Russia stands alone: No WW2 lend lease.

Andre27

Andre27

Banned
I recently stumbled upon these articles which seem to indicate that lend Lease Aid to the USSR played a far more important role than previously thought/admitted.

http://www.historynet.com/did-russi...ase-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm

and

http://www.historynet.com/russias-l...d-to-the-ussr-in-world-war-ii-book-review.htm

Now, my question is how would the war in the East progress if the USSR did not receive lend lease aid.

Personally i think it's likely that Leningrad and Moscow would have fallen and the Soviet Forces pushed back further, possibly till the Ural.

Having said that, given the fast distances and the incredible amount of manpower the USSR could wield i think the USSR would have won in the end. The war is Europe would have dragged on by at least one more year.

Now tell me your opinions/insights.
 

Legofan4

Possibly out of realpolitik to weaken the ussr in the post ww2 world. Which I guess could be a reason because both the British and the Americans hated communism.
 
Andre27

Andre27

Banned
Romanos said:
And the US would refuse to do extend Lend Lease... out of spite?
Click to expand...

Spite, realpolitik or simply because the western allies decide the supplies directed towards the USSR could be put to better use elsewhere. But that is not the question here.

The big Q is how would withholding Lend lease affect the Eastern Front. Post war it's easy to see the cold war would become a lot more frosty, but the effects in 1941/1942 for the defense of Leningrad and Moscow are far more interesting IMO.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
They might, conceivably, lose. Or at any rate not win (I'm thinking mutual exhaustion) - without lend-lease, their logistics are crap, and their population may well starve. It's not well known, but Lend-Lease food shipments alone amounted to enough food to feed the entire Red Army for the entire war.
 

Deleted member 1487

Saphroneth said:
They might, conceivably, lose. Or at any rate not win (I'm thinking mutual exhaustion) - without lend-lease, their logistics are crap, and their population may well starve. It's not well known, but Lend-Lease food shipments alone amounted to enough food to feed the entire Red Army for the entire war.
Click to expand...

And in spite of that aid there was still millions of deaths from famine during and after the war.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Simple trucks were probably the biggest benefit to the USSR from Lend-Lease, allowing them to carry out their large-scale offensives. Without those trucks, it would be very difficult for them to move supplies forward in the quantity and with the speed necessary for such operations a Bagration. The USSR could probably produce their own, but that would come at a loss of tanks and/or aircraft.

As pointed out, no Lend-Lease frees up a ton of merchant tonnage for the Allies, meaning the flow of supplies across the Atlantic to Britain and the Mediterranean is faster than IOTL. This could possibly mean Overlord happens earlier. Even if it still takes place in June of 1944, the supply situation of the Allies in France is better than IOTL, perhaps allowing a penetration farther east than IOTL.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Didn't Truman (when a senator) say that America should help Russia as long as Germany was winning and then help Germany if Russia started to win, so that the fascists and communists would simply wear themselves out killing one another?
 

Imladrik

Anaxagoras said:
As pointed out, no Lend-Lease frees up a ton of merchant tonnage for the Allies, meaning the flow of supplies across the Atlantic to Britain and the Mediterranean is faster than IOTL. This could possibly mean Overlord happens earlier. Even if it still takes place in June of 1944, the supply situation of the Allies in France is better than IOTL, perhaps allowing a penetration farther east than IOTL.
Click to expand...

The logistical problem the allied had in France isn't a problem of not having enough supplies or trucks. It was a problem of not having enough port capacity.

No lend lease might simply mean that the Allies never win against the nazis, as simple as that. Without the Soviet Union to tie up a huge amount of manpower in the East, the Nazis might have enough troops to push back any seaborne invasion right to the sea. The Allies might try an instant sunshine over Europe, but without a foothold on the continent, obtaining air superiority over Germany will be harder, especialy with a large part of the Luftwaffe not dying and not fighting in the East.

Anyway, there is no reason for having no lend lease, because, FDR wasn't a raging anti-communist, and the Soviet Union was the best place to use the equipement. Why ? Because while it might be american equipement, it would be soviet blood that would be spilt using it.
 
NORGCO

NORGCO

Anaxagoras said:
Didn't Truman (when a senator) say that America should help Russia as long as Germany was winning and then help Germany if Russia started to win, so that the fascists and communists would simply wear themselves out killing one another?
Click to expand...

