself and his official interpreter Valentin Berezhkov. This is officially documented. Which means the only person at the table who actually translated Stalin's words into English was Berezhkov.
And according to Berezhkov, Stalin said something different:
"I want to tell you what, from the Soviet point of view, President Roosevelt and the United States have done to win the war. The most important things in this war are machines. The United States has proved that it can turn out from 8,000 to 10,000 airplanes per month. England turns out 3,000 per month, mostly heavy bombers. Thus, the United States is a country of machines. These machines received through Lend-Lease HELP US WIN THE WAR. For this, I want to raise my toast."
Not "we would lose without them."
Almost identical wording, only tiny adjustments but completely different meaning.
Interestingly, right before Stalin's famous toast, British Field Marshal Alan Brooke reportedly had the audacity to claim that the British were suffering and sacrificing the most in the war, and doing the most fighting.
An awkward silence followed. Stalin darkened, stood up, looked around the room, and then delivered the now famous toast about American industrial production and machines helping winning the war.
An interesting detail many people conveniently ignore: Roosevelt himself later raised a toast specifically to Soviet weapons.
"I highly value the power of the Red Army. Soviet troops are using not only American and British equipment, but also excellent Soviet military technology. While we are celebrating the birthday of the British Prime Minister here, the Red Army continues to push back the Nazi hordes. A toast to the successes of Soviet arms!"
Funny how that part never goes viral.
Anyone who seriously studied WWII understands perfectly well that claims about 4% of Soviet wartime production being some magically decisive factor make little sense. The USSR produced the overwhelming majority of its own tanks, artillery, aircraft, ammunition and small arms while carrying the main land war against the Wehrmacht.
The way American narratives obsessively inflate the role of the land-lease is honestly revealing.
Lend-Lease was an excellent business deal and a strategic investment. American industry profited enormously while Soviet soldiers were dying by the millions defending their country, and Soviet workers, including huge numbers of women, worked day and night evacuating factories and producing weapons, tanks and planes under catastrophic wartime conditions.
That is very different from the childish internet myth that "the USSR would instantly collapse without America."
In English and verifiable.
There were more Hurricanes than Spitfires;
...
Well over half of every enemy aeroplane destroyed in the Battle of Britain was by Hurricanes, not Spitfires. Spitfires in the Battle of Britain were down to 19 squadrons. Hurricanes, there were 32 squadrons of them.
...
Did the Hurricane shoot down more planes than the Spitfire?
Well over half of every enemy aeroplane destroyed in the Battle of Britain was by Hurricanes, not Spitfires. Spitfires in the Battle of Britain were down to
eboots.co.uk
Yeah, they never consider the quantity of aircraft flying. They really are dumb.There were more Hurricanes than Spitfires;
...
Well over half of every enemy aeroplane destroyed in the Battle of Britain was by Hurricanes, not Spitfires. Spitfires in the Battle of Britain were down to 19 squadrons. Hurricanes, there were 32 squadrons of them.
...
Did the Hurricane shoot down more planes than the Spitfire?
Well over half of every enemy aeroplane destroyed in the Battle of Britain was by Hurricanes, not Spitfires. Spitfires in the Battle of Britain were down to
There were many factors involved in winning and losing World War Two. No single factor/component in the equation was able to do such alone. It took a mix of mutually supporting factors.
Most of those "millions" are claimed to have occurred during Stalin's consolidation of power, and purges, the predated The Great Patriotic War.
A near immeasurable number during the war could have resulted from the occasional regional food shortages.
Nor the quality of the aircraft or the pilots.
Lend-Lease did result in some exceptional equipment though.
Although the American P-39 failed to win hearts at home, in the USSR it became a real star. Top Soviet pilots didn’t want to swap even when faster and more powerful aircraft came along.
American pilots were not keen on the Bell P-39 Airacobra. The fighter handled poorly at high altitude, where it had to escort the heavy B-17 Flying Fortress on bombing missions, and where the main air battles with the Luftwaffe on the Western Front took place. Not being sentimentally attached to the plane, the Western allies supplied it in large quantities to the USSR under the Lend-Lease program. In total, the Soviet Air Force received almost 5,000 such aircraft — more than half the total number produced.
