Is Russia still paying US WWII lend lease?

[Afro-European]

Apparently the agreement was only signed in 1972 that the SU should pay $722mln until 2001,with several previous rounds falling through because both sides couldn't agree on the amount the SU owed the US.After laborious negociations, both sides signed the 1972 agreement,which only lasted for a couple of years,when USSR stopped in protest for Jackson-Vanik amendment after paying $48mln.The agreement was revived in 1990 that the SU should pay $674mln until 2030. Russia absorbed this debt when USSR fell apart.

-Is Russia still paying the US off since the 40's? If yes:
-with oil,gas or just cash?
-with or without interest rate?

[ARGAR FORKBEARD]

uk was until recently.

dunno if russia still is!

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Latest I could find regarding Russian debt was an article from 2003 talking about forgiving the debt (they didn't say how much) in exchange for non-proliferation concessions.




If enacted in its current form, the DRNA would authorize the president to establish an office at the Treasury Department to administer the debt reduction and authorize $300 million in appropriations in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 to offset the cost of the debt reduction to the US Treasury. It would authorize the president to reduce the Lend Lease and agricultural portions of the Soviet-era debt and replace those obligations with new obligations defined in a “Russian Nonproliferation
http://pnwcgs.pnl.gov/Newsletter/Html_versions/Articles/2002May_DfN.htm

[gazell]

That's quite likely to be correct, just as they are in force forever, 60+ years, but in practice nobody really pays them back. WWI - only Finnland, AFAIK.

[ramthor]

Some would say that the debt was paid in Russian blood, from Barbarossa to D-Day.

[shingo_tln]

Some would say that the debt was paid in Russian blood, from Barbarossa to D-Day.
it was indeed

[LineDoggie]

Debatable................

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Some would say that the debt was paid in Russian blood, from Barbarossa to D-Day.

Not saying Russian losses weren't horrific, but Barbarossa had nothing to do "paying a debt" to the US

All sides lost men and machines in the conflict.

And If Stalin hadn't been completely blind to the threat Hitler posed (and in many other incompetent), Russian losses could possibly have been lower.

[Mousepad]

All LL supply to USSR was 11.4 bln$ in 1941 vintage dollars, it's 140 bln in modern. In 1972 was signed final agreement on USSR debt in 722 mln $ wich must be paid before 2001, untill 1973, 48$ was paid and then payments were put on hold by SU, because of Jackson-Venik ammendment, in 1990 debt was reconfirmed, 674 mln$ must be paid before 2030. After break up of SU, all debt was inherited by Russia. In 2003 it was 100 mln$. And that's all info i have. Methinks it was paid in full by now, 100 mln it's not much of a sum nowadays.

[Hast2]

He wasn't blind, he has planned to attack Nazis and conquer all Europe, but Hitler was smarter than Stalin maybe thought and struck first, Soviets were caught completely by surprise.

[Mousepad]

He wasn't blind, he has planned to attack Nazis and conquer all Europe, but Hitler was smarter than Stalin maybe thought and struck first, Soviets were caught completely by surprise.

Found it in "I know all about Stalin" -kinda books?

[GazB]

And If Stalin hadn't been completely blind to the threat Hitler posed (and in many other incompetent), Russian losses could possibly have been lower.

It is easy to say now that Hitler was the bad guy and anyone picking his side would be mad, but at the time the US and UK weren't exactly buddies. Afterall the US and the UK and the Japanese amongst others supported the white forces in the revolution.
Stalin was no genius but it is not like the Soviets and the Germans were buddies. The Soviets sold material to Germany, but that was largely commercial. They had a non aggression pact, but if they were buddies WTF would they need a non aggression pact for? Think about it. Do real friends need to sign a document that states they will not fight each other and will divide third party land amongst themselves?



All LL supply to USSR was 11.4 bln$ in 1941 vintage dollars, it's 140 bln in modern.

Except for two main problems. First material was under a lease to lend to the Soviets. Any material that was lent but consumed (ie food) or destroyed (either in combat or on delivery) did not have to be paid for. Also all material returned did not have to be paid for either. There was plenty of stuff that was collected by US vessels from the Soviet Union that was taken out to international waters and dumped into the sea. The Soviets didn't have to pay for that.