If I get confirmation of that my respect for Truman will go up, if only for being more ruthlessly cynical than I ever imagined.

As to why refuse to supply the USSR, well I remember a comment about war aims - from JFC Fuller in one of his books - that allying with Stalin mean a war fought to replace a German totalitarian police state from the Atlantic to the Urals with a Russian totalitarian police state from the Pacific to the North Sea. He went on to say that that was not enough of an improvement to justify the cost of the war. Yes Fuller has been accused of nasty political leanings, doesn't mean the argument HAD to fall on deaf ears.

Supposedly one US Senator responded to the Nazi invasion of Russia by saying "It's a shame they can't both lose!"
 

jmc247

The Soviets won't lose, but they will be fighting in Ukraine or Eastern Poland at the end of hostilities by the end of the 1945 or early 1946 at the latest. There would be no Communist China during the Cold War and no North Korea today so no Korean War or Vietnam war.

There would be a Cold War, but it would be much milder.
 

DTF955Baseballfan

Anaxagoras said:
Didn't Truman (when a senator) say that America should help Russia as long as Germany was winning and then help Germany if Russia started to win, so that the fascists and communists would simply wear themselves out killing one another?
Click to expand...

I recall that from a college history course, yes.

Fromw hat I've seen, it didn't make a huge impact till after Stalingrad - that's when the amount really started to become heavy. Food was much more important - if none of that had been shipped, I could see the Soviets losing. I don't think it'd effect Moscow, though, but it could mean the Germans eventually can take Leningrad, or many more die because the Soviets can't retake it for a few months more.

The airplanes, I think those might have been used more to train pilots, though still important. (It's weird to think of an age with no flight simulators.) But, that just means a bloodier Kursk due to not as much air superiority for the Soviets; I can see the Germans not being satisfied with the Soviets stalling but trying to keep going ont he offensive, which might require Stalin to allow his generals to keep up a solid defensive front. It was a political thing for Hitler to take as much of the East as possible.

So, they might not send as many troops back West to defend as one would think - at least not till D-Day. And by then, if the Soviets play their cards right, they *might* just have the Germans whittled down close to what they were in OTL's 1944.

Although its still quite likely the war ends in August with a nuke on Dresden. (Dresden was only firebombed, if memory serves, because it was originally a nuclear target but then the war was sure to be won before the A-bomb was needed.)
 

Deleted member 1487

Without the food from LL the USSR would be breaking down very badly from 1942 on due to the loss of Ukraine and the temporary loss of Kuban, both critical grain regions, which meant even with opening up new farmland in Central Asia the USSR was still very short of food and would have lost million more to famine without US imports. That level of starvation even with ruthlessly cutting out food for 'nonproductive' elements of society and PoWs would have pretty much crippled the Soviet war economy and potentially collapsed the regime.
 

iddt3

Donor
A better question might be: WI Lend Lease was decreased to a bare minimum and used more explicitly as leverage. I think if the Western Allies totally abandon Stalin there is a chance he might accept a bitter peace, or at least the Wallies would suspect that. But a moderate amount of aid, with conditions, would suit there purposes perfectly.
 

Blackfox5

The Soviet Union won't collapse and most of 1941-1942 will be as OTL. There is a limit to the expanasion of the Nazis, and they were reaching it in 1942.

Without Lend Lease however, the Soviets will be very limited in their ability to sustain continued offensive operations, and will have terrible mobility. Their ability to conduct Deep Operations will be very low.

The US provided an immense amount of raw materials their factories need to produce their heavy weapons and vehicles. Soviet production will be much lower.

The US also provided an immense amount of normal kit for their soldiers - things like boots, belts, uniforms, canteens. If the US doesn't provide that, the Soviets either go without or divert resources from heavy weapons to those items. So once again Soviet production declines.

The US provided large amounts of trucks, jeeps, and other support vehicles needed for supply and mobility. Most likely the Red Army will simply go without that.

Us also provided large number of tanks and planes. While often disparaged compered to some excellent Soviet models, they had an important contribution.

Then of course is the important factor of morale. Knowing the US will be supplying almost everything you need is ahuge psychological help to the average soldier and top leaders. Having ongoing shortages will erode morale.

I predict we'd see a stalemate along early 1943 lines adjusted to be more favorable to the Germans. Leningrad might fall, but probably not Moscow. Both sides will be completely exhausted with huge losses of manpower.

