Talk:Lend-Lease

message: The book 1940: Myth & Reality by Clive Ponting suggests that the numbering of the bill (HR 1776) was deliberately meant as an affront to the British.  Anyone confirm that? Cromis 00:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is supported by the US gov: https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/exhibitions/artifact/hr-1776-bill-further-promote-defense-united-states-january-10-1941194.207.86.26 (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what your link/source actually, and only, states: The bill was assigned the number “H.R. 1776,” linking it with the American Revolution. 50.111.50.240 (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: 1776...

message: One thing that is exceptionally nagging here...is whether the United States asked the Soviets to pay them back?  I mean OVER ONE BILLION Dollars in machines and equipment is an excessive amount of money especially during the Second World War when the international economy had just barely recovered from the Great Depression.  Did the Soviets ever pay back the US?  I don't thik they would considering what went on during the cold war, but I think its an exceptionally important question that doesn't seem to be answered, although it is obviously hinted at.--Persianlor
::: I suspect the Soviet (and perhaps now Russian, Ukrainian etc) response might be something along the lines of reminding the rest of us how many casualties they took when they were fighting virtually alone in 1941-43. Also, this 'aid' was very much in the interests of the USA. The huge economic demand for heavy industrial output is precisely what ended the great depression....so this was a boon to the USA. DMorpheus 17:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was always understood there would be no repayments for Soviet goods. Note that Britain also supplied large amounts of munitions to Russia free. Rjensen 15:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, according to my source, the opposite was true, and the Soviet Union worked out a payment agreement with the United States in 1972. My source is the Columbia Encyclopedia.--Ggbroad 15:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So did the Soviets pay back the US back after the war?Seansmccullough (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes slowly, though they made a large final settlement in the 70's when they needed to import food from the West due to a famine. WatcherZero (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Important Question

message: The introduction and the article state that Lend-Lease ended on 1945-09-02.  The introduction states that this date was V-J Day, but the V-J Day article clearly states that V-J Day was 1945-08-15, nearly a month earlier.  If Lend-Lease aid was ended "suddenly," as I have read in many places, this date discrepacy needs to be corrected.  When did it end, September 2, or August 15?  An explanation and/or correction needs to be made.  -Iamthealchemist 21:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Correlli Barnett in the The Lost Victory he says: In the event, it was just a week later, on 21 August, that President Truman announced the ending of Lend-Lease. - p. 4. Some websites also claim the same date as the immediate ending of Lend-Lease , , .--Johnbull 22:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the announcement of the ending may not be the actual ending.  For example, items which were already in transit may have been delivered a few days later.  I changed the text of the article from ending "on" VJ day to "soon after". StuRat 19:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point and thanks.  I think this clears the issue up, and the article reads much better with the revision.  I was originally drawn to this issue when I was trying to find a date for the announcement of the end of Lend-Lease because the history text I had on hand (Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, Comprehensive vol. 5th ed., Thomson/Wadsworth Learning, 2003.) states, "From the perspective of the Soviets, the United States' termination of Lend-Lease aid before the war was over and its failure to respond to the Soviet request for a $6 billion loan for reconstruction exposed the Western desire to keep the Soviet state weak" (page 798, my emphasis).  Spielvogel cites this as one reason for the deterioration of Western/Soviet relations leading to the Cold War.  The date was omitted in the text (which I am finding could be because the text is erroneous), even though the date would have indicated much about the decision.  Coming after the war had ended, the decision did not necssary carry a negative message, as Spielvogel seems to argue.  Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? -Iamthealchemist 20:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a real stretch to call not getting free stuff from the US as an "act of aggression". StuRat 04:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Date Discrepancy

message: The fact tag was removed from the 'significance' section on July 15. I am citing David Glantz and Jonathan House, When Titams Clashed, , p. 150. DMorpheus 21:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation of source

message: The article states: "The value of the items to be lent were not to exceed $1,300,000,000 in total. Roosevelt approved US $1 billion in Lend-Lease aid to Britain on 30 October 1941."  And yet the total value reached $50 billion. Moreover, according to my source (Kennedy's "Freedom From Fear" p. 474) Congress appropriated $7 billion for aid to Britain initially.--Ggbroad 15:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion about some figures

message: The article states: "During the war Britain did lease some small naval bases to the U.S., hence the "lease" terminology."  I do not believe this is correct - the act was not called "Lend-Lease" because Congress predicted some future lease of British bases, it was because under its terms military equipment would be leased to the UK and other Allies. Ggbroad 19:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Lease terminology"

message: I added a link to the lend lease Acts that are over on Wikisource.
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 02:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WIKISOURCE LINK