...
The hard-to-handle but effective P-39 was designed for the best of the best, and served mainly in the guards units. Alexander Pokryshkin, Grigory Rechkalov, Alexander Klubov, Nikolai Gulaev, the brothers Dmitry and Boris Glinka, and other top Soviet aces all flew the American fighter. Pokryshkin, the second highest-scoring of all Allied fighter pilots, made 48 of his 59 kills with it, and Rechkalov 50 of 56. Even when faster and more maneuverable aircraft began to enter service with the Soviet Air Force toward the end of the war, many Soviet pilots remained faithful to their beloved Airacobra, which never let them down.
www.rbth.com
Bell P-39Q Airacobra of the 508th Fighter Air Regiment of the Soviet Air Force, late 1944
Why did Soviet aces adore this U.S. fighter? - Russia Beyond
Although the American P-39 failed to win hearts at home, in the USSR it became a real star. Top Soviet pilots didn’t want to swap even when faster and more powerful aircraft came along.
American pilots were not keen on the Bell P-39 Airacobra. The fighter handled poorly at high altitude, where it had to escort the heavy B-17 Flying Fortress on bombing missions, and where the main air battles with the Luftwaffe on the Western Front took place. Not being sentimentally attached to the plane, the Western allies supplied it in large quantities to the USSR under the Lend-Lease program. In total, the Soviet Air Force received almost 5,000 such aircraft — more than half the total number produced.
...
The hard-to-handle but effective P-39 was designed for the best of the best, and served mainly in the guards units. Alexander Pokryshkin, Grigory Rechkalov, Alexander Klubov, Nikolai Gulaev, the brothers Dmitry and Boris Glinka, and other top Soviet aces all flew the American fighter. Pokryshkin, the second highest-scoring of all Allied fighter pilots, made 48 of his 59 kills with it, and Rechkalov 50 of 56. Even when faster and more maneuverable aircraft began to enter service with the Soviet Air Force toward the end of the war, many Soviet pilots remained faithful to their beloved Airacobra, which never let them down.
Why did Soviet aces adore this U.S. fighter?
Although the American P-39 failed to win hearts at home, in the USSR it became a real star. Top Soviet pilots didn’t want to swap even when faster...
Bell P-39Q Airacobra of the 508th Fighter Air Regiment of the Soviet Air Force, late 1944
Bell P-39 Airacobra - Wikipedia
And then ....
The Bell P-63 Kingcobra is an American fighter aircraft that was developed by Bell Aircraft during World War II. Based on the preceding Bell P-39 Airacobra, the P-63's design incorporated suggestions from P-39 pilots and was superior to its predecessor in virtually all respects. The P-63 was not accepted for combat use by the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF). However, it was used during World War II by the Soviet Air Force, which had also been the most prolific user of the P-39.
...
Bell P-63 Kingcobra - Wikipedia
The Bell P-63 Kingcobra is an American fighter aircraft that was developed by Bell Aircraft during World War II. Based on the preceding Bell P-39 Airacobra, the P-63's design incorporated suggestions from P-39 pilots and was superior to its predecessor in virtually all respects. The P-63 was not accepted for combat use by the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF). However, it was used during World War II by the Soviet Air Force, which had also been the most prolific user of the P-39.
...
Similar threads
- Poll
New Topics
-
-
-
-
House candidate Maureen Galindo pledges to send ‘American zionists’ to internment camp- Started by Dont Taz Me Bro
- Replies: 8
-
Pizza Hut.........bringing back the REAL DEAL restaurants!!!!- Started by LibertyWeeps
- Replies: 15
Latest Discussions
-
Thomas Massie loses Kentucky House primary to Trump-backed Republican challenger
- Latest: EdwinAMartin
-
-
How Could Any Woman Be Supportive Of Making The United States A Muslim Nation?- Latest: NewsVine_Mariyam
-
-