Stalin did not negotiate a separate peace because of two reasons. First, he knew the Allies were going to win, and he wanted to share in the prizes. Second, the minimum conquests Hitler wanted (Belarus and Ukraine including the Donbas) was not what Stalin was willing to accept (frontline pre-Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact).

Regardless of how bad Stalin is doing, he knows if he stays in the war, he'll retain at least his prewar borders. If he makes a deal with Hitler, he'll go back to Brest-Litovsk.

What Stalin can do is reach an informal arrangement with Germany where Red Army won't attack, freeing up German troops to be sent to Italy, Normandy, or wherever the Allies are landing on the continent. He'll make it clear the Red Army can't do anything more unless they get Lend Lease. Given the consequences of heavier fighting on their end, or giving Stalin Lend Lease, the US would be foolish not to give Lend Lease.

A more realistic scenario is that the US would give less Lend Lease and drive a harder bargain for Soviet concessions postwar.
 

ObssesedNuker

Blackfox5 said:
The Soviet Union won't collapse and most of 1941-1942 will be as OTL. There is a limit to the expanasion of the Nazis, and they were reaching it in 1942.

Without Lend Lease however, the Soviets will be very limited in their ability to sustain continued offensive operations, and will have terrible mobility. Their ability to conduct Deep Operations will be very low.

The US provided an immense amount of raw materials their factories need to produce their heavy weapons and vehicles. Soviet production will be much lower.

The US also provided an immense amount of normal kit for their soldiers - things like boots, belts, uniforms, canteens. If the US doesn't provide that, the Soviets either go without or divert resources from heavy weapons to those items. So once again Soviet production declines.

The US provided large amounts of trucks, jeeps, and other support vehicles needed for supply and mobility. Most likely the Red Army will simply go without that.

Us also provided large number of tanks and planes. While often disparaged compered to some excellent Soviet models, they had an important contribution.

Then of course is the important factor of morale. Knowing the US will be supplying almost everything you need is ahuge psychological help to the average soldier and top leaders. Having ongoing shortages will erode morale.

I predict we'd see a stalemate along early 1943 lines adjusted to be more favorable to the Germans. Leningrad might fall, but probably not Moscow. Both sides will be completely exhausted with huge losses of manpower.

Stalin did not negotiate a separate peace because of two reasons. First, he knew the Allies were going to win, and he wanted to share in the prizes. Second, the minimum conquests Hitler wanted (Belarus and Ukraine including the Donbas) was not what Stalin was willing to accept (frontline pre-Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact).

Regardless of how bad Stalin is doing, he knows if he stays in the war, he'll retain at least his prewar borders. If he makes a deal with Hitler, he'll go back to Brest-Litovsk.

What Stalin can do is reach an informal arrangement with Germany where Red Army won't attack, freeing up German troops to be sent to Italy, Normandy, or wherever the Allies are landing on the continent. He'll make it clear the Red Army can't do anything more unless they get Lend Lease. Given the consequences of heavier fighting on their end, or giving Stalin Lend Lease, the US would be foolish not to give Lend Lease.

A more realistic scenario is that the US would give less Lend Lease and drive a harder bargain for Soviet concessions postwar.
Click to expand...

This. Unless the Western Allies want to take hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, more casualties then IOTL (and they quite blatantly are not) it is in their interest to aid Stalin. Otherwise, Stalin cuts a deal with Hitler and the war drags on until after nukes come into play. There is a strange undercurrent of people here who do not appear to think that changes in the Eastern Front impacts the Western Front while changes in the Western Front will still impact the Eastern Front. Fortunately for millions of people both under Nazi occupation and in the Western Alliance, their politicians did not think that way.
 

jmc247

ObssesedNuker said:
This. Unless the Western Allies want to take hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, more casualties then IOTL (and they quite blatantly are not) it is in their interest to aid Stalin. Otherwise, Stalin cuts a deal with Hitler and the war drags on until after nukes come into play. There is a strange undercurrent of people here who do not appear to think that changes in the Eastern Front impacts the Western Front while changes in the Western Front will still impact the Eastern Front. Fortunately for millions of people both under Nazi occupation and in the Western Alliance, their politicians did not think that way.
Click to expand...

Hitler would cut no deal with Stalin.

1941 Hitler might, but not by 43. He was too insane by that point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top