[GazB]

He wasn't blind, he has planned to attack Nazis and conquer all Europe, but Hitler was smarter than Stalin maybe thought and struck first, Soviets were caught completely by surprise.

If Stalin was so set on the conquest of Europe why did they not take Austria? Why was Finnland left as a seperate country. Indeed, why didn't all the Soviet occupied countries return to what most of them were before WWI and become part of the Russian Empire again?
Stalin correctly predicted that the west would try to destroy the Soviet Union. The motivation for his 5 year plans was to industrialise a country before the west crushes them. Hardly what you'd expect from a dictator bend on conquest. Sounds more like the leader of a country that is backward by contemporary standards wanting to improve those standards so it can defend itself from outside aggression.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

It is easy to say now that Hitler was the bad guy and anyone picking his side would be mad, but at the time the US and UK weren't exactly buddies. Afterall the US and the UK and the Japanese amongst others supported the white forces in the revolution.
Stalin was no genius but it is not like the Soviets and the Germans were buddies. The Soviets sold material to Germany, but that was largely commercial. They had a non aggression pact, but if they were buddies WTF would they need a non aggression pact for? Think about it. Do real friends need to sign a document that states they will not fight each other and will divide third party land amongst themselves?

I'm a little unclear about the point you're making. I wouldn't dispute any of your statements. I say Stalin was incompetent because he was the head of military and political apparatus of the Soviet Union and he failed to prepare the Soviet Union for war. One of his brilliant moves was to sack or kill competent soldiers and officers in the years before the war.

I'm sure there was mutual suspicion between Hitler and Stalin.

IIRC, the Fascists killed and imprisoned Communists in Germany before Germany invaded the Soviet Union.

[Hast2]

Found it in "I know all about Stalin" -kinda books?

Can you recommend me any?


If Stalin was so set on the conquest of Europe why did they not take Austria? Why was Finnland left as a seperate country. Indeed, why didn't all the Soviet occupied countries return to what most of them were before WWI and become part of the Russian Empire again?
Stalin correctly predicted that the west would try to destroy the Soviet Union. The motivation for his 5 year plans was to industrialise a country before the west crushes them. Hardly what you'd expect from a dictator bend on conquest. Sounds more like the leader of a country that is backward by contemporary standards wanting to improve those standards so it can defend itself from outside aggression.

The "West" had the desire to destroy the Soviet Union as much as to destroy the Nazis. The West knew what a clash between Nazi and Soviets was inevitable.The Soviets could care less about The West, because the West was busy with Hitler. If Stalin ever launches a liberation operation "Europe without Nazis" what do you think the outcome would be? Everything the West could do is to support "the lesser evil" and try to hold it as much as possible when the Big one is destroyed. And that's exactly what they've done.

[GazB]

but Barbarossa had nothing to do "paying a debt" to the US

The mutual enemy was Germany. The lend lease agreement was a lending system not a selling system. The Lending was free. The beneficiaries of the lending only had to pay for whatever they kept afterwards. If it was consumed in the war or was given back after the war it didn't have to be paid for. So any Shermans destroyed during the war were free.


And If Stalin hadn't been completely blind to the threat Hitler posed (and in many other incompetent), Russian losses could possibly have been lower.

And if he had the English channel to stop the Germans Russian losses would have been much lower. Unfortunately for them they had to stop the Germans with Soviet Blood.
There are plenty of claims that the death toll on the eastern front was because of incompetence or the inability to fight. The performance on the western front was no better... it is just they had somewhere safe to run to. They then got a couple of years to prepare for war and they reopened the western front when they were ready. With such opportunity I am sure the Soviets would have lost fewer men too. The War in the East was a war of extermination. On their way in the German soldiers were told they would not be held accountable for the deaths of any Soviet citizens.


I'm a little unclear about the point you're making.

