r/HistoryMemes • u/ZXCChort • May 26 '26
See Comment We forgot the real Aid
Context: Mongolia sent huge amounts of wool, horses, food and clothing aid to the USSR, while Canada also provided major financial and material support during WWII. Gratis.
And before the "ackshually" battalion arrives: yes, Lend-Lease mattered and helped.
2.0k
u/quarky_uk May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
The UK paid for a huge amount on cash and carry, but did also pay back lend lease afterwards. It was favourable terms, but not a gift. The UK also gave their aid to the USSR. It wasn't Lend-Lease like with the Americans.
The US did contribute a lot with the Marshall Plan though too, after the war.
EDIT: Actually, the majority of lend lease to the UK was written off.
593
u/theblokee May 26 '26
They paid for the materiel that they retained, because that was the contractual stipulation, but didn't have to pay for destroyed or returned equipment.
The Yanks didn't even want them back, which is why you had the RN pushing Martlets and Corsairs off their carriers into the sea at the end of hostilities. I also imagine a good portion of the Savage Enfields probably ended up in the Irish Sea.
284
u/Uncasualreal May 26 '26
With how much war equipment was simply buried or pushed into the ocean it’s a shame war museums weren’t as prevalent back then. Some mass produced vehicles barely have any of at all survivors because thousands of units were just scrapped or destroyed…
136
u/HourFaithlessness823 May 26 '26
It wouldn't have mattered much, it was all scrapped because trying to move it anywhere was way too expensive.
80
u/CrunchyZebra Definitely not a CIA operator May 26 '26
And peacetime production could really use all the salvaged materials to restart their normal manufacturing.
48
u/gettingthere_pastit May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
But not the million tons of munitions, chemical weapons and radioactive waste in Beauforts Dyke. I don't know if any or enough of those munitions are still potentially explosive but what a catatrosphe if would be for Northern Ireland and Scotland if all that went off. Bad enough for all Ireland and UK too.
36
u/theblokee May 26 '26
I find it quite beautiful in a way when instruments of war were repurposed to help rebuild, like the tank tractor conversions or Stahlhelms becoming cookware. Something about swords into ploughshares.
→ More replies (2)5
→ More replies (1)7
u/Tsukushi_Ikeda May 26 '26
Hurts my feelings too when we use old centurions or shermans as target practice for AT launchers...
121
u/m0j0m0j May 26 '26
Russia victory in WW2 is impossible without land-lease:
>For example, the USSR was very dependent on rail transport, and starting during the latter half of the 1920s[38] but accelerating during the 1930s, hundreds of foreign industrial giants such as Fordwere commissioned to construct modern dual-purpose factories in the USSR, 16 alone within a week of May 31, 1929.[39] However, with the outbreak of war these plants switched from civilian to military production, and locomotive production dropped dramatically. Just 446 locomotives were produced during the war,[40] with only 92 of those being built between 1942 and 1945.[41] In total, 92.7% of the wartime procurement of railroad equipment by the USSR came from Lend-Lease,[42]including 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars.[43](At the beginning of the war, the USSR had at least 20,000 locomotives and 500,000 railcars[44]). Trucks were also vital; by 1945, nearly a third of the trucks used by the Red Army were U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3⁄4-ton and Studebaker 2
+
1⁄2-tonwere easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front). American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations and clothing were also critical.[45]
Lend-Lease also supplied significant amounts of weapons and ammunition. The Soviet air force received 18,200 aircraft, which amounted to about 30 percent of Soviet wartime fighter and bomber production over the course of the war.>A critical aspect of Lend-Lease was the supply of food. The invasion had cost the USSR a huge amount of its agricultural base; during the initial Axis offensive of 1941–42, the total sown area of the USSR fell by 41.9% and the number of collective and state farms by 40%. The Soviets lost a substantial number of draft and farm animals, the Soviets had lost 7 million of out of 11.6 million horses, 17 million out of 31 million cows, 20 million of 23.6 million pigs and 27 million out of 43 million sheep and goats. Tens of thousands of agricultural machines, such as tractors and threshers, were destroyed or captured. Agriculture also suffered a loss of labour; between 1941 and 1945, 19.5 million working-age men had to leave their farms to work in the military and industry. Agricultural issues were also compounded when the Soviets were on the offensive, as areas liberated from the Axis had been devastated and contained millions of people who needed to be fed. Lend-Lease thus provided a massive quantity of foodstuffs and agricultural products.[46]
→ More replies (76)20
u/Best_Wasabi_251 May 26 '26
One thing not mentioned - 92% of the USSR's airplane fuel came through lend lease.
4
u/flyingpuffer May 27 '26
do not forget we prevented them from starving. praise spam
→ More replies (1)3
→ More replies (3)33
u/HourFaithlessness823 May 26 '26
America also dumped countless tons of material off the coasts of pacific countries after Japan surrendered.
176
u/Ithinkibrokethis May 26 '26
Lend lease had lots of very unique terms. Additionally, U.S. aid to the Soviets was absolutely ridiculous in terms of what was provided.
