Raptor , I never said the Soviets were incompetent nor did I say that the land-lease single-handedly saved them from defeat.Their victory on the east front was sealed by blood and huge material losses. I was just quoting an article whcih showed comapring Soviet war production with their losses that the material supplied by the Allies during 1942-1943 allowed them to be able to conduct effective defence and offensive action against the Germans.Without this they would have been unable to prusue any offensive action in mid to late 1943 .The land-lease gave them a puff of oxygen that compensated for the catastrophic loss of industrial production due to the occupaiton of the Ukraine and parts of Russia where heavy industry was located and the additional loss of production caused by the relocation of the armement industry to the Urals and beyond.
However there has been for ideological reasons tied to Cold War politics to minimise the impact of the Allies assitance to the Soviet Union and its victory in the east.Likewise in the US,particularly,there has been an exaggeration of the US contribution to the victory in Europe to the point that the British and Soviet contributions are almost side-shows. The victory was not the result of the Soviet superman or Hollywood superhero as depicted by the propaganda of both sides.German errors often the result of of a National Socialist leadership who believed their own propaganda and disbelieved reality.
The outcome of WWII in Europe was a combination of many contributions( British decoding of enigma is one important and their mastery of the seas) , the Soviets massive human and material contribution and he Americans immensive logistical and material contribution to the British and Soviet war efforts.Remove any of the 3 and the outcome have been different or not so conclusive.
Interesting debate