message: The article gives two values on the discount given on the sale of goods in transit.  In the section Finances, it says:
(Supplies after that date were sold to Britain at a 75% discount, or $650 million, using long-term loans from the U.S.)
and in the section Repayment, it says:
These items were sold to Britain for about 10 cents on the dollar with payment to be stretched out over 50 years at 2% interest,
Which is correct?  In addition, the actual size of the loan/debt is stated by Hansard to be £1,075 million, which doesn't agree with the statement in the Finance section of $650 million. By the way, I've re-added the Hansard quotations back in, as they are good primary sources. WLDtalk|edits 15:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As of 2007-03-28 the article is still inconsistent.  Hansard is pretty much a primary source, so should be correct: the figures given elsewhere do not appear to have solid sources and should probably be amended or removed. WLDtalk|edits 09:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the question is whether all the details about the repayment are especially important in dealing with a WW2 program. A couple sentences should cover this--without worrying about the day of the week the cheque was written. Rjensen 09:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your view of what should be in the article.  It is not necessarily shared by everyone. Note that the issue remains - the precise size of the debt is not clear from the article, and that at least should be accurately portrayed, which is currently not the case.  The quotations from Hansard (the document of record for British Parliamentary proceedings) give a solid source for both the size of the debt and the repayment terms, which are not detailed elsewhere, and which have been subject to considerable misunderstanding and misapprehension.  Remember that Wikipedia is not paper (please read that essay).  Rather than deleting well-sourced text, there's a good case to be made that perhaps it should be moved into a separate, more detailed article.  My view, which is different to yours (obviously) is that the additional detail on the loan should be in this article. I see no case for deleting it, and a possible argument for inclusion in a separate article. It would be useful if you would quote an excerpt from Kindleberger showing the figures, and possibly determine Kindleberger's sources. WLDtalk|edits 10:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If the issue is so important put it in a separate article. Wiki editors have to make judgments about the balance of treatment in an article: what is the optimum balance for users? Normally we do not use long excerpts from Hansard --we just summarize them and link. A separate article is the easiest solution.  Mty point is that this was tidying up after the Lend Lease program ended.--it's basically a different issue.  Rjensen 10:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your judgement and mine are different.  Getting the facts right as to the size of the debt is important for the article's credibility, and having the two values of: '75% discount' and 'about 10 cents on the dollar' is not acceptable.  The Hansard quotations are a good way of providing an attested overview of the repayment terms, which were, and are the subject of great confusion.  Repeatedly deleting well-sourced text is not a good way of improving articles.  I have refrained from deleting text that is not well sourced in the hope that it will either be improved or properly sourced. From the context given in the article, it appears that Kindleberger is incorrect, and that needs sorting out. I'll request again that you excerpt the relevant passage from Kindleberger - not necessarily in the article, the talk page is fine, and we can investigate and resolve the discrepency. WLDtalk|edits 10:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What was the precise discount and amount of the loan/debt?

message: "For example, the USSR was highly dependent on trains, yet the desperate need to produce weapons meant that fewer than 20 new locomotives were produced in the USSR during the entire war." Well, that´s the biggest nonsense I´ve ever read. Germany built more than 6,000 type 52 locos between 42 and 45 and the much larger USSR can get anlong with just 2,000 new locos? In a war that results in the loss of much rolling stock and causes god-knows-how-much additional traffic? I don´t know how this number got in the article, but it´s just absurd. Markus Becker02 19:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: R.J. Overy's Russia's War states that Soviet output of locomotives was "just 92" (p197).  I think we should find an additional scholarly source and then correct the figure. So, 20 appears to be wrong. But it's not that wrong.--Ggbroad 14:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand that you beieve, intuitively, that it's absurd that only 92 locomotives were produced in the Soviet Union during the Second World War. I think, however, that you may be seriously underestimating the damage the war inflicted on Soviet industry and the extent to which the Soviets relied on Lend-Lease for certain kinds of aid. In any case, I've cited a source by a very highly esteemed historian of the Second World War who has said that only 92 were produced and, moreover, his source is a Russian one: B. Sokolov's "Lend Lease in Soviet Military Efforts" which appeared in the Journal of Slavic Military Studies in 1994. I've changed the article to say 92. Before the figure is removed, it is - according to Wikipedia rules - up to you to provide a reliable source countering those claims.--Ggbroad 19:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to follow up on my own comments above, I just checked John Barber and Mark Harrison's excellent The Soviet Home Front 1941-1945. Harrison is certainly the top English-language scholar of the Soviet economy. Anyway, Barber and Harrison don't mention locomotive production specifically, but they do mention that "daily shipments of railway freight fell to one-third of prewar level." (p185). So, more and more the picture adds up. --Ggbroad 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just sent some email to a few russian universities. Let´s see if they come up with something. Markus Becker02 20:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Then please add those figures, but please do not remove cited facts that help place the info in perspective. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Much of the Soviet Union's industrial plant, which was mostly in Eastern Russia, was over-run by Germany in 1941-42. This was why Britain sent supplies at that time, as almost all of the Soviet Union's industrial capacity had been captured or destroyed, or was in the process of being removed by the Soviets and transferred further east.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: locomotives

