Jump to content

Lend Lease?


Recommended Posts

To say that I was surprised by the feature list in CMRT would be an understatement. Wow :D

I was half expecting something to do with flames/fire and we already knew about tank-riders and AA. But hit decals and AI triggers; really wasn't expecting them. Bloody good job, BFC.

Did notice that there weren't any M44s or Valentines included and I believe the Soviets used a lot of the former (over 4,000) and almost as many of the latter.

Perhaps an opportunity for inclusion in a 'pack'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those of you interested in what really went to Russia under Lend Lease would do very well to read From Major Jordan's Diaries. Major Jordan worked at UNITED NATIONS DEPOT NO. 8, LEND-LEASE DIVISION, NEWARK AIRPORT, NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, INTERNATIONAL SECTION, AIR SERVICE COMMAND, AIR CORPS, U.S. ARMY. He was direct Lend Lease liaison to the Russians, and what he says will probably drastically change your views on Lend Lease. Sure did mine. Suggest you skip the spleen at the top of the link page and go right to his diary. For the record, Roosevelt's Harry Hopkins is now known to have been an incredibly effective Russian spy for the KGB, an agent of influence. His decisions provided the sinews, for example, of the Russian A-bomb!

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/jordan/01.html

On a more prosaic note, here are the official figures for Lend Lease tank shipments from HyperWar. Breakdowns are from page 8.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/LL-Ship/LL-Ship-3A.html

Tanks supplied to Russia by type. By no means the complete AFV list.

M3, M3A2, M3A3, M3A5 1,386

M4, M4A1, M4A2, M4A3, M4A4, M4A5, 75mm Gun, Gas & Diesel 2007

M4, M4A1, M4A2, M4A3, 76mm Gun 2095

According to the most useful Engines of the Red Army, the Russians got (of 3782 shipped) 3462 Valentines, with the main batch in 1943, 1776 of them.

The Lend Lease AFV and Softskin charts are great. The figures for received 2 1/2 ton truck alone (Six by Six) amounts to 182, 938! While JasonC may well pooh pooh Lend Lease tank shipments, there's no way he can ignore the trucks.

http://www.o5m6.de/Numbers.html

According to Jason Long's Forging the Red Star (not a link), Lend Lease vehicles, on May 1st, 1945 "constituted 32.8% of the Red Army's vehicle park." All told, the Russians wartime produced 281,500 trucks and received 409,500, 59.3% of a total 691,00, via Lend-Lease from the U.S and the Commonwealth. Long also notes that by autumn of 1943, since the light tanks it was getting were so good and plentiful, the Russians were able to stop producing light tanks altogether. We grogs know that T-70 production became SU-76 production. 14.292 of all types built, per the relevant Wiki.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already wrote about this in topic "Incomplete OOB", but better to repeat it here again.

In "Bagration" operation next units, equipped with land-lease vehicles took part:

3rd Guard,Mech.Corps of 3rd Belarusian Front: 110 M4A2 "Sherman", 70 "Valentine" IX

3rd Guard Tank Corps of 5th Guard Tank Army (at the end of operation): 99 M4A2 "Sherman" and 23 "Valentine" IX, as well as 21 M10 SP-Guns in 5th Guard Tank Army

1st Mech.Corps of 1st Belarusian front: 136 M4A2 "Sherman", 44 "Valentine" IX, 5 "Valentine" X, 47 Scout Car

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, Roosevelt's Harry Hopkins is now known to have been an incredibly effective Russian spy for the KGB, an agent of influence. His decisions provided the sinews, for example, of the Russian A-bomb!

Of course it is impossible to prove a negative, but the charge the Hopkins was a Sov spy does not seem to add up. Here is a link with a lengthy and what appears to be credible article on this topic:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/john-earl-haynes-and-harvey-klehr/was-harry-hopkins-a-soviet-spy/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Russians received Matildas and many Valentines, but by 44, most were used in training. Russians had a high regard for the long term reliability of British engines while Russian engines had a much shorter design life, so the Russians used their tanks at the front where they had an expected life span of less than 6 months and used the British tanks for training where long engine life was actually useful.

