Comments by "TheVilla Aston" (@thevillaaston7811) on "Why determining the Impact of Lend-Lease is so complicated" video.

  1. Fuck off. Britain fought from the first to the last day of the war. We won in Africa and in Italy. Lend-lease amounted 11% of Britain's needs and was nowhere to been seen in 1940, t he only time Britain was in any danger of defeat.
    3
  2. They could. Gerrmany never had enough resources to win.
    2
  3. Not a chance. The Germans were 1,000 miles from their homeland, trying yo man a 2,000 mile front. Lend-lease or no Lend-lease, the Germans were never going to win.
    2
  4. But high octane aviation fuel was not crucial in the war in Russia.
    1
  5. 'American war time production is just flat out stunning.' But Britain's was more stunning. With a land area equal to the US State or Oregon, a poulation of one third of the USA, needing to import 40% of its needs and for five years being 20 miles from the enemy, relative to its circumstances it out-produced every other major power.
    1
  6. Total Lend-Lease was 5% of Russia'ds needs.
    1
  7. But look at the figures, Russia spent $357 during the war. Lend-lease totalled $11 billion. The USA sent 11,000 rail wagons , the Russian rail wagon inventory stood at 600,000. The West sent 12,000 tanks, Russia produced 105,000. As so on and so on...
    1
  8. kingofmaiar It was 11, 000 wagons and 2,000 locomotives. Russia had 600,000 wagons and 28,000 locomotives. Hardly any of which were war casualties. 400,000 vehicles. The war in Russia was over a thousand miles on a 2,000 mile front - with Russia mobilising 34 million people across 4 years. The Germans bit off more than they could chew. Lend-Lease or no Lend-Lease, Germany was never going to win.
    1
  9. 'NO WAY THAT ANY OF THE MIRACLE BRITISH TANKS MADE IT TO THE 1941 BATTLE OF MOSCOW. (use your brains).' Meanwhile, people may wish to look at this American web site: http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm
    1