message: Although the U.S. would like the Lend lease plan to be considered the benevolent act of a concerned friend of Britain, in reality it was a shrewd business deal that was designed purely for the defence of the U.S. In the years leading to the war, and even more so in the early stages of the war, Britain was virtually transferring all her accumulated wealth, dollars and gold to the U.S. because of its need for machinery ,tools, etc. which the British could not produce themselves, either quickly or in sufficient quantities. The U.S made no attempt to alleviate Britain's difficulties and in fact saw it as a golden opportunity to humble British power. 
When Britain was down to her last few million dollars (and because owing to previous agreements forced on her by the U.S. regarding the quantity and type of naval ships Britain could produce, Britain was extremely short of warships), the U.S. government offered her 50 outdated, mothballed ships. In return for this "generosity" she demanded territory from Britain that would be very useful to her. The U.S. knew that Britain was desparate but this didn't stop her trying to "screw" every last cent out of her. Britain managed to save some face by offering the territory for U.S. use if she she wanted to do so. Under the terms of Lend Lease Britain was not allowed to export any similar item to those goods that comprised any part of the lease plan. American inspectors were based in Britain to carefully scrutinise this arrangement. No such restrictions were placed on the soviets. It was better for America to arm British and Empire troops to fight than to send American boys to their deaths in a European war. 
Thus Britain became a warrior satelite of the U.S., her power and influence effectively destroyed forever, somethig which satisfied a long-held ambition of the U.S. Britain mistakenly believed the U.S. shared feelings of kinship with her when in reality the U.S. merely saw her as a rival to be bested whenever possible. The U.S. emerged from WW2 immensly wealthier and more powerful whereas Britain was permanently broken and reliant on American goodwill, which after the war was not in great abundance toward her.≈≈≈≈81.145.240.81 00:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see somebody's been reading Correlli Barnett. :)--Johnbull (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we can analyze states within the framework of competition and selfishness.  It's not really something to get passionate about, however. 70.144.90.132 (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An impartial observer might instead conclude that the British rather cleverly arranged for the cost of policing the world to be transferred from her own Empire's taxpayers to the US taxpayer, apparently without any of the latter, or their government, noticing it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.42 (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Lend Lease - A Final Nail in Britain's Coffin

message: Just a naive thought: As the UK's Lend Lease debt was solely incurred to fight German tyranny, should the repayment of this debt ultimately be borne by Germany?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.132.223 (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they tried that after World War I.  It didn't quite work out too well. --71.172.37.93 (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't make it a bad idea, just an unsuccessful one. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ethically yes, probably, but they never will. Harland1 (t/c) 16:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the premise of the question.Historian932 (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Germany's Moral Liability for Repayment

message: The Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act article has the following intriguing statement "By March 1956, it was being said in Washington, D.C. that the amount of correspondence on the bill exceeded anything seen since the previous high-water mark of public controversy, the Lend-Lease Act of 1941".  This controversy does not seem to be discussed here, which seems an omission. 84.92.241.186 (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposition in US?

message: This article states in the introduction that the British gave the USA bases in return for lend lease, however in the main body of the article it says this was actually the earlier, separate Destroyers for Bases deal.  One of these statements (the introduction or the main body) is wrong it seems. I'm pretty sure it is the introduction. --Shimbo (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lend Lease versus Destroyers for Bases Deal

message: Why has the detailed table of US deliveries to the USSR been removed? It's still present in the Russian article, for example.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.59.81.56 (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Quantities of goods delivered to Soviet Union

message: 'This program is not seen as a decisive step away from American non-interventionism since the end of World War I and towards international involvement'. Is this really meant to be in the negative? I would have thought that it would be seen as a decisive step. Harland1 (t/c) 16:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro sentence

message: The article claims that the dollars are 14 more than in 1945.I don't agree.Then a brent of oil had price low than US$1 and an onze of gold had a price of less than US$40.Today a brent of oil costs more than US$130 and an onze of gold is more than US$1,200.We must also remember that gas, diesel oil,etc. were under then under rationing in United States.Land-lease gave more than 395,000 trucks to former Soviet Union, between 1941 and 1945.The american help for England, former Soviet Union would be to hundreds of billions of dollars in today's money. Agre22 (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Far more money for today's dollar

message: The main article states "A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to nearly $700 billion at 2007 prices) worth of supplies were shipped"... Is it known how these billions were financed? Who gave the money to pay the bills?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.227.128.90 (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The American tax payer paid for the items ordered under Lend-Lease. 73.151.157.60 (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

text: It wasn't in cash, it was the cash value of the supplies given. As it was in the posession of the United States Federal Government before it was transferred to countries through Lend-Lease, then it can be safely assumed that the money through with the US government acquired said supplies would be through US taxpayer dollars. Also, it's "paid," not "payed." Nottheking (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Who payed the bill?

message: The statement "Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built." is completely false.   USSR even during the war built more trucks itself than it got from LL.   It also ignores the more than a million trucks it started the war with as well as the thousands it captured from the Germans.   The correct phrasing should be that nearly 2/3s out of trucks at the frontlines were U.S.-built.   This was because they were newer models which made them better able to handle offroad or poor roads as well as being a bit more reliable overall.   Away from the frontlines however USSR had 4-5 times as many trucks again as in the frontline and those were almost entirely not LL models.
217.208.225.55 (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Trucks

message: Isn't it a little overdramatic to state that:
"Hitler recognized this and consequently had his submarines attack US ships such as the SS Robin Moor, an unarmed merchant steamship destroyed by a German U-boat on 21 May, 1941 outside of the war zone."
Is there any direct evidence that Hitler himself personally ordered a change in policy? (as opposed to, for example, a simple case of misidentification by the submerged u-boat? If this really was a sea-change in policy [no pun intended] there would have dozens if not hundreds of such incidents throughout 1941 i would think, based on the number of transport ships and German submarines in the Atlantic. Also the fact that this attack was predated by an American destroyer on a German submarine calls this narrative into question (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_American_shots_fired_in_World_War_II):
"The first time Americans engaged in hostile action after September 1, 1939 was on April 10, 1941, when the destroyer USS Niblack attacked a German U-boat that had just sunk a Dutch freighter. The Niblack was picking up survivors of the freighter when it detected the U-boat preparing to attack. The Niblack attacked with depth charges and drove off the U-boat. There were no casualties onboard the Niblack or the U-boat."
Iow, at least one German u-boat had already been attacked by a U.S. warship. Does this automatically mean that FDR ordered his navy to wage war on Germany?Historian932 (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy really changed by Hitler?