Russian tankers also had a high regard for the Sherman 76 mm which was more reliable and had a better performing gun than the T34-85, but only around 2,000 were shipped to Russia and most only showed up in combat units in 1945.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it is impossible to prove a negative, but the charge the Hopkins was a Sov spy does not seem to add up. Here is a link with a lengthy and what appears to be credible article on this topic:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/john-earl-haynes-and-harvey-klehr/was-harry-hopkins-a-soviet-spy/

Thanks

Nice article and definitely shows the difference between true critical analysis and unsubstantiated hype.

I have a copy of this and it is a very good read.

Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin’s The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

76mm,

Thank you for this most interesting article, which I hadn't seen before. Am pretty well read on espionage matters (had read all but two of the books on the CIA reading list prior to any interview for case officer trainee) and am the happy owner of the Mitrokhin Archive book, to which I shall now repair. After going through the remaining substantial piece of the article! I have some acquaintance with VENONA, but hadn't seen the particular analysis of "19." I was aware VENONA confirmed the guilt of the Rosenbergs and discussed other National Security matters.

In my former line of work, deciding whether a real threat existed required three elements: declaratory policy +capability (military, technical, scientific and industrial) + will (expressed as action supporting the desired goal). Harry Hopkins may not've been "19," but it doesn't really matter. He was pro Russian; he had enormous horsepower as one of FDR's closest advisers, and he repeatedly and blatantly overrode strenuous objections to unrestrictedly supplying Russia with the latest American technologies, know-how, manufacturing plant blueprints, manufacturing equipment and processes. as well as vast stocks of chemicals and other war materials. U.S. forces went without because Russia demanded (not needed) and Hopkins ordered. He gave the Russians what they wanted, when they wanted and how they wanted it, to include ordering General Leslie Groves to hand over nuclear materials.

The CIA's acronym for why people become spies is MICE (money, ideology, compromise, ego). Whether he did or didn't formally become a Russian spy, in the form of an agent of influence spymasters could only dream of, Harry Hopkins functioned as one. He was a de facto, if not de jure, Russian agent who time and again intervened directly in Lend Lease operations to Russia and rammed through whatever the Russians wanted, no matter how strongly those in charge protested. Not only did he give the Russians what they needed militarily, but he knowingly and willingly flat out flouted the terms of the Lend Lease agreement by supplying luxuries. Harry Hopkins was the best friend Russia had, and he used his position to not merely steer Lend Lease, but overall U.S. policy toward Russia. And he likely cost Russia not a ruble in the process. Forget selling the rope to hang us. He gave it to them! I strongly urge you to read a) From Major Jordan's Diaries and B) Antony Sutton's National Suicide. You may also be interested in his America's Secret Establishment, in which what Averell Harriman did to distort U.S. foreign policy in Russia's favor is detailed. The American people to this day have no real understanding of what Lend Lease really did and how the effects continue to this day.

Shall now confine myself to the what was sent, how it was perceived and used on the Lend Lease AFV issue. Am done discussing the why. I don't want Steve locking this thread because we veered into what could well prove to be a minefield.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

76mm,

Whether he did or didn't formally become a Russian spy, in the form of an agent of influence spymasters could only dream of, Harry Hopkins functioned as one. He was a de facto, if not de jure, Russian agent who time and again intervened directly in Lend Lease operations to Russia and rammed through whatever the Russians wanted, no matter how strongly those in charge protested.

I see...so even if he wasn't a "formally" a spy, as you charged, he is a de fact spy because he took strong positions to Russia's favor?

Perhaps, or maybe he took his positions because he determined (rightly or wrongly) that to help the Sovs was in the US' best interests. For instance, maybe he realized that the Sovs were tying down most of the German army, and if the Sovs made a separate peace with Hitler, or rampaged into Denmark, or whatever, that might not be a good thing for the US. To brand a man a traitor because you don't agree with his policy decisions is a bit much in my book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

76mm,

There's a rather large gap between taking strong positions and what Harry Hopkins did. My argument is based on what he did and the way he did it. He looked like a duck, walked like a duck and quacked like a duck. Therefore…Moreover, rather than make public what he was doing, he acted through various back channels, hid both what he was doing and its import. In law, this constitutes mens rea, a guilty mind.