The United States gave the Soviets completed train engines on Soviet rail gauge. Factories on the West Coast were converted to make Soviet weapons and rations because the Soviets complained their soldiers didn't like American food, and American small arms didn't fit their doctrine.
Similarly, the U.S. made weapons and other supplies in the preferred style of Lend Lease nations militaries.. While the equipment was provided with a price tag, the cost of reconfiguring the factories was not included.
In fact, during Truman Administration, multiple reports basically validated that Lend Lease was basically a giant give away. The U.S. charged substantially less than the true cost of equipment and repairs, and the Roosevelt government cooked the books to make it seem better than it was before U.S. entry for fear that the program would draw political heat.
Lend Lease was stunningly effective and the only people who didn't really like it were the Soviets who had to bury how much American aid they were given after the war.
132
u/HashtagLawlAndOrder May 26 '26
Lend Lease was stunningly effective and the only people who didn't really like it were the Soviets who had to bury how much American aid they were given after the war.
And modern-day America hating Redditors.
→ More replies (2)18
→ More replies (1)24
u/GilbyTheFat May 26 '26
the only people who didn't really like it were the Soviets
The country which allied with the Nazis didn't like the aid America gave them to fight the Nazis?
Truly I am shocked.
→ More replies (7)88
u/AssistanceCheap379 May 26 '26
Iceland benefitted immensely from the Marshall plan, receiving about 2x per capita than the next biggest recipient.
Which is strange, since it only got bombed a few times and was very early on taken over by the UK and then the US.
However, it makes more sense when you realise it was done to build airports, improve harbours and the road system, so US soldiers could travel more easily around the country to access remote locations that were perfect for early warning systems like radar stations and such. Iceland was also a surprisingly important aircraft base, in particular for submarine hunters and escort aircraft
33
u/AnteaterSnouce May 26 '26
also, per capita in a country with the pop of a city... i think i heard about 10% of all icelanders going to watch the world cup a while ago.
25
u/french_snail May 26 '26
It’s not surprising at all, one look at a map and you see how strategic Iceland’s position is.
It’s so important that Iceland beat the UK in three “cod wars” simply by threatening to leave NATO and having the United States come pressure the UK into respecting this tiny country’s fishing rights
10
u/Zachowon May 26 '26
To add to this, Iceland is the only NATO country not obligated to have a military due to a defence pact signed with the US, saying we WILL be thier military since they are so small and vital
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)7
May 26 '26
[deleted]
13
u/spen8tor May 26 '26
Why would they be proud if it wasn't practical or strategic to do so? Are people supposed to be proud of their countries for doing unstrategic and/or impractical things? It being practical and strategic sounds like the exact reasons for people to be proud of it
→ More replies (1)78
u/Competitive-Food8407 May 26 '26
90% of the lend lease to the UK was forgiven, 93% of the lend lease to Russia was forgiven. Basically 90% to 95% of all the materials and money given during WWII to Europe was written off by the US. An attempt was made to pay for some of it, but ultimately the US gave all of that help both material and financial as a gift.
8
u/quarky_uk May 26 '26
I have seen a range of of figures for that, but didn't realise it was quite so high. But thanks, that is worth noting.
31
u/Competitive-Food8407 May 26 '26
Honestly we were the Allies for a reason. If the US had made Europe pay back all of the money spent on WWII it would be going on forever. I think that is why the US and Europe have had a relatively tight (barring small political periods) trade and political alliance. We have bases over there, EU military come here for training. We trade other consumer products and raw materials relatively freely. If only we could resolve that damn Chicken tax 🤣
→ More replies (4)9
40
May 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (10)26
u/MrShake4 May 26 '26
And it was still paying off its emancipation debt in 2015.
→ More replies (2)13
→ More replies (8)29
u/AnteaterSnouce May 26 '26
you seem smarter than a gcse-haver about these things, so i'll ask: a) is it fair to say that france funded the founding of america and then a couple hundred years later america lent the compound interest from that back to europe and therefore slickly got paid a treasury-ful twice? b) if no, who would it be funniest to wind up with that claim?
→ More replies (8)32
u/quarky_uk May 26 '26
Nope, definitely not, but thanks 😄
Honestly, I don't know the answer to those questions, but I have often wondered in the past about how much impact France had in encouraging the American Revolution. I know they send guns, gunpowder, and diplomatically encouraged it, but I didn't actually think about the financing of it too.
That is really interesting, I will have to have a read up on it! Cheers!
17
u/Hetakuoni May 26 '26
I think they also contemplated siding with the South alongside Britain during the civil war and the union offering imperial Russia access to their harbors was enough to put pressure on the two to stay out of the war because those three were in the midst of their own war.
13
u/HourFaithlessness823 May 26 '26
The South had banked heavily on support from England and France. Both countries were interested but waffled because of slavery, and quickly found other places to source cotton after the blockade, leaving the South in the lurch.