message: This is an article about Lend Lease --it is not the place for speculation about World War II.  in particular it is not the place for bad history -- such claims as "the people of Great Britain were alone in their struggle against Nazi Germany."  That of course is false, as the people of Canada, Australia and other dominions were in the war against Germany too.  Industry in the United States was supplying the British war effort.  The problem by early 1941 was that the British were running out of money to pay for their war supplies, something had to be done on the financial side.  Canada in fact gave a gift of $1,000,000,000.  The United States set up a financial program--Lend lease--to continue the shipment of war supplies that had already begun, along with other arrangements such as destroyers-for-bases, the provided war supplies without the use of British money. Rjensen (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor background history

message: Nothing I have presented in the Historical Background section can be accurately termed "speculation." It is a fact that the Luftwaffe bombed London and other English cities. It is also a fact that the RAF was credited by Churchill as the only thing that held off a German invasion. The Churchill quote is factual as well. It is also a fact that President Roosevelt and most Americans were sympathetic to the British. This is hardly speculation so I don't see how it can be cast as "bad  history." It is true that I originally erred in not including the fact that the Commonwealth nations were assisting the British but it is also true that Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc., were not being bombed by the Luftwaffe. That is what I meant by "struggling alone."
ColonelDavy (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: it is a fact that Lend lease came long after the Battle of Britain was won and had little to do with it, so we drop that stuff.  to include it would falsely suggest that LL was a response to that.  It was not.  It was a response to the British financial difficulties.  At the time of the Blitz, the Americans were selling large quantities of war supplies to the British.  it is bad Wikipedia policy to make these long-winded assertions with no reliable sources.  It is bad history to not mention the isolationist movement in the United States.  it is biased history to present the history of the lend lease solely from the perspective of London in 1940, rather than London and Washington (and Berlin and Ottawa) in 1941.Rjensen (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur and agree that the earlier edits emphasize the British background, in contravenance of WP:WEIGHT. The introduction of a different citation and referencing system also needs attention.  FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia rules require reliance on secondary sources -- reliable sources of bound by serious scholars.  None of them have been used by ColonelDavy. He did not look at any books in American history.  LL was a financial program, that enabled American factories to continue to sell their production to Britain after that country was virtually broke and could no longer pay for its urgent needs.  American business was already selling war supplies during the blitz-- and supposed sympathy for the hard-pressed victims of the German air assault played a very minor role in the decisions of corporations and banks to fund the shipment of war supplies. Rjensen (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

text: You have to understand that writing an encyclopedic article can't be written in a "pop" style; stick to connected, supported statements. The idea that Britain was being pounded by Luftwaffe attacks, subjected to a U-boat campaign and that it stood alone against the Nazi hordes, is just not factually correct and smacks of sensationalism. I have to agree with Rjensen in his concerns that the paragraph has to be revised. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is saying that the details of the bombing or U-boat war are not factually correct, it's just that adding the obvious is unnecessary. BTW, 10 books, hundreds of academic articles published, editor of a magazine on the subject of aviation, 17 films and the appointment as an Air Force Historian, your credentials again? FWiW, don't throw around accusations, you are already in breach of WP:CIVIL. Bzuk (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

text: How specific do you want to go, the Luftwaffe undertook an extensive bombing campaign of British capital cities that essentially ended in September 1940, followed by interdictor raids in the months following and leading up to the V-1/V-2 "terror" campaigns. Using the terminology of "pounded" was the contentious issue. Britain and other nations including Canada and the United States were the targets of the U-boat "wolf packs" on the high seas, although the intention as you stated was to starve the United Kingdom by denying needed supplies by seagoing vessels. Stating that Britain was essentially alone is fine but it was not the only combatant nation facing Nazi Germany in 1940–1941 as many other occupied nations continued with governments-in-exile. Introducing the old canard of "only a question" is tantamount of an accusation and how did the holocaust became entangled in any of these discussions? Both Professor Jensen and I have not made any accusations and had been tacitly undertaking a discourse, outlining concerns of content as much as style. You applied the WP:BOLD stratagem, received some criticism, wherein the WP:BRD was invoked. The article did not suffer from a review nor attention by three interested parties and if you take your leave, bear in mind, I bear you no ill will. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Having read through the Lend-Lease article and talk page to inform myself on a subject about which I had no detailed knowledge, I hesitate to intrude in this rather hotly argued section, but I was puzzled by Bzuk's assertion above that "(the) bombing campaign of British cities essentially ended in September 1940". The German bombing up to that point was essentially a daylight campaign against RAF Fighter Command's airfields in an attempt to neutralise FC before the planned invasion of Britain. When German losses became too great, they switched to first daylight then night terror/strategic bombing of cities throughout the United Kingdom, this finally tailing off by June 1941. It is true that to say that Britain did not stand alone while supported by other British Empire countries, but the British homeland did bear the brunt of German attacks until the Germans turned their attentions to the Mediterranean area and to the USSR.Mabzilla (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts, Not Speculation or Bad History 

message: Surely the technological advances made by British scientists and offered to the United States by the Tizard Mission in exchange for financial and industrial help deserve a mention? For instance, the official historian of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, James Phinney Baxter III, wrote: "When the members of the Tizard Mission brought the cavity magnetron to America in 1940, they carried the most valuable cargo ever brought to our shores." Yet apparently none of this intellectual property counted against the British debt to the USA.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabzilla (talk • contribs) 01:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The British gave the US the information for nothing while the war was on-going, no fees for using the information or patents was payable. Once the war had ended such fees then became payable for further US use from that point on.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

