No Lend-Lease for the USSR

In WW2, the USA included its ally the USSR in the lend lease, and after the conclusion of the conflict, the USA and USSR went and fought the Cold War. If the USSR had not received loans and material support, would they have ended the war in a worse position? Would the Nazis have conquered the USSR and prevailed? Would there be any Cold War, and if so, what would play out differently?
 
There is really no reason the US would not include lend-lease for the Soviet Union so long as the two are at war with Germany. The strategic calculus is dead simple and runs like this:

Can the US+UK win the war without the USSR? Answer: Yes.
Can the US+UK win the war at minimal human cost to themselves without the USSR? Answer: No.
Do the US+UK want to win the war at minimal human cost to themselves? Answer: Yes.

So basically, in order to avoid the Soviets getting lend-lease, you have to either have them defeated before lend-lease can get to them in adequate numbers (so basically a collapse in 1941-42) or Germany never attacks them in the first place. In the former event, there is no Cold War because the USSR has collapsed and the European bits are in the process of being genocided out of existence. In the latter event, there is a Cold War largely along the same lines because once the WAllies are across the Rhine or starts getting nuked (whichever comes first) the Red Army will crush the remnants of Germany's shattered armies and seize control of Eastern Europe. In such a case, the Soviets will be a tougher Cold War opponent then IOTL because they will not have suffered the massive devastation to their country as they did OTL.
 
The short answer is that the Germans fail to take over the USSR, but the USSR lacks the means to take over Germany. Basically a long and bloody stalemate in Soviet territory that neither side can really win.

The Western Front plays out pretty much as in OTL, with some added time to allow for increased German ground forces. The Western Allies take Berlin, overrun Germany and push into Poland. The war ends with the Allied powers dominating continental Europe and the Soviets a regional threat at most.
 
Maybe Malaya and North Africa get more kit. Let's ship all the Valentines made in Canada to Vancouver and then Singapore, for example.
 
The USSR would probably have collapsed without massive Lend Lease. As it was, all of the Rissian Army's half-tracks, motorcycles along with significant numbers of tanks and airplanes were supplied by WALLIES. This allowed Rusdia to concentrate on building tanks and killing Germans.
For comparison - during the summer of 1944 - the German Army deployed 26 divisions in Notmandy, but more like 200 divisions on the Eastern Front.
Stalin repeatedly threatened to surrender if he did not receive more LL. Victory in Europe was all about the Russian Army bleeding Germany dry. WALLIES found it far less expensive to give millions of tons of LL raw materials, trucks, tanks, airplanes, etc.
 
The USSR would probably have collapsed without massive Lend Lease. As it was, all of the Rissian Army's half-tracks, motorcycles along with significant numbers of tanks and airplanes were supplied by WALLIES. This allowed Rusdia to concentrate on building tanks and killing Germans.
For comparison - during the summer of 1944 - the German Army deployed 26 divisions in Notmandy, but more like 200 divisions on the Eastern Front.
Stalin repeatedly threatened to surrender if he did not receive more LL. Victory in Europe was all about the Russian Army bleeding Germany dry. WALLIES found it far less expensive to give millions of tons of LL raw materials, trucks, tanks, airplanes, etc.

Not collapsed, not without Leningrad falling in 41 or something equally large, but they would have been hurting far far worse until the Western front in Europe is fully opened up.
 

Deleted member 1487

Do a search, we've beaten this topic to death, burned it, and urinated on the ashes.
 
Maybe Malaya and North Africa get more kit. Let's ship all the Valentines made in Canada to Vancouver and then Singapore, for example.

I would imagine that most of the British kit would still be facing the Nazis as per the "Europe First" strategy. Serious reinforcements for the Far East were only sent after Japan's entry into the war, and previous assessments noting what it would take to defend Singapore and the like were ignored in favor of Europe. Once the war was on attempts to stave off disaster could conceivably have been made (particularly in the Philippines), but by then it was a matter of not reinforcing defeat.
 

Andre27

Banned
Not collapsed, not without Leningrad falling in 41 or something equally large, but they would have been hurting far far worse until the Western front in Europe is fully opened up.

That is an opinion i share. Without the western transport assets such as trucks and trains i feel the USSR would have suffered a LOT more casualties.

Not to the point where they might have lost the was, the massive distances and the German supply chaos were sufficient to avoid that, but in my opinion it could have delayed the soviet counter offensives by 6-12 months.

This by itself could have been beneficial for the western allies since the meat grinder in the east kept going no matter in which direction the front line was moving. This could have resulted in fewer forces in Italy and France to counter the invasions there.

Would the delay of no LL to the USSR have been sufficient to have an eastern front on Russian soil by the time the western allies crossed the Rhine or took Berlin THAT is something which is difficult to judge.

The inevitable cold war would be a lot more frosty than it was OTL though.

As for the reason for withholding LL, were there any assets from American or British companies confiscated during the Russian Civil war?
Perhaps a lack of compensation for those assets might lead to very strong anti soviet sentiments.

In the United States the isolationist movement was quite influential as were the Nazi sympathizers. Perhaps these groups can put a stop to the LL for the USSR.
 

jahenders

Banned
Well said, but then the question becomes one of how much lend lease and for how long. It was definitely worth giving USSR some lend lease, but could we have produced overall better results (for us) by giving them slightly less such that iron curtain wound up slightly farther East?