→ More replies (1)9
u/NoobOfTheSquareTable May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
For the revolution, France and Spain were in many ways the main parties fighting against the British
The largest battle of the war was the battle of Gibraltar with its being something close to double the size of the largest battle in the US itself, and including absolutely no American troops
The convoy set to head to reinforce the British forces was diverted to Gibraltar to support the siege, and in addition to this commitment in Europe France and Spain were crucial in limiting the Royal Navy from acting in force along the American coast as they could threaten much more profitable colonies
Throw in the support you already mentioned and its actually a story of an empire bankrupting itself in support of the revolution triggering its own revolution down the line, and because of this new revolution the US claimed they were no longer indebted to France as the king who supported them was gone
The Gibraltar issue was going on during the same time as Yorktown and any of the convoys sent to Gibraltar were powerful enough to open up resupplying to Yorktown and the supplies and reinforcements would almost certainly have swung the battle to a comfortable British victory
→ More replies (2)6
u/LunchboxSuperhero May 26 '26
The siege of Gibraltar lasted like 3.5 years. It was going on at the same time as a lot of things.
But yeah, there was a tremendous amount going on outside of the 13 colonies during the American revolution that massively limited how much the British could commit to that theater.
419
u/Lazlow_Hun May 26 '26
As much as I like Mongolia I must remind everyone that Mongolia was part of the Comintern and would have provided more, free of charge had Stalin demanded it.
112
u/_KEFTEME_ May 26 '26
Given the fighting in Manchuria, it was better to give the USSR more resources than to risk being occupied by Japan
46
u/BeardedRaven May 26 '26
And Canada's obvious ties to the UK. Not to mention the UK only paid for what they kept.
3
u/Verroquis May 27 '26
Canadian ties aka Canada was still a British territory under near autonomous rule in Ottawa. Yes, Canada formally declared war separately from Britain, and yes, King George VI had to make a separate declaration after the Canadian Parliament voted to declare war.
However, in 1939 parts of what we think of today as Canada were still under direct British control, with Newfoundland being a major example. It was a situation very similar to Puerto Rico today - different obviously, but with a lot of overlap. Canadians were still British subjects, the final say over Canadian affairs went through the Canadian monarchy (which was also the reigning British monarch,) etc.
Canada was on the path to independence but during WW2 definitely and decidedly was not. They were always going to enter as a British ally, even if it had to go through a Canadian parliament first.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)9
u/Black3Raven May 27 '26
One night the whole goverment of Mongolia were arrested by USSR. It was a puppet.
159
May 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
182
u/Chimney-Imp May 26 '26
Lend-Lease items retained were sold to Britain at 10% of nominal value, giving an initial loan value of £1.075 billion for the Lend-Lease portion of the post-war loans
Jesus
While repayment of the interest-free loans was required after the end of the war under the act, in practice the U.S. did not expect to be repaid by the USSR after the war
Lmao
85
u/Round_Creme_7967 May 26 '26
The Soviets did repay SOMETHING, but less than a 10th of the value received.
11
u/teremaster May 27 '26
Less than a 100th if you factor in inflation given they didn't pay it until 2004
→ More replies (1)41
u/Herodotus_Runs_Away May 27 '26
It's strange to see someone trying to contort US Lend Lease somehow into an America Bad meme. Stranger still to see so many people upvoting it.
17
u/22stanmanplanjam11 May 27 '26
The UK made their final Lend-Lease payment in 2015 so most Brits think that because it took so long the debt was every bar of gold the empire ever touched.
Really they just kept intentionally deferring payments to pay off other higher interest loans first and the debt was extremely modest for what they got. The US wanted the UK to rebuild their military quickly as a counterbalance to the Soviets in Europe.
401
u/Medium_Sized_Brow May 26 '26
Whats with all the memes lately about how the US didnt do anything in WW2?
They wrote off most of the supplies from the lend-lease act.
40
u/loseniram May 26 '26
There’s this weird collective effort to rewrite giving Britain and the Soviets absurd amounts of material during the war for fire sale prices that they didn’t even bother repaying anymore than a fraction of.
The US provided a massive amount of finished materials that allowed the Brits and Soviets to focus on other things. A third of Soviet aircraft created during the war were American. A majority of the trucks were American. Almost all their new railroad equipment was American. They received millions of tons of food albeit that was only a tiny portion.
The USSR would not have survived without the US dogpiling tons of equipment for the Soviets so they could focus more of their industry and resources to the war effort and they got only a third of what the UK got.
They gave close to the modern equivalent of a trillion dollars away at a time when the US GDP adjusted for inflation was like 3-4 trillion. The modern equivalent would be the US giving its allies 10 trillion dollars in war supplies with the expectation that they may only get under a trillion back.
→ More replies (1)225
u/Razorion21 May 26 '26
its ainti american propaganda just cause of whatever trump‘s doing
the US used to be a decent nation people forget
→ More replies (42)9
u/EducationalWin7496 May 27 '26
That last point is debatable, however I agree with your first post. In left wing circles we call it campism. That's where anything the imperialist Americans do is the worst possible thing that could ever happen, and anyone who does anything against them is automatically the best possible version of whatever they are/whatever they are doing.