text: The Tizard Mission has nothing to do with Lend-Lease 73.151.157.60 (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Tizard Mission 

message: I think the lede may need a little clarification. Given that France was under Axis occupation/Vichy control at the time of the start of lend-lease, our lede seems somewhat confusing. Was lend-lease matériel delivered to free-French forces, or was it delivered to France after liberation, or both? Perhaps someone with access to the relevant sources and/or the knowledge to find them can clear this up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, it was Free France and I changed it. Rjensen (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Shipped to France" 

message: Finding it surprising the end of this lend lease program is not included. I've seen references to its sudden end (by Truman) yet not the reasons / background for the end. If it's provided elsewhere, perhaps reference to that location at least could be added? Meanom (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Termination 

message: it is posible to add here how much lend-lease was recived by usssr, not only shiped from us ports ? type by type (tanks, fuel..etc) and how much % of domestic usssr production it was ? it will be greatly helpfull.
2A00:1028:9198:E50E:CD7D:9F51:38F8:5A24 (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  more detailed info pls, if posible. 

message: What's heavy-handed pov like? try our newest editor: Effectively the United States sucked the British of it their wealth, effectively the US was profiteering off the war.   He cites two sources on how Britain shipped its gold to Canada --the fear was German invasion.  Some gold was used -- during the war gold reserves fell by £152 million but at the end of the war most of the gold was still there in Canada and was shipped back. The British in 1939-41 (before lend lease) bought mostly food and oil from US, Canada, Argentina, etc etc. The articles cited are useless for that. The editor needs to read Hancock and Gowing, British War Economy esp 101-35 on "cash and carry" and p 352 on gold movements.  The main reason UK ran out of money is that its exports collapsed--to near zero for Europe. Its factories produced munitions for British use and NOT for sale, plus items needed at home.  This was done by stropping production of export products in order to make airplanes and shells etc. Rjensen (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The addition is WP:WEASEL, WP:POV, WP:SOAPBOX editorialising, and I'm not convinced of the quality of most of the sources used. The editor trying to introduce it needs to respect WP:BRD and engage here, not edit war. (Hohum @) 14:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't support the addition but there is a kernel of truth in it, so much gold was accumulated in the US that other countries didn't have enough national stockpiles to underwrite their own currencies, the Dollar essentially became the new gold standard after WW2 and was formalised as the "gold exchange standard" by the Bretton Woods treaty at $35 per ounce, this continued up until the start of the 70's when France cashed out its Dollars for Gold and the US was bankrupted by Vietnam, the US was too financially strained to maintain the standard which was dropped to $38 in 1971 by the Smithsonian Agreement and again to $42.22 in 1973, within two weeks of this final devaluation of the Dollar the US crashed out of the standard. WatcherZero (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  heavy handed POV that says zero about Lend lease 

message: As one Roosevelt biographer has characterized it: "If there was no practical alternative, there was certainly no moral one either. Britain and the Commonwealth were carrying the battle for all civilization, and the overwhelming majority of Americans, led in the late election by their president, wished to help them."[9] As the President himself put it, "There can be no reasoning with incendiary bombs."[10]
This section to me rather sounds like the person who wrote it stating their personal argument why they think lend lease was good. It doesn't seem very factual. Secondly it also contradicts the previous part that says the american public was against intervention. Personally I'm just a guest here so I leave it to you people to decide whether or not to make any change to it.2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:1821:BEC4:CC4A:91C1 (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal opinion 

message: This keeps being added. The editor immediately reverts its removal and doesn't appear to want to take it to talk, so I will.
This is incoherent:
It starts by saying the supplies had a positive value, then said it wasn't significant, and then becomes incomprehensible "as, however, and in the subsequent". "It was obvious to the direct participants events" (Hohum @) 15:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The fundamental point of all of his edits is not wrong as Lend-Lease was useful, but not vital in the winter of 1941-1942, but some of his stats are skewed to make the US look bad overall. His material badly needs to be rewritten to remove the incoherency and properly cite the material that he's referencing. Citing all 12 volumes of a book really isn't helpful. I haven't looked over the whole article, but there are some second-order effects that the Soviets are really reluctant to acknowledge, AFAIK, like the fact that they were able to focus their economy on weapon production because Lend-Lease supplied their economy with the trucks, locomotives and other things that the economy simply needed to run. Not to mention that Western supply of foodstuffs allowed them to transfer men from agriculture to the Red Army.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I can't even figure out what he's trying to say in the incomprehensible parts, I can't rewrite them. Any knowledgeable volunteers? Also, he's gone way beyond WP:3RR. (Hohum @) 19:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  it’s , a “minor” point. Restoring controversial material, even by reversion and editing, is never a “minor edit”, so perhaps cleanup based on it not should be labeled as such, either? I think that can slide through some watchlist settings. Next, and aimed generally, or rather at the IP editor who has written and repeated restored his work, there are several problems with the restored material, all mentioned or alluded to here, in the edit summaries, or elsewhere. To mention a few:It’s original research, at least in Wikipedia’s use of the term. This reflects one person’s judgement about what the centerline consensus of Russian historians is, using a single cite as an example. It needs either a decent cite that explicitly states this, or a group of examples, preferably laced with a weighted sprinkling of counterexamples.Amateur translations, as continually restored here, aren’t useful cites, especially when the translator’s English skills are so...so “much what they are” might be a charitable way to describe ‘em. At a certain point, a bad translation also becomes first publication, i.e. what Wikipedia calls Original Research.  Perhaps some of the other difficulties stem partly from this.<P>The reasons for not delevering heavy bombers as lend-lease were neither obvious nor as stated by the IP. There was a fundamental difference in bombing doctrine between the Western allies and the Eastern. The US wasn’t giving up any of what it viewed as essential materiel it was in short supply of to be used in a sideshow elsewhere. Qwirkle (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The IPs additions seems indeed questionable, he/she also revealed a strong point of view, considerable obtuseness and insistence on being right. The edit warrings here and on the article of Napoleon III speak for themselves. Dircovic (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incoherent addition. 