There is really no reason the US would not include lend-lease for the Soviet Union so long as the two are at war with Germany. The strategic calculus is dead simple and runs like this:

Can the US+UK win the war without the USSR? Answer: Yes.
Can the US+UK win the war at minimal human cost to themselves without the USSR? Answer: No.
Do the US+UK want to win the war at minimal human cost to themselves? Answer: Yes.

So basically, in order to avoid the Soviets getting lend-lease, you have to either have them defeated before lend-lease can get to them in adequate numbers (so basically a collapse in 1941-42) or Germany never attacks them in the first place. In the former event, there is no Cold War because the USSR has collapsed and the European bits are in the process of being genocided out of existence. In the latter event, there is a Cold War largely along the same lines because once the WAllies are across the Rhine or starts getting nuked (whichever comes first) the Red Army will crush the remnants of Germany's shattered armies and seize control of Eastern Europe. In such a case, the Soviets will be a tougher Cold War opponent then IOTL because they will not have suffered the massive devastation to their country as they did OTL.
 
One wonders how quick the Soviets would play the card of having been abandoned by their Allies during the war, driving post-war hostility. It's an easy excuse for a lot of things the Russians could pull after the war...if they were in any position to do anything, given how weak they may be in the aftermath.
 
There is really no reason the US would not include lend-lease for the Soviet Union so long as the two are at war with Germany.
Well there was always the 1940 Republican National Convention where apparently some local communists, the police finding several still being built at the local headquarters, decided it would be a good idea to plant bombs at the convention and around Philadelphia but thankfully they were discovered. IIRC one of them was planted near to where Herbert Hoover was meant to be. If they were to not be discovered and detonate killing a number of delegate and a former President perhaps a powerful politician or press baron with an axe to grind whips up the idea that it was part of a wider communist plot, perhaps even linked back to Moscow? Regardless of the truth of the accusations come 1941 that could make it somewhat more difficult to extend Lend-Lease to the USSR.
 
There's always the possibility of a U.S that is, for whatver reason, neutral. It won't be easy, but it would be possible.
 

Deleted member 1487

The only way the USSR isn't getting LL is if Britain exits the war before LL is passed in Congress and the USSR then faces Germany all by itself. The US won't likely extend LL for fear of the USSR collapsing and Germany getting it, while Congress is not going to pass it for the first time to aid the Soviets.
 
Well said, but then the question becomes one of how much lend lease and for how long. It was definitely worth giving USSR some lend lease, but could we have produced overall better results (for us) by giving them slightly less such that iron curtain wound up slightly farther East?

In short: no. Not even today can one identify a point where the WAllies could safely reduce or cut-off lend-lease early enough to prevent the iron curtain from falling as per OTL without also compromising the ease of combat on the Western Front.

If they were to not be discovered and detonate killing a number of delegate and a former President perhaps a powerful politician or press baron with an axe to grind whips up the idea that it was part of a wider communist plot, perhaps even linked back to Moscow? Regardless of the truth of the accusations come 1941 that could make it somewhat more difficult to extend Lend-Lease to the USSR.

That would quickly be forgotten by the exigencies of the US and Soviet Union being on the same side by 1942, just like the much more substantial Soviet aggression against the Baltic States, Finland, and so-on was forgotten IOTL. When push comes to shove, wartime realities and strategic exigencies override any previous animosity.

The only way the USSR isn't getting LL is if Britain exits the war before LL is passed in Congress and the USSR then faces Germany all by itself. The US won't likely extend LL for fear of the USSR collapsing and Germany getting it, while Congress is not going to pass it for the first time to aid the Soviets.

Hardly. The Soviets won't receive as much aid, particularly in weaponry, but the US and British could and would ship the Soviets stuff like raw materials and food. Temporary. There was every expectation that the USSR would collapse in 1941 anyways, but went WAllies went ahead with both pre-lend lease and lend-lease anyway because they figured that they could prolong the point of collapse and bleed the Germans out a whole lot more.
 

Deleted member 1487

Hardly. The Soviets won't receive as much aid, particularly in weaponry, but the US and British could and would ship the Soviets stuff like raw materials and food. Temporary. There was every expectation that the USSR would collapse in 1941 anyways, but went WAllies went ahead with both pre-lend lease and lend-lease anyway because they figured that they could prolong the point of collapse and bleed the Germans out a whole lot more.
I didn't say they wouldn't be allowed to buy things, which they did via what you call pre-LL, its just they wouldn't be given things for free. Cash and Carry would still be the law so the Soviets could buy and haul whatever they could so long as they paid in cash.
 
I didn't say they wouldn't be allowed to buy things, which they did via what you call pre-LL, its just they wouldn't be given things for free. Cash and Carry would still be the law so the Soviets could buy and haul whatever they could so long as they paid in cash.

Again, hardly. The US would be perfectly willing to provide aid on credit, if not as much. The perception of a strategic threat posed by the Nazis after the Fall of France was seen as real enough for aid to the Soviets to become publicly feasible, particularly with the unprovoked German invasion giving them sympathy.
 
Top