Stalin was paranoid. He saw enemies everywhere. He recognised Hitler for the threat that he was, but also recognised that it was in the interests of the UK that he oppose Hitler. Something he knew he was not ready for. His appeasement towards Hitler was intended to delay what he knew was inevidible. Stalin knew he didn't have the English channel to hide behind.


One of his brilliant moves was to sack or kill competent soldiers and officers in the years before the war.

Stalin was a simple person. He thought intellectuals were either lazy or hiding something. He thought the best way to get the best out of people was to scare them half to death. He was a Ahole of the first order. He did a lot of damage. He also dragged the Soviet Union kicking and screaming through the industrial age and gave it most of the push it needed to get into the space age.

[digrar]

Keep the thread on topic, it's about the debt, not the pros and cons of Stalin and Hitler's war time plans.

[Connaught Ranger]

He wasn't blind, he has planned to attack Nazis and conquer all Europe, but Hitler was smarter than Stalin maybe thought and struck first, Soviets were caught completely by surprise.

Stalin was warned of the impending attack and German Invasion and refused to believe it. Like wise when the attack jumped off and Soviet positions were being over ran the chain of command back to Stalin were too fearful to inform him for fear of the consequences of bearing bad news to "the Boss".


If Hitler was so smart why did he engage a war on two fronts when pre-history lesson down through the centuries tell of many failed campaigns that followed this route:roll:

For GazB,

Stalin had thousands of Kilometers of Soviet Russia to hide in, to draw out and wear down the German invaders, if Hitler had pushed for the invasion of the UK (Operation Sea-Lion) then he would have taken the British Isles, with little trouble, thankfully he chose to butt heads with Uncle Joe instead.

And surely any debt settlements would have to be re-negotiated via Putin and the USA as any contracts under the Soviet area are null and void?

Connaught Ranger

[Kilgor]

Stalin correctly predicted that the west would try to destroy the Soviet Union. The motivation for his 5 year plans was to industrialise a country before the west crushes them. Hardly what you'd expect from a dictator bend on conquest. Sounds more like the leader of a country that is backward by contemporary standards wanting to improve those standards so it can defend itself from outside aggression.

So Hitler was apart of the "West" hey ?

Hitler hated the "west' as much as dear uncle joe

[GazB]

Sorry Digrar... just make these few replies to OT things directed at me and back on topic...


Stalin was warned of the impending attack and German Invasion and refused to believe it.

Much of those warnings came from sources that wanted allies against Germany like Britain. Stalin was hardly a genius and could just have easily have thought evidence that Germany was going to attack him was created by Britain to get him to do things that would provoke Germany to real attack on the Soviet Union.


Like wise when the attack jumped off and Soviet positions were being over ran the chain of command back to Stalin were too fearful to inform him for fear of the consequences of bearing bad news to "the Boss".

Because they would be seen as supporting the British conspiracy to drag the Soviet Union into Britains war.


If Hitler was so smart why did he engage a war on two fronts when pre-history lesson down through the centuries tell of many failed campaigns that followed this route

The western front was not really a front after the battle of britain. When it was clear the Luftwaffe couldn't defeat the RAF he knew any attempted invasion would require the defeat of the powerful British navy that would require the full power of the Luftwaffe as well as the Kreigsmarine.
Basically the drain on resources meant an attack on Britain had to wait while the plundering of the Soviet Union had to start. After a rather long period of secret cooperation with the Soviet Union Hitler had a rather low opinion of their forces so he thought he could take over the SU and use the resources of men and material to do what he liked after that.


Stalin had thousands of Kilometers of Soviet Russia to hide in, to draw out and wear down the German invaders, if Hitler had pushed for the invasion of the UK (Operation Sea-Lion) then he would have taken the British Isles, with little trouble, thankfully he chose to butt heads with Uncle Joe instead.

The thousands of kms of the Soviet Union had people and buildings etc etc on them till the German forces killed millions and destroyed and burned. It was nothing like the German occupation of the western european countries. The Luftwaffe and the German navy would never have mounted a successful invasion of Britain. Just look at D-day. The effort, the ships and aircraft, the support needed, and the fooled defences... On a beach in the UK with a defence that was ready and a navy even half as good as the Royal Navy the Germans would never have had a chance and they knew it. That is why they never even tried. Perhaps if they had taken out the RAF their might have been a chance, but they couldn't even do that.