message: [copy ex https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hohum&action=edit§ion=151
Hello,
I tried to undone the IPs contribution, as they are based on fringe theories but without sucess. The IP pretends to claim that the statements come from the book 'The Great Patriotic War of 1941-45' Vol. 2. (pdf link) but that's not true. (just check the cite to p. 358) Most of the statements in fact come 1:1 from this article: https://ukraina.ru/pobeda/20150507/1012991229.html written by Evgeny Spitsyn, a die-hard Stalin apologist and revisionist. 
According to historian Irina Pavlova, Spitsyn’s article is "a symbol of present-day Russian historiography of World War II and a symbol of the return to the Stalinist interpretation" in the most extreme way. In it, the writer repeats "all the myths about Stalin as the main peacemaker and supporter of collective security in the 1930s." link: http://euromaidanpress.com/2017/05/08/moscow-completely-restores-and-promotes-stalinist-conception-of-ww2-pavlova-says-euromaidan-press/ 2A02:1206:4589:3F40:D1B8:DBF3:4E0E:9001 (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  fringe theories 

message: Nonsense in opinions about the ‎significance of Lend-Lease. From the opinions it can be concluded that the question of the ‎significance of lend-lease today is considered almost only as a question of the significance of lend-lease for the USSR. But!!!!!!!! Why only for USSR????? And this despite the fact that the USSR was not in the first place in terms of American aid. According to data of supplies, the UK was in first place, and the USSR - only in second, and in terms of aid-the UK 3 times (!!!!!!!!!!) surpasses the Soviet Union. At the same time, Britain is 3 times smaller than the USSR in population. But the opinion of the extreme importance of lend-lease for the USSR dominates here, and first of all, Russian sources are quoted, fully supporting this point of view. All this, generally speaking, requires consideration. It is impossible to deny the influence of the past and present political situation in the world on the opinion of people on this issue. In the end, it's just stupid. :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Россиянин2019 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense in opinions about the ‎significance of Lend-Lease. 

message: I hope that visitors here will be more tolerant of another opinion and will not be inclined to impose their opinion and ignore the opinion that they do not like and to quote only those sources that are "beneficial" to them and not to quote those sources that are "not beneficial" to them. I have no intention to impose my opinion and only want to bring information that there are different opinions in Russia. Including about lend-lease assistance. To understand the essence of the issue, you need a balance of opinions, you need to listen to the opinions of the other side.
I do not propose to erase the opinion that lend-lease was of exceptional importance for the USSR. No, I suggest adding the following:
This point of view (the exceptional importance of lend-lease for the USSR) is not generally accepted among Russian historians. There is also the point of view that the supply of military equipment and materials from the United States and Britain played a major role in the second half of the war and brought victory much closer. But before the situation of the turning point in the war, before the victory at Stalingrad, the US and UK supplies were limited. This was largely due to the difficult situation in the UK, exhausted by the blockade, as well as the fact that US military production in 1941-42 was in the process of deployment. Such a point of view is stated, for example, in the collection of works of Russian historians (The Great Patriotic war of 1941-45. In 12 volumes. 2012 edition): "In the struggle against the common enemy, the allies assisted the Soviet Union. The coalition was finally formed by the summer of 1942. The economies of US and Britain were increasingly rebuilt in a military way. It was delivered more than 2.5 thousand aircraft, 3 thousand tanks, about 79 thousand cars, radio equipment, hydroacoustic devices, gasoline, food, footwear and so on in 1942 on lend-lease in USSR . However, "by the end of 1942, the agreed program of deliveries to the USSR were made by the Americans and the British by 55%. In 1941-1942, the USSR received only 7% of cargo shipped during the war from the USA. The main number of weapons and other the materials were received by the Soviet Union in 1944-1945 " Великая Отечественная война 1941-45 г. В 12 томах. Москва. Кучково поле. 2012. Toм 3, стр.358. The Great Patriotic war of 1941-45. In 12 volumes (2012 edition). Moscow. Kuchkovo pole. Vol.3, p.358.
   
In his 1944 book, Stettinius (Secretary of State under Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt) wrote: "The role of arms supplies to the Red Army, the role of lend-lease during the battles with Germany in the summer of 1941 is difficult to assess correctly. If we talk about the shortage in Russia of specific military materials and equipment, such as trucks or phones, lend-lease played an important role here. But in general, the volume of military materials supplied by us is not too large. We know that American technology served a good purpose in the defense of Stalingrad. But frankly, we have no detailed information about the benefits that brought in that year, our weapons to the Russians. In 1942, the Russians and we were just learning to work together as allies, and it would be foolish to pretend that our relations with Russia from the very beginning were as friendly and frankly as with England and China" (China under the political regime of Chiang Kai-shek)Стеттиниус Э. Ленд-лиз — оружие победы. — М.: Вече, 2000. стр.206/Stettinius E.R. Jr. Lend-Lease: Weapon For Victory. — New York: Macmillan Co.; 1944. p.206/.
 
