Could the American/British allies have sabotaged the USSR but still won the war?

Spun-off from an idea on another thread here. The US/UK knew they needed the USSR to defeat Germany but they also knew pretty early on in their alliance that the USSR and Stalin was only so trustworthy and that he'd have his own post-war ambitions.

Could it have been possible for them to attempt to sabotage the USSR or hold off support just enough whereby they could still use the USSR's manpower to win the war but have them utterly weak at the end and dependent on the American/Brits immediate post-war.

Was that actually attempted?
 
The Anglo-Americans would be playing with fire here. What if in their intrigues to weaken the Soviets that causes them to lose?

These sort of imperialistic games will only make Stalin more paranoid.

And what does this intra allied sabotage involve? Covert support for the Germans or nationalist groups? Sending poor or malfunctioning equipment? Sending in the SAS to blow up oilfields?

None of this would help the war effort.

What if these intrigues are ineffectual? What if they simply serve to show the Soviets that the western powers will bungle around and fail in their attempts to crush the worker's state?

All in all this sort of activity is guaranteed to have negative blowback.
 
Throttle back Lend Lease to consumables like Food and Oil, after Stalin refuses USAAF basing rights in the East.

Stalin may rant and rave, but the USSR won't lose after 1942, just gets more expensive for him to win without Studebakers and locomotives.
After 1942, there isn't a way for him to cut an Armistice with Hitler anyway.

Sending poor or malfunctioning equipment?

Wasn't that OTL of sending Matildas and Churchills?
 
Pulling back on LL is he way to do it. But, until D-Day, your need the USSR doing as much as possible. After D-Day, you risk Stalin slowing/stopping the pressure and letting Hitler focus on the Normandy beachheads. Until Soviet troops are coming up the Reich Chancellery driveway, the US/UK needs Stalin as much as he needs them.
 

Deleted member 9338

Throttle back Lend Lease to consumables like Food and Oil, after Stalin refuses USAAF basing rights in the East.

Stalin may rant and rave, but the USSR won't lose after 1942, just gets more expensive for him to win without Studebakers and locomotives.
After 1942, there isn't a way for him to cut an Armistice with Hitler anyway.



Wasn't that OTL of sending Matildas and Churchills?

Very cute.
I wonder if the allies could get more support to the Polish Home Army for them to free themselves without Soviet support.
 
Pulling back on LL is he way to do it. But, until D-Day, your need the USSR doing as much as possible. After D-Day, you risk Stalin slowing/stopping the pressure and letting Hitler focus on the Normandy beachheads. Until Soviet troops are coming up the Reich Chancellery driveway, the US/UK needs Stalin as much as he needs them.

No doubt but even if it sounds dark, the allies could have thought of a contingency to support the USSR just enough to avoid complete collapse while still being able to keep Germany honest.

The Soviets by 1944 seemed like they'd fight to the last man regardless of outlook.
 
Top