Whooohoooo.... back on topic


And surely any debt settlements would have to be re-negotiated via Putin and the USA as any contracts under the Soviet area are null and void?

Russia is the legal successor to the Soviet Union. It took on all the debts and all the treaty obligations, and got all the perks like the UNSC seat etc.

BTW had a look around and I appears to me that the lend lease debt was part of the Paris Club debt, all lumped together from various sources. And Russia has paid the Paris Club debt as far as I know so no I would guess that Russia has stopped paying for lend lease because it is already paid.

[Connaught Ranger]

Sorry Digrar... just make these few replies to OT things directed at me and back on topic...

Because they would be seen as supporting the British conspiracy to drag the Soviet Union into Britains war.



So the Soviet officers and men on the border with territory occupid by the turd reich and who had been listening to the sounds and seeing movement along their front prior to the Jump off of "Barbarossa" were supporting a British Conspiracy:roll: if they reported their suspicionsrofl

Germany was attacking Soviet Russia, Great Britain had no input into it this affair, and it was not Great Britains war, it was an Allied effort against the turd reich, the UK had signed treaties to help Poland, Belgium and France, (that were found to be wanting) the U.K. was lucky to have been spared an invasion, (by the way German invasion troops would have had a far easier time assaulting the UK beaches as the British did not have a version of the Atlantic Wall, no massive costal defences, no massed armour, no infinite supply of troops apart from the Canadians, little air assests, and virtualy no experience in modern warfare as seen offered in the invasion of Poland, Norway, Danmark, Belgium, France, etc..etc..)

Connaught Ranger.:)

[DS73]

If Stalin was so set on the conquest of Europe why did they not take Austria? Why was Finnland left as a seperate country. Indeed, why didn't all the Soviet occupied countries return to what most of them were before WWI and become part of the Russian Empire again?
Stalin correctly predicted that the west would try to destroy the Soviet Union. The motivation for his 5 year plans was to industrialise a country before the west crushes them. Hardly what you'd expect from a dictator bend on conquest. Sounds more like the leader of a country that is backward by contemporary standards wanting to improve those standards so it can defend itself from outside aggression.
Austria had special arrangement in Yalta, and was partially occupied by allies in 1945.
Finland was extremely untirussian after 1940 war. If russians had sufficient number of communists speaking finish, Finland would fare no better than let say Greece.
Please stop with this "west crushes them" crap.
All 5 year industrialization plans were supported by western companies (especially from US). There was no economical or technological blockades against USSR, as well no any official ideological rethorics against communist regime.
Just like russian propagandists you happely project Cold war to the period between world wars.

EDIT: as the study of Krivosheev(?) showed, russians had specific ethnic policies and people from "western teritories" hold by allies (that is moldavians, rutenians, baltic nationalities who for some reason left USSR till 1945) were "pardonned" and Russia didn't insinst on their return to Soviet Russia.

Stalin had rather clear idea who can be hold in and in what conditions...
If to return ontopic :)
Last sum was transfered in 2006 as a part of general reduction of state debt.
(sorry too lazy to dig in archives).

[Lokos]

EDIT:

I didn't read digrar's warning. Now that I have, I've opted to remove the off-topic content from my post.

L.

[shadowsrider]

Just little bit related.
Poland had also to pay for each piece equipment used since 1940-45. Even Hurricanes that Polish pilots were contributing to Battle of England in 1940. And all was paid including all the gold taken by government from Poland in 1939.
I was pretty shocked when I've read it, especially that we had to pay for helping to defend Britain. :|

[Mousepad]

Just little bit related.
Poland had also to pay for each piece equipment used since 1940-45. Even Hurricanes that Polish pilots were contributing to Battle of England in 1940. And all was paid including all the gold taken by government from Poland in 1939.
I was pretty shocked when I've read it, especially that we had to pay for helping to defend Britain. :|

Strange. Any links?