Россиянин2019 (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally its a pretty revisionist viewpoint, you have all the Soviet Leaders immediately after the war saying how it saved their country and it wouldn't have survived without it and issuing telegrams of thanks and commendations to allies. Then as the Cold War goes on that becomes increasingly censored with references to foreign weapons removed from memoirs and downplayed and then by the height of the cold war you have historians arguing that it had no effect and trying to demonstrate through incorrect and partial data that the materials only arrived in significant numbers after the tide had turned (when in Reality 25% of Medium and Heavy tanks added to the Soviet army during 1941 were from Britain and by the Battle of Moscow 40% of medium and heavy tanks in Soviet service were Lend-Lease tanks). 
This a-historical viewpoint is then revived after the 90's when pushing the nostalgic and rose tinted "life was better in the Soviet Union" and "Stalin was a great economic boon for Russia" a viewpoint that was significantly debunked by Soviet Historians by the 80's.  WatcherZero (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

text: At the start of the invasion the Soviet army outnumbered the Germans 3 to 1, it was never an issue of quantity but the Soviet failure to bring their own forces to bear in resistance, even still on the frontline during the first months of the invasion the Soviets had the numerical superiority, the Germans had 3.8m men and around 2,500 tanks and 3,000 aircraft while the Soviets had 2.9m men, 11,000 tanks and 8,000 aircraft. WatcherZero (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance of Lend-Lease. View from Russia. 

message: Lend-lease for the USSR in the first year of the Great Patriotic war: features, problems, results 
The text of the scientific article on the specialty " History of Russia»
Komarkov Alexander Yurievich
Journal «Society. Nature. Development (Terra Humana)». 2012. N.1(22)
Was the USSR in need of lend-lease supplies at 1941-1942? 
Doubtless he did. However, the number of received weapons, materials and equipment could not satisfy the enormous demands of the red army and Soviet industry. Data on the supply of Anglo-American equipment, even taking into account the indicators for November 1942, do not go to any comparison with the production of domestic samples in the same time. For the period from July 1941 to the end of 1942 in the Soviet Union was produced 29200  tanks and 29900 aircraft without taking into account the available in troops to the beginning of the war Вторая мировая война: итоги и уроки / П.А. Жилин, С.А. Тюшкевич, Н.Г. Андроников и др. - М.:Воениздат, 1985. - 447 с., с. 229\World war II: results and lessons / P. A. Zhilin, S. A. Tyushkevich, N. G. Andronikov et al.:Military publishing, 1985. - 447 PP., p.229. The share of allied supplies in the total tank and aviation fleet of the Red Army, thus, amounted to 14% and 10%, respectively (…). A similar situation was observed with vehicles. 48000 trucks and jeeps received by the USSR on lend-lease by November 1942 correlate with the total number already available in the army by June 22, mobilized from national economy during the first 18 months of the war and produced for 1941-1942 597000 Soviet cars as 1:12 (calculated by the author). It can be said that the supply of arms from the United States and Britain in the period did not play the important role (…).
On the other hand, from the United States alone, goods weighing 1389000 tons were delivered, where finished equipment, weapons and ammunition amounted to only 279000 tons. the rest fell on food (320000 tons), metals, products of the chemical and oil industry (763000 tons). These materials contributed to the deployment of Soviet production in the evacuated factories more actively than the supply of equipment manufactured abroad contributed to the success of the Red army in the crucial battle for Moscow. Supply of allies in 1941-1942. gave opportunity compensate for lack of or the absence of series of needed for Soviet military production species products and raw materials. Among them, American supplies of steel, copper, aluminum, telephone cable, leather, shoes for the army Поздеева Л.В. Советский Союз: Феникс // Союзники в войне, 1941-1945. - М.: Наука, 1995. - с. 196.,c.189/ Pozdeyeva L. V. Soviet Union: Phoenix / / Allies in the war, 1941-1945. - Moscow: Nauka, 1995. - pp. 196.,p. 189.
Analysis of the implementation of the First agreement on economic supply for the "Russian front" allows you to see all the factors that effect the Moscow Protocol (First protocol, signed at Moscow October 2, 1941) was made by the British and Americans to a lesser extent compared to subsequent. Present at first shortcomings of organizational properties were gradually eliminated, and work on the supply of the Red army closer to the second half of the war was adjusted. However, another thing is also true - the implementation of the decisions of the Moscow conference in the autumn of 1941. coincided with the hardest battles of the first period of the Great Patriotic war, which were accompanied by huge losses of the Red army in men and equipment. Following the logic of events, it is necessary to recognize that the Soviet Union, needing at 1941-1942 in the maximum volumes of economic assistance, actually received it in minimal quantities. From this point of view, the version of lend-lease's decisive contribution to the USSR's ability to stop the German blitzkrieg is controversial.
Россиянин2019 (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:   In addition to the topic of the importance of lend-lease. View from Russia 