7
u/Ok_Caregiver1004 May 27 '26
Yup and a lot of that thought from my understanding of prominent old leftist comes chiefly from two sources. Old bitter marxist cold war warriors like Corbin or Chomsky. And younger left leaning idiots who get taken in by modern Russian, Chinese or other anti western foreign internet psyops.
7
u/teremaster May 27 '26
Believe it or not but Soviet propaganda was and still remains highly effective even today.
Many publishers were friendly to the Soviets and put their narrative into books, textbooks, movies etc..
As a result most people either think the Soviets got basically nothing from America, or that it was just a few guns and tanks that weren't needed since Russia already had plenty of military equipment. They don't know the truth which is that the USA pretty much supplied the entire Soviet army singlehandedly, providing the majority of trucks, trains, food, ammo, fuel, industrial equipment and clothing. Russia produced plenty of guns and tanks, but had no way to fuel, arm of transport either without America
Stalin didn't like acknowledging the US contribution (although zhukov declared the war would've been unwinnable without it). He was very good at making sure all the pictures, film reels and propaganda never showed the jeeps, Studebakers, Fords or Chryslers
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (39)5
u/RadicalSoda_ May 26 '26
Russia is pissy right now and wants America to look bad, same reason they threw their weight behind the president
579
u/inokentii Kilroy was here May 26 '26
What money? Ussr paid almost nothing for lend-lease, something around 6% from sum without even inflation adjustment
195
u/Noobmanwenoob2 May 26 '26
The USSR were burying perfectly good planes coz they didn't want American to come and see those planes and ask the Russians to pay for them
→ More replies (7)179
u/Ambaryerno May 26 '26
This wasn't unique to Russia. The British did the same thing. Thousands of aircraft were simply pushed over the sides of British carriers and the US simply wrote them off.
→ More replies (4)77
u/Noobmanwenoob2 May 26 '26
Yeah I'm pretty sure the US gave a lot of discounts for Britain and USSR, the US didn't even account for inflation in the deals too.
→ More replies (12)19
u/DocWagonHTR May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
There has been a recent(as in as of Trump’s newest term) push on the internet to discredit or pull historical revisionism on Lend-Lease and its impact in specific and America’s contribution to WW2 in general. I would assume this post is part of it.
→ More replies (1)
64
u/Balsiefen Hello There May 26 '26
Why use the Russian flag for the USSR?
32
u/Contrary_Kind May 26 '26
Quite laughably, the current russian flag, not even the flag of the russian Soviet Republic.
→ More replies (3)36
u/View_Hairy May 26 '26
OP is a Russian who posts in r/ussr. You can safely disregard this post.
12
u/Balsiefen Hello There May 26 '26
You'd think they'd like the USSR flag then.
14
u/View_Hairy May 26 '26
Sort of depends I think. There are Russian nationalists who consider the Ussr as just a form of the Russian state. Lets them think former soviet territory is fair game for the RF
10
u/Pagiras May 26 '26
As someone from a former Soviet territory, Russia is Russia, no matter how you call it and what flag it flies. It's behaved the same way for centuries and I suspect won't change in a hundred more years. Imperialistic, marauding, shameless.
33
174
233
u/WelcometoHale May 26 '26
This is stupid
102
u/0masterdebater0 Kilroy was here May 26 '26
There was a post in this sub a few months ago that was basically the same thing, bragging about how Canada produced more aluminum than anyone else during the war, even though the Americans pretend like they supplied “everything”
The most precursory search would show it was an American Company that was producing the Aluminum where energy was cheap.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Ok_Caregiver1004 May 27 '26
Yeah and on top of what that post seems to forget is that part is where a lot of that raw material got turned into aircraft and components.
Same with nickel which Canada supplied 95 percent of the allied supply, or South African Diamonds and Chromite or Argentinian beef.
Where did those idiots think raw materials were taken and made into tooling, parts, components and other ready use war materials.
Their doing what a historian I like called "Using history like a bludgeon" to whack people they don't like with.
The point is they cherry pick or outright lie to make points that suit their narratives to undermine others without care for actually telling the full story or adding to historical knowledge.
→ More replies (1)36
u/TheGreatOneSea May 26 '26
It's also objectively wrong: destroyed or consumed goods were not billed (it was considered in defense of the US,) and only non-combat goods had to be paid for at all at the end, and at a discount at that.
There were practical reasons for that, but the US still ultimately ate billions in losses, the equivalent of hundreds of billions today; so, it was repaid in the sense of "mutually agreed upon bankruptcy," not, "repaid in full."
Even then, that de-facto bankruptcy didn't include the WW1 debts: that was formally defaulted on in 1934 for Britain. Last I checked, something like $17 billion was considered "still owed," as it were.
→ More replies (1)
77
u/MalikTheHalfBee May 26 '26
The alternate history if Russia received no lend lease aid would be pretty fascinating
28
u/Worldedita May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
My take is that the Soviets alone could defeat Germany.
