Did Stalin lie to the allies?

Jun 2018
7
Ukraine
Q.

Someone once suggested to me that Stalin lied to the allies during WW2, concerning the supposed deprivation of munitions and equipment, thereby triggering a reaction from Roosevelt and Churchill to agree to supply arms etc by ship via the Baltic.

As a result of this deception, thousands of tonnes of shipping were sunk by U-boats, together with the lives of a great many American and British merchant seamen.

Does anyone have any comment on this? Or can add to the historical validity of the claim?
 

Lord Oda Nobunaga

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
5,634
Ontario, Canada
I've never heard of this.

So you're saying that Stalin lied and asked for more supplies, with the express purpose of making Allied shipping vulnerable to the Kriegsmarine?

Stalin was in need of supplies though. He needed Lend-Lease.
 

Scaeva

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
5,630
According to Zhukov gunpowder shortages were real:

"We would have been in a serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the quantity of ammunition which we needed...

...It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny
that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and could not have continued the war . . . we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,560
Las Vegas, NV USA
Q.

Someone once suggested to me that Stalin lied to the allies during WW2, concerning the supposed deprivation of munitions and equipment, thereby triggering a reaction from Roosevelt and Churchill to agree to supply arms etc by ship via the Baltic.
Why would goods be shipped via the Baltic? Goods were shipped via the Atlantic and Barents Sea to Murmansk. After the invasion of Russia began, the Baltic Sea was virtually a German lake.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,801
USA
Where though? they lost way too much in Barbarossa and the troops as a result had little to no ammunition until Stalingrad.
That's not really true, at least its a major simplification. Soviets had terrible logistics, and especially in the first year, threw units into battle with almost zero planning or support. Not only did they lack ammo, because they had little to no access to their own supply depots (which were quickly overrun anyway), but they didn't even have support from one another, with infantry often attacking without tanks, tanks attacking without infantry, neither attacking with artillery, and when they did get it, it was often too little, too inaccurate, etc.

Soviet Union was in better position in 1942 but was completely caught off guard for Case Blue drive to Caucuses, when the Germans executed a deception plan just as good as that done for Overlord or Soviets for Bagration, completely fooling Stalin and Stavka into thinking the primary German attack would be on Moscow, instead it being in the southern sector. The Soviets had shifted most of their newly built weapons, vehicles, and supplies to their fronts guarding Moscow, the forces to the south lacked most of it, and were utterly unprepared for the swift and superbly planned and executed early portions of the invasion of the Caucuses.

Lend Lease didn't really start flowing heavily into the Soviet Union until mid-late '42. Before that it trickled in and took some time to reach the front lines.
 
Feb 2016
5,049
Atlantic Ocean
major simplification's are my speciality. :D

I must have had it backwards, i thought they got sent stuff like Mosins and Stuarts, along with Hurricanes and Matilda's early on oh well then.
 
Jun 2018
7
Ukraine
"SteveV": Thank you for your correction, absolutely right, the ships went through the Barents Sea, not the Baltic.