message: It is necessary to understand the importance of lend-lease not from the point of view of an ordinary person. This person knows about the war in terms of the number of military equipment-tanks, aircraft, guns, well, autocars or food for soldiers. But this is not enough. In addition, the estimates of the percentages distort the whole picture. Because in war, it is not the percentages that matter, but the quantity on the battlefield. In addition, I repeat, the factor of politics and historical memory is already beginning to influence here. That is, actual problems and their own experience. The negative experience of relations in the form of the "cold war"is superimposed here. Russians, therefore, are usually strongly opposed to the meanings that without lend-lease would be a defeat for the USSR. Well, for residents of the United States or Britain - it was the opposite. Therefore, they begin to argue with references to biased and marginal Russian historians, but who completely agree with them. Historical knowledge is necessary to correctly assess the importance of lend-lease. From this point of view I think to give the scientific point of view of an assessment of importance of deliveries for the USSR. Lend-lease deliveries were most important for the manufacturing industry. 
In 1930 years in the USSR were made big mistakes in construction industry production explosives, which are used under production ammunition (above all toluene). Production on the basis of oil products (kerosene),instead of coal, intensively developed. In this connection, the resource base of production was limited. After the defeats of 1941 and the loss of significant territory with coal mining, this simply created a critical situation. Not only the increase in production, but even the maintenance of the achieved level has become impossible. Lend-lease supplies in the production of toluene (materials for explosives) were really critical here and reached 30-50%. Of course, the USSR would not have stopped fighting if it had not received toluene from the United States. This would lead to a decrease in the quality of ammunition (they would dilute the high-explosive substance with salt and so on) and reduce the overall production of ammunition (as the Germans did by 1945). But it would be much harder for Russians to fight, and much easier for Germans on the contrary. For the Germans it was much easier to fight in 1941-1942. Later, no.  
- - - - - - 
Development of explosives production in the USSR in the 1930s of the XX Century and lend-lease deliveries during the Great Patriotic war 
The text of the scientific article on the specialty “History. Historical science”'''
Balysh Andrey Nikolaevich
Bulletin of the peoples ' Friendship University of Russia. Series: History Of Russia. 2012.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Россиянин2019 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Wall of text. This approach is unlikely to be effective. (Hohum @) 15:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The real importance of lend-lease. View from Russia. 

message: There are figures for the Soviet Union but not for Britain.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.98.55.56 (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need information on what materials were sent to Great Britain.  

message: If you want to believe an idiot, I can't stop you from doing it. I'm only interested in one thing that makes you believe an idiot (Sokolov).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.64.26 (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The above was moved here from my talk page. "Weeks 2004" refers to Weeks, Albert L. Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2004. ISBN 978-0-7391-0736-2. The IP needs to familiarize themselves with how sources are often referenced on wikipedia; it is very similar to the method often used in printed texts and I expect most readers easily pick it up. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Lend-Lease 

message: This seems incorrect to me, could someone confirm/correct?
Lend-Lease
A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $565 billion in 2018) worth of supplies was shipped
2601:742:8003:C8B0:8906:A37C:A949:8308 (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think I found a mistake 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I propose that we shorten the section on UK aid to the USSR or split it into it's own page(Anglo-Soviet Military Supplies Agreement) as the agreeement concerns both Lend-Lease goods and goods produced in the UK that are not part of Lend-Lease.Originalcola (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglo-Soviet Military Supplies Agreement 

message: Administratively and procedurally, how did lend-lease functionally work?  FDR was empowered to lend as much money as he wanted and lease military equipment to whomever?  Fephisto (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, the president was authorised to "sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government [whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States] any defense article." So, the Act gave the president almost complete power to spend the funds allocated by Congress to Lend Lease in any way he saw he saw fit. The administration of the aid was done by the Office of Lend-Lease Administration. As the entire US economy was on a war footing, there were few limits other than resource constraints and the fact that the needs of the USA's own forces came first. I think this information is basically in the article already, but I can see that it's not that all that clear. I'm surprised there's not an article about the Office of Lend-Lease Administration. I hope that helps. --Shimbo (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Shimbo, that's the sort of stuff I was going after.  Fephisto (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry for the stupid question, but...how did it actually _work_? 

message: The article claims "On September 20, 1945, all Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union was terminated". However, the USA and USSR then negotiated a "pipeline agreement", signed on 15 October 1945, that resumed the delivery of Lend-Lease already "in the pipeline" for the USSR. This included item in the Forth Protocol that had been made but not yet delivered as well as items that were in the process of being made. This agreement extended delivery of Lend-Lease items into 1946 and should be mentioned in the article. 72.74.109.14 (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete and misleading information 

message: "Joseph Stalin, during the Tehran Conference during 1943, acknowledged publicly the importance of American efforts during a dinner at the conference: "Without American machines the United Nations could never have won the war."
Why does a comment from 1943 discuss the how the war was won?
The first reference to this quote is from a book I don't have access to, so it would be great if someone could cross reference it. It's also a little odd to come from a book about aircraft production rather than say, something directly about the Tehran Conference or Lend Lease itself.
The second reference to the quote has this stated verbatim, again, it doesn't make sense. The war was far from over during the Tehran Conference. 
I feel this may be a misattributed, false or poorly translated quote that needs to be looked at. Because the date is clearly incorrect, I am going to remove the quote. Lostsandwich (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear or suspicious quotes? 

message: 'Khrushchev claimed that Stalin told him that Lend-Lease enabled the Soviet Union to defeat Germany."
This is probably true, but the claim still needs a citation. Charizardpal (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed for Kruschev