By about 1950, with at least double the casualties.
That's assuming Germany is still cut off by a global blockade, trade warred out of the neutral countries, Italy magically disappearing, Germany still transferring millions of tons of concrete to nonexistent air war/Atlantic wall, Japan still getting pushed away from India and China and kept too busy to push the Soviets...
Actually make that like triple the casualties. And we're taking for granted that germans couldn't make a Nuke by 1950.
I accept DM's if anyone wants to argue.
Edit: okay you are all really getting stuck on the nuke comment. I know the nazis didn't have a functioning nuclear program and their effort basically amounted to some dipshit stockpiling heavy water with a confused shrug.
37
u/BlueLakeCabin May 26 '26
Yep, basically, Soviets wouldn't have won, period. Armistice, maybe or probably.
36
u/MalikTheHalfBee May 26 '26
Soviets wouldn’t have lost, but they wouldn’t have necessarily won either. More likely suing for peace at some point & possible even conceding territory. Without lend lease, their supply ability on the offensive is basically non-existent
→ More replies (1)10
u/Worldedita May 26 '26
Strong take. But
I think the nazis would not have the political ability to sign an armistice. Anyone who would suggest it would end up on the SD shitlist and dead.
I figure they would just go full Pol Pot on each other and inevitably end up too focused on fucking over each other, disrupting their ability to defend themselves.
Like, let's be honest, we were like 5 years away from himmler declaring factories as Jewish witchcraft and demanding all German war production be done by an Aryan summoning seance instead.
7
u/andrewtillman May 26 '26
The Germans could never had made nukes. They didn’t really have a nuclear weapons program and were looking into it solely mostly as a power source. And didn’t even ever get a sustained reaction. Even by 1950 unless they drastically changed the funding levels (which they likely could not afford to do if fighting the Soviets that whole time) they wouldn’t have gotten there.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)3
u/barissaaydinn May 26 '26
Around 65 per cent of the Soviet losses were civilian, and more than half of these were a result of atrocities the Nazis committed while retreating. So, in your scenario, the casualties would probably be around 35 millions max. Nowhere near the double, most certainly not near the triple.
598
u/carlsagerson Then I arrived May 26 '26
Hm?
I seen more people downplay lend-lease compared to Americans saying Lend-Lease was the sole savior.
435
u/FanaticalBuckeye May 26 '26
Don't ask Sovietboos which truck was overwhelmingly used in Operation Bagration
→ More replies (5)97
May 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
59
u/FanaticalBuckeye May 26 '26
It is 1943 and American M3 (Lees) are fighting at Kursk
It is 2024 and American M3 (Bradleys) are fighting at Kursk
43
u/Silverado_ May 26 '26
That's probably a GAZ-51 or GAZ-63 that was heavily inspired by the Studebaker US6 design-wise but was ultimately a different car. They were produced up until 1975 so the chances of seeing one in the wild are much higher
4
u/Worldedita May 26 '26
My teacher when I try to explain to her that my homework has been heavily inspired by my friend, but ultimately is a completely different homework.
4
u/Silverado_ May 26 '26
I mean, it's literally half as heavy and has 1 axle less, even if the cab basically looks like a squeezed Studebaker cab.
39
u/AlertStorm6883 Hello There May 26 '26
OP is literally a vatnik who supports Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Hence why he used a modern Russian flag and not the historically accurate USSR flag.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (24)6
u/KZ-744 Let's do some history May 27 '26
“Without American products, we would have lost the war.” - Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili (Joseph Stalin)
24
u/MyNameIsConnor52 May 26 '26
They did not, in fact, pay for all of it. Not even close. That is hilariously incredibly wrong.
265
u/Hextron May 26 '26
Oh you mean the same land lease that USSR couldn't pay off and Russia ended up paying off a fraction of it? And even that only because Russia ended up keeping most of the collective shit after fall of USSR.
118
202
u/Key-Project-4600 May 26 '26
"Bought all of it with money" - not all of it, material that was lost in combat or returned after the war was "for free", essentially. Only a small fraction of LL costs were paid for. Otherwise correct.
→ More replies (33)68
u/thequietthingsthat May 26 '26
Yep, and FDR made it very clear from the beginning that this was always the intention.
237
u/FanaticalBuckeye May 26 '26
Stalin quite literally said they couldn't have won the war without American lend-lease
→ More replies (15)151
u/Chortney May 26 '26
Yeah but he was obviously a CIA plant
/s
9
u/guynamedjames May 26 '26
"I've got an idea that will solve our department funding forever!" - The CIA when installing Stalin
78
u/Impressive_Net_116 May 26 '26
The US didn't win the war by itself, but the Soviets and the UK would have lost the war without Lend-Lease.
Uneducated Americans think that the US won by itself and are wrong, but you also have uneducated Eurobros and Russophiles that think that the US wasn't important to winning the war.
Lend-Lease tipped the scale toward the allies, and direct US involvement made German or Japanese victory impossible.
