Talk:Lend-Lease

Lend-Lease bill

I remember seeing something about lend-lease now having been recently paid off in full? But I can't find any reference to this atm. Does anyone else remember this? Morwen - Talk 18:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I too thought that but according to the one source I could find it won't be paid off till 2006. adamsan 20:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

That isn't for Lend-Lease. That is for the Anglo-American loan that was given *after* WW2 to save the UK from bankruptcy. 73.151.157.60 (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I have ventured to make two changes:

I have deleted the reference to lend-lease being known as lease-lend in the UK - as a Briton I have never heard this, and anyone looking at Roy Jenkins's recent biography of Churchill or at the contemporary Liddell Hart's History of the Second World War will see that they both use the term 'lend-lease'.

I have removed the reference to lend-lease having started at the beginning of the war. I suspect that Americans sometimes forget that the war was over a third of the way through by the time they (thankfully) entered it; and lend-lease came in - at the critical height of the Battle of the Atlantic - in May 1941, getting on for two years after the outbreak of war.

Mark O'Sullivan 16:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"The aid was given for free" Hmmm...The aid was financed by the US credit facility and was most certainly NOT "free". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.157.111 (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The financing of lend-lease is summarised in the lead where it says:

"Materiel delivered under the act was supplied at no cost, to be used until returned or destroyed. In practice, most equipment was destroyed, although some hardware (such as ships) was returned after the war. Supplies that arrived after the termination date were sold to the United Kingdom at a large discount for £1.075 billion, using long-term loans from the United States, which were finally repaid in 2006. Similarly, the Soviet Union repaid $722 million in 1971, with the remainder of the debt written off."

This summary is backed up by sourced details in the body of the article. If you have sourced information contradicting the information in the article then please discuss it here. Shimbo (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Dude, Russia literally "inherited" a big chunk of payments to be made for LL. The last payment was made 2011 or something IIRC.

It was absolutely not given for free. Why do you think there were several cases of "gold ships" during the war?

Why do you think the UK paid by giving USA bases for longterm rent? Not to mention the Tizard mission. 37.123.142.191 (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

the aid to USSR was free with no repayment. There were multiple ways to help UK, including lend lease and a separate deal with low-interest loans. The lendlease to UK was free with no repayment. The "loan" angle was that hardware like tanks were to be returned to US after the war, but that requirement was dropped (US had a huge surplus of used military goods of its own). The gold ships were to keep UK gold away from German hands if Germany invaded. the gold was not a payment and went into CANADA bank vaults in UK's name, and was shipped back after the war. UK did use some of the gold to buy extra war supplies. Rjensen (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The gold was used to pay for weapons before Lend-Lease during the period known as Cash and Carry (see also British Purchasing Commission). The entire point of lend-lease was that the British had run out of gold to buy weapons with.

The bases were not part of lend-lease they were part of the 1940 Destroyers-for-bases deal, well before lend lease. The Tizard Mission was also in 1940.

The Soviet Union made its one and only payment of $722 million in 1971

As I already said, the information in the article is sourced. If you have sources contradicting the information in the article then please link to them. Shimbo (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Value of materials

added table of values of US aid translated from German wikipedia

Incomplete and misleading information

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)

Unclear or suspicious quotes?

"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)

Citations needed for Kruschev

'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)

It absolutely needs a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Its sourced in the main body of the article where there is a Khrushchev quote.

• Khrushchev, Nikita Sergeevich; Khrushchev, Serge (2004). Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev: Commissar, 1918–1945. Penn State Press. pp. 638–639. ISBN 978-0271023328.

(Hohum ^@) 21:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I'd missed that - I should have checked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

These are not the same claims.

Khrushchev claimed that Stalin told him that Lend-Lease enabled the Soviet Union to defeat Germany.

vs

He (Stalin) stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war.

Thus, the claim in the lead is not sourced. Lostsandwich (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

If you read the memoir the quote is from a paragraph directly following a paragraph where he is describing lend lease (material assistance from the US and England) and continuing the same line of expression, saying without that material support from the US and England they would have lost.

“ England and the USA did everything to provide us with material assistance of all kinds, mainly military - weapons and other material support necessary for waging war. We received very significant help. This was, of course, not generosity on the part of England and the USA and not that they wanted to help the peoples of the Soviet Union, not at all. They helped us so that we could grind down the manpower of the common enemy. Thus, with our hands and our blood they fought against Nazi Germany. They paid us so that we could continue to fight, they paid us with weapons and materials. From their point of view it was reasonable. And it really was reasonable, and it was beneficial for us. After all, it was hard for us then, we paid a very high price in the war, but we were forced to do it because we were unable to fight otherwise. Here mutual interest arose, and we established and continued to develop good relations and mutual trust. I would like to express my opinion and tell you in naked form about Stalin’s opinion on the question of whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could, without help from the United States and England, cope with Hitler’s Germany and survive in the war. First of all, I want to say about Stalin’s words, which he repeated several times when we had “free conversations” among ourselves. He directly said that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won this war: alone with Hitler’s Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and lost the war.“ --WatcherZero (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Please make sure to read the paragraph you are posting:

"First of all, I want to say about Stalin’s words, which he repeated several times when we had “free conversations” among ourselves. He directly said that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won this war: alone with Hitler’s Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and lost the war"

Importantly,

" we would not have won this war: alone with Hitler’s Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and lost the war"

vs

Khrushchev claimed that Stalin told him that Lend-Lease enabled the Soviet Union to defeat Germany.

Thus, the information in the lead is not sourced. Lostsandwich (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

So, change the wording in the lead. (Hohum ^@) 23:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Looked at Lostsandwich contribution history and they have a long line of pedantic and disruptive source edits that often end in administrator reviews.WatcherZero (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Interesting attempt to ignore the topic at hand. Are you able to actually address that the quoted material is not found in the source? Lostsandwich (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I did change it. I changed it to *removing a claim that does not match the sourced material*.

If you can find a legitimate source that says "Khrushchev claimed that Stalin told him that Lend-Lease enabled the Soviet Union to defeat Germany" then feel free to add it. Otherwise, fabricating claims (or conducting synthesis) is not something wikipedia is in the business of doing. Lostsandwich (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• edit, similarly, the contents of the lead, according to wiki's editing guide should be "should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic". Something said in passing about a topic tangentially related (the USA helped) doesn't really meet that criteria. Including the relevant quote within the body, no doubt, but I don't see why what is essentially an anecdote filtered through an anecdote should be included in the lead. Lostsandwich (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)