In functional terms, his actions and their effects were far, far worse than both what the Rosenbergs and David Greenglass did, for his ability to pass information, materials, technology and know-how; make things happen, in both breadth and depth, was unmatchable. It is eminently possible to commit espionage on behalf of an ally (see Pollard case), and the Rosenbergs and Greenglass did what they did in the midst of a global hot war, crimes for which they were eventually prosecuted under the Espionage Act. In my view, Harry Hopkins did exactly what a spy would do. He acted covertly and, against the most strenuous objections from multiple knowledgeable military officials, he placed the good of Russia over the good of America. Anyone with half a brain who'd observed the rise to power of the Bolshevists and read Marx and Lenin (I have) would've known the true goal of our (temporary) ally was global power and the destruction of capitalism, which America epitomized (President Calvin Coolidge : "The business of America is business."). Lenin openly proclaimed such goals even before the outbreak of WW II, so it wasn't exactly some shocking revelation. I'd agree that Harry Hopkins was anti German. No argument there. But his actions show he was way past anti German and that his behavior was pro Russian at every level. His behavior was traitorous. Here is the legal definition of treason under the Constitution.

Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Since the Russian government openly declared, over a period of decades, its avowed goal of destroying the very basis of this one, then how is Hopkins's behavior not construable as treasonous under the "adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."? Nor can it be reasonably argued that the U.S. government didn't know the Russians were conducting espionage against their ally. A recent study shows the U.S. knew from the beginning of the war that this was the case. See this review of Katherine Sibley's Red Spies in America.

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2006/1012/book/book_doeneck.html

To me, it matters not whether Harry Hopkins met the legal definition of traitor. At the very least, his behavior would be deemed traitorous, once people understood what he'd done and why he did it. I say these things as someone whose then employer was rocked by the Bell espionage case (Polish KGB equivalent recruited a Hughes Radar Systems Group radar engineer) and who worked with someone whose life was upheaved by the Falcon and the Snowman (Boyce and Lee re CIA activities) case at TRW. There is no doubt in my mind that the actions of Harry Hopkins made those two things non events by comparison.

What he did was what a spy would do. Res ipsa loquitur.

The above said, does anyone have any real combat accounts of Lend-Lease tanks AFVs in action other than Shermans? Loza liked the Valentine IX for its good gun. Does anyone know, offhand, whether Lend Lease generosity on the British side included supplying APDS to go with the 6-pdr cannon on the Valentine IX? Judging from the pic, I think the Valentine may've been also liked because it looked so rugged and mean. It could easily have been thought Russian.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By your definition, Lend Lease itself was a traitorous act...so Roosevelt, Congress, all of the factory workers who made stuff for the Sovs, the dockworkers who shipped it to them--they were all traitors too? Is that what you're saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

76mm,

Not so. The Lend Lease Act was a legitimately passed and signed into effect law. It was intended to supply war materiel, not production means. It was intended to supply the fruits of science and technology, not the know-how underpinning them. Hopkins deliberately intervened in situation after situation and forced well-informed military authorities and civilian enterprises to hand over exactly those things. Hopkins stretched Lend Lease beyond all recognition, allowing Russia access to technology areas in which Russia had no real base; allowing Russia to conduct large scale military-industrial espionage (Major Jordan caught some particularly egregious examples but was overruled and forced to let them through) with impunity. In a very real sense, Hopkins helped create the Russian military-technical-manufacturing infrastructure which bedeviled us during the Cold War. This isn't to say the Russians weren't very sharp and ingenious in their own right, but life is so much easier when someone else has done the work already and you can capitalize on it. The Bell case saved Russia an estimated three years of development time and avoided any number of wrong radar engineering paths as well, over and above the huge ruble outlay which would've otherwise been required.

Clearly we disagree and will almost certainly continue to do so. I've made a strong case. You won't budge an inch. I'm still concerned Steve may opt to lock this thread. I therefore suggest we return to the issue of the Lend Lease AFV and their employment by the Russians.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...