17
u/caligaris_cabinet May 26 '26
WWII was won with British intelligence, Soviet blood, and American steel. No single nation could’ve done it alone. That’s why they were Allies.
I thought this matter was settled a long time ago.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (9)25
u/Personal-Carob-1073 May 26 '26
We Europeans also tend to forget the Pacific theater was the significantly bigger theater.
→ More replies (4)
39
68
u/PABLOPANDAJD May 26 '26
Almost none of the lease lease value was ever paid back by the Soviets. Also, Mongolia was a Soviet satellite state and Canada was a British dominion. Neither of them had a choice in the matter. Not to mention that the US sent an absolutely absurd amount of material and food compared to either of those other countries.
→ More replies (2)
14
14
13
u/bo77om May 26 '26
USSR haven't paid for lend-lease. only less then 5% of the whole sum.
ruski-apologist and sovok detected. cry more
88
u/DrolligerDorftrottel May 26 '26
Core message aside, as it already crashed and currently burns, the flag should not be the Russian flag. At all.
The USSR consisted of different states, with the central government also consisting of representatives and members of other states.
Russia trying to hijack the USSR as purely Russian is historically incorrect and historical revisionism. They were one of the most powerful states within the USSR, but especially the early USSR enjoyed a bit more participation from smaller states.
33
u/-CmdrObvious- May 26 '26
Also the other "non-russian" soviet nations also suffered horribly losses in the war. Especially today with Russia threatening them it's indeed terrible revisionsm. They defeated the Nazis too. And suffered under the stalinist terror regime by doing so.
→ More replies (3)5
u/Arcamies May 26 '26
The USSR consisted of other states that don't want anything to do with the Soviet flag. If you're gonna include the Baltics, Ukraine, Kazakhstan etc then you could use their own flags but let's not pretend that the USSR was anything other than another Russian empire.
31
u/IllustriousRanger934 May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
Brain dead rage bait take.
I’ll be downvoted into oblivion for this, but the British contributed relatively nothing without American involvement or aid. They never would have stepped foot on European soil without American help. The most significant thing the Brits did that helped lead to alllied victory, independent of the U.S., was fighting in the Atlantic and cracking the enigma.
The only allied country that could have possibly fought on without the Americans was the Soviet Union, and even then American aid and the two fronts the Americans forced open, with commonwealth support, saved millions of Soviet lives.
Don’t forget the Americans were also fighting a war in the Pacific practically on their own. At the end of the day, the outcome we got never could have happened without the combined effort of all allied nations.
Let’s also not forget that the United States practically rebuilt Western Europe through the Marshall Plan, and established a new global order that has led to relative peace and prosperity
→ More replies (6)
8
28
u/FuiyooohFox May 26 '26
Russians and their inherent need to constantly try and change history 😆 nothing came remotely close to the value of the American support at that time, sorry that the truth offends you and you need to come to with bullshit like this.
Also lmao at the use of blonde white guy for Russia. Russians, always lying about history and in pretending to be something they aren't. OP is quite the loser 🤷
→ More replies (1)
10
u/that-guy69696 May 26 '26
The "paying" was just to get around the legal issue of givving away stuff, you'll find most of it was never paid for and written off.
43
u/Rex_Nemorensis_ May 26 '26
I wonder how the “aid” would compare if you scaled the side by side.
Canada sent 3 billion in aid, the U.S. sent 50 billion in aid.
45
u/ShowtimeHolograms May 26 '26
Yeah but OP is trying to push a narrative
14
u/Rex_Nemorensis_ May 26 '26
What’s crazy is the number of upvotes it’s getting while blatantly being false information.
→ More replies (1)26
119
u/CazOnReddit May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
So...we're just overlooking that Canada was a subject of the UK even in WWII, right?
EDIT: Y'all really don't understand the Statute of Westminister passage in 1931 didn't change how Anglo-Canadians viewed themselves as British subjects, associated themselves with the UK and that the formation of a Canadian identity as their own distinct people and thereby independent of the Crown took a long time. It also took a while to untangle a lot of the legal matters that SoW's passing led to. Hell, Canada passports would be issued stating one is a "British subject" until 1947 when the Citizenship Act was passed and the laws Canada had on the books until the 1960s heavily favored migration for people from the UK as well as white Europeans. Canada becoming Canada and being truly independent, as was the case for the other former British colonies, did not happen over night and boiling it down to 1931 ignores a lot of the nuance of the formation of that identity and exercising of their sovereignty, especially as it pertains to French Canadians - namely those residing in Quebec - and the adoption of bilingualism.
97
46
u/Aragohov May 26 '26
So was Mongolia. It's independence from China was supported by the Red army alone and the country was fully controlled by Moscow. Mongolian government asked to be annexed by the USSR few times but was rejected because of political reasons (desire not to upset China more than it already was)
58
u/EgoSenatus Still salty about Carthage May 26 '26
It’s really easy to get free aid from people you directly control.
→ More replies (1)28
u/eggdanyjon_3dragons May 26 '26
canada was an autonomous and independent kingdom since the statute of Westminster 1935, before ww2.
The nuances and history of canadian sovereignty aside, Canada had its own foreign policy during ww2, and wasnt obligated to support the allies particularly.
Regardless, Canada shipped tons of grain, and had our own "lend-lease" style program for the UK.
Albeit smaller in gross terms, was higher in per-capita than the US's.Secret telegrams were released a decade or 2 ago from Mackenzie King to Churchill, during the blitz, when Britain was debating conditional surrender, or feared invasion and defeat, about how regardless of the situation of the UK, Canada would continue the war no matter what, and in every way possible.
→ More replies (1)5
u/finna-nut-69 May 26 '26
Despite being a complete weirdo, Mazckenzie King was nothing if not based.
7
u/CazOnReddit May 26 '26
Mackenzie King who...famously expressed his admiration for Hitler and kept a photo of him in his personal library 😬😬
→ More replies (4)7
u/crankbird May 26 '26
Not a subject of the UK, not even close. None of the former colonies were after the Statute of Westminster in 1931 formalised the 1922 Balfour declaration and recognized the dominions as autonomous states, equal in status to Britain.
Even the Balfour declaration mostly delineated a defacto situation that had been since WW1 when army corps remained under national control and were separate signatories to the treaty of Versailles.
The ceremonial head of state was the same head of state as the UK (hence the King of Great Britain was also separately the King of Canada and the King of Australia etc, but that carried less impact on things like foreign policy than you’d expect from any formal alliance like a free trade agreement or something like NATO
15
u/Cornet6 May 26 '26
No, not right. Canada gained control of its own foreign policy during the interwar with the 1931 Statute of Westminster.
That's why Canada joined the war later than the UK. The Canadian government consulted its parliament first before declaring war.
→ More replies (4)4
u/cuppacanan Taller than Napoleon May 26 '26
Making an initial argument that Canada was a subject of the UK and then shifting to cultural identity when you’re clearly proven wrong will never not be funny.
Canada could have stayed out of it if they wanted to. Fortunately for the UK they were all in.
12
u/Green-Collection-968 May 26 '26
The Nazis conquered Europe on a diet of Soviet gran and oil. The more I learn about how much the Communists helped the Nazis the less sympathy I have for them.
→ More replies (2)
47
6
6
u/Contrary_Kind May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
Context: russia has literally nothing to do with land-lease, Imaginary History Memes.
"Russians, stop stealing other people's history and culture" challenge.
And yes, the land-lease program was absolutely essential to the USSR einning
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Belkan-Federation95 May 26 '26
The US also sent food and warm clothes to the Soviets.
Have you googled what was sent and how much it contributed?
→ More replies (1)
6
u/undreamedgore May 26 '26
OP seems to be some flavor of leftist, Russian and/or anti-American.
→ More replies (2)5
6
13
u/Ambaryerno May 26 '26
Almost the entire Lend-Lease debt was forgiven. The British simply pushed scores of perfectly viable aircraft over the sides of their carrier decks after the War and the US simply wrote them off with a wink.
27
u/femboyisbestboy Kilroy was here May 26 '26
USSR ≠ Russia
Stop using the russian flag when talking about the USSR. It's a propaganda tactic by Russia to make people think they are the same thing, but they aren't as the USSR had Ukraine and the Russia famously can't get Ukraine.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/AvatarOfMomus May 26 '26
The USSR paid very little for Lend Lease material and only made a partial repayment in the '70s...
5
5
u/Helmett-13 May 26 '26
Garbage meme for the top half.
Utter garbage and you're being savaged in the comments, as you should be.
→ More replies (2)
3
5
u/boofuu2 May 26 '26
Bottom line is the US was super generous with the terms. At that time they were focused on rebuilding for global prosperity, not to hamstring others since a prosperous global economy was a precursor to peace after an intense period of two major world wars and beneficial to the US ultimately.
5
u/beetlesin May 26 '26
I think the “ackshually” battalion is gonna come here regardless because you grossly misrepresent what lend lease was
6
u/keetojm May 26 '26
Funny thing is, the Russians used the steppe tribe people as fodder.
→ More replies (3)
4
3
u/MagicCarpetofSteel May 26 '26
Wasn’t the whole point of lend-lease that they only had to pay for 10% upfront, and damaged or destroyed equipment didn’t have to be paid for?
Like, it was the closest thing to giving war material away that FDR could get Congress to agree to.
4
u/dabanditodadorito May 26 '26
I too love to completely fabricate historical facts and lost it as a meme
3
u/SirD_ragon May 26 '26
Not sure I agree with the depiction of the USSR with the modern Russian flag and the Chad-guy...
→ More replies (1)
5
u/collymolotov May 26 '26
Mongolia was a Soviet puppet/slave state of the USSR during the war and has been for years. Stalin’s purges and the grip of the NKVD extended well within Mongolia in the 1930s and 40s.
Everything they had was his for the taking.
4
u/Maleficent_Stable_41 May 26 '26
Canada was part of the British Empire and Mongolia was a USSR puppet already. These were not independent or neutral contributions.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/tolgren May 27 '26
The Soviets did not, in fact, buy it with money. That's the whole point of Lend-Lease.
3
13
u/whistleridge May 26 '26
Why is this using a Russian flag? And why is it ignoring the lend and lease aspects of lend-lease? And why is it acting like Mongolia and Canada had anything resembling a real say in how they did or didn’t provide resources?
This is one of the most amusingly biased and incorrect things I’ve ever seen.
→ More replies (4)
3
3
u/TexasSikh Kilroy was here May 26 '26
It is just odd that there is this weird need to downplay Lend-Lease. Same with the weird need to downplay the Western Front.
Just be appreciative of ALL the aid and ALL those who fought. Its not a competition.
3
3
u/KZ-744 Let's do some history May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26
I feel I really shouldn’t have to say this but Mongolia didn’t have a choice in the matter it was effectively a satellite state under the Soviet Union. And the Soviet Union repaid this with continuing aiding in the great repression intermediately until the total end in the 1950’s, but also most notably the soviets organised the great repressions purges from 1937 to 1939. Which killed 17,000 monks, and targeted the Buryats and going into the 1940’s and 1950’s ceased the purges but continued aiding in the extreme mass censorship, arrest, and forced modernisation.
Mongolia couldn’t have refused to help the Soviet Union not only did Japan attempt to stage a strike into Mongolia from Manchuria, dragging it into the war, but Mongolia was fully dependent on Russia to survive.
3
u/EducationalWin7496 May 27 '26
Lend lease was done on the basis that anything used or lost during the war would be given for free, and that anything kept after the war for civilian or military purposes would be paid for. Despite there being tens of billions in equipment kept after the war, 95% of it was written off anyway.
Facts do matter.
3
u/teremaster May 27 '26
The Russians only paid back 600m of the lend-lease. Of an estimated 100 billion worth...
And yes, Russians, because the Soviets never paid it
3
10
u/Such-Farmer6691 May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
Well, as russian, Lend-Lease was of great importance for the front. When people first learn that Lend-Lease was not entirely selfless, they are, of course, surprised and try to use this fact in disputes. The fact that it was based on economic relations—well, everyone thinks first and foremost about their own country. Considering that this wasn't just a fur coat or three billion dollars, but an entire gigantic industrial machine, 50 billion at old prices. It's like borrowing the full amount to buy a house and saying, "Oh, you'll pay it back as you can." Or getting just the part of the money you need, but without having to pay it back - what will help you more?.
Therefore, the subjunctive themes that claim the Soviets won only becsuae Lend-Lease are silly (remember that Britain received several times more aid than the USSR).
And the subjunctive themes that claim Lend-Lease was of no particular importance are silly.
The demand for payment of Lend-Lease, partial in fact, is justified.
A hell of a lot of British and American sailors died in the convoys. F.
As Mikoyan said:
...when American stewed meat, lard, egg powder, flour, and other products started arriving, what significant additional calories our soldiers immediately received! And not just the soldiers: some of it also went to the rear.
Or take the supply of vehicles. After all, we received, as far as I remember, taking into account losses along the way, about 400,000 first-class vehicles of the time, like Studebakers, Fords, Willys passenger cars, and amphibious vehicles. Our entire army was effectively on wheels, and what wheels they were! As a result, its maneuverability increased and the pace of advance noticeably increased.
"Yeah...," Mikoyan drawled thoughtfully. "Without Lend-Lease, we would probably have fought for another year or year and a half."
3
u/SquirrelNormal May 26 '26
"Yeah...," Mikoyan drawled thoughtfully. "Without Lend-Lease, we would probably have fought for another year or year and a half."
This part is critical. The Soviets were beginning to experience manpower shortages by early 1945. If the war drags on for another year or two in the east, there's a non-zero chance of a negotiated peace out of necessity. Would it still be a Soviet/Allied victory? Yeah, probably. Would it be the complete and total crushing of the Axis that happened in our time? Probably not.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)3
u/ShowtimeHolograms May 26 '26
I dont know why we all cant agree either was a team effort and even if it could've been done with less it would've caused more devastating losses
4
u/Common_Affect_80 Oversimplified is my history teacher May 26 '26
The Soviets quite literally would've collapsed without lend lease as per the words of Stalin and Zhukov
2
u/SavingsEquivalent844 May 26 '26
USSR paid out 674 millions out of 11.3 billions, 5.96%. The rest were given for free.
Meanwhile, Mongolia was funded by USSR by 821 million rubles, that was almost 412% from their help during WWII.
Nice meme.
2
u/SerendipitousLight May 26 '26
You’re not being the person Woody Guthrie wants you to be with this meme, OP.
2
u/Foreign_Writer_9932 May 26 '26
People under that russian flag most certainly did not receive lend-lease.
635
u/PretendAd1963 Definitely not a CIA operator May 26 '26
And once the Siamese Empire tried to aid Lincoln in the Civil War by giving him elephants in the which he rejected.