No Lend-Lease

[Shimbo]

You are right about Moscow but not Stalingrad. The US sent 79,000 trucks in 1942. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/BigL/BigL-5.html . If you assume only 10 men per truck you are talking about the capability of moving 790,000 men around quickly. If you assume each truck can move 2.5 tons then it can move around 197,500 tons of supplies. That is hardly insignifigant.

I know there were some Lend-Lease supplies before the Stalingrad, but Stalingrad was IIRC before the bulk of lend Lease supplies reached the front.

Note this sentence from the source you listed: "While much of this aid arrived too late to physically help the Soviets stop the German advance, it certainly proved useful in their subsequent counter-offensive."

My point is that the statement that "the Soviets were no match for the Germans" is incorrect. I don't dispute that Lend lease helped make the Russians more than a match for the Germans.

 

[Andrew Hudson]

It would not be some much as an outright victory for Nazi Germany as a stalemate that would give Germany the upper hand. The invasiopn of Europe would have been out of the question without active involvement of the USA. The 50 destroyers were obsolete as destroyers but still useful for anti submarine escorts. By 1941 the top 3 U-boat aces were either killed otr captured largely due to radar and the first escort carrier had been used but 50 more destroyers certainly helped, there would also have been no diversion of U-boats to attack shipping off the East Coast of the United States and convoys to Russia would have stretched the Royal Navy even further. By 1943 the U-boats would have probably got on top and Britain would have settled leaving Germany running Europe. Britain would probably have run out of money with no prospect of America joining in. Russia may well have struggled through but without a second front, Stalin would have had to settle on unfavourable terms.

 

[Johnrankins]

If the counter-offensive doesn't have nearly as much speed behind it in OTL than ours the Eastern Front could well stagnate due to lack of transportation.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

There is one factor no one has talked about: FOOD!!! Without American food aid to the Soviets, many would have starved. Not only that, more soldiers would not be sent to the front as they would be needed to farm. Also locamotives and rolling stock were crucial components without which the Soviets are in trouble. Militarily the Soviets could have held out on their own, but considering all the other aid, without the Americans, the Soviets were done. They could not win, but at best hope for a stalemate. The Brits would be bankrupt by '42 and forced to leave the war. They had one of the lowest economic mobilizations of any nation in the war. The US won the war with material, their manpower was tertiary at best.

 

[Andrew Hudson]

Britain managed to reach a virtual total war economy by late 1940 well before Nazi Germany particularly in things like aircraft production cycles. However that alone wouldn't have won the war. Starvation was fairy rife in Soviet Russia collectivisation of agriculture didn't facilitate any foord suprluses however Stalin was prepared to ride roughshod over public opinion. It would have had to be on a sufficient scale to generation an uprising

 

[Wolf]

There is one factor no one has talked about: FOOD!!! Without American food aid to the Soviets, many would have starved. Not only that, more soldiers would not be sent to the front as they would be needed to farm. Also locamotives and rolling stock were crucial components without which the Soviets are in trouble. Militarily the Soviets could have held out on their own, but considering all the other aid, without the Americans, the Soviets were done. They could not win, but at best hope for a stalemate. The Brits would be bankrupt by '42 and forced to leave the war. They had one of the lowest economic mobilizations of any nation in the war. The US won the war with material, their manpower was tertiary at best.

We always forget about food in such discussions. Good point.

 

[Ward]

Or even worse for the Soviets, get Turkey involved.



Except the Soviets had that 12th man waiting after all 11 had been killed.

Also by 1942 that Fell to 7 to 1 . and by 1944 it was at 4 to 1 and rember by then the Soviet Union was attacking along the Whole Frount .
And Lend Lease sent the Realy importian iteams to the USSR that was radios and Boots .

 

[General Zod]

There is one factor no one has talked about: FOOD!!! Without American food aid to the Soviets, many would have starved. Not only that, more soldiers would not be sent to the front as they would be needed to farm. Also locamotives and rolling stock were crucial components without which the Soviets are in trouble. Militarily the Soviets could have held out on their own, but considering all the other aid, without the Americans, the Soviets were done. They could not win, but at best hope for a stalemate. The Brits would be bankrupt by '42 and forced to leave the war. They had one of the lowest economic mobilizations of any nation in the war. The US won the war with material, their manpower was tertiary at best.

You are fully right. Expectations that the Soviets would reach Berlin, much less the Rhine or the Channel, in these conditions is ridiculously overblown Sovietwanking. Without American support, the Brits would be utterly bankrupt and forced to sue for peace by 1942. As for the Soviets, the Land-Lease fed their soldiers and workers, built their trucks, locomotives, cars, radioes, and several other key parts of their war effort. So they built the vast majority of their tanks and artillery pieces. Yep, so what ? If they lack L-L, they shall have to divert a substantial amount of their soldiers and factory workers to the farm, or they shall starve. And they shall have to make do without American trucks, which means their offensives shall be nowhere as mobile as IOTL, which means any inch of land they win from the Germans shall be much more costly in Soviet lives, and any advance all the more slow. Or they shall have to divert a substantial amount of tank/artillery/ammunition production to substitute for those foodstuff/trucks/whatever, which emans their offensives shall be all the less effective, and their consummation of manpower all the more severe, as above.

This means a total Soviet victory is ASB. They shall exaust their manpower reserves, which almost happened as they were closing on Berlin IOTL, sometime in 1943-44, and after that they shall be forced to sue for peace. A total German victory is still rather unlikely unless another PoD significantly betters German weaponry and generalship but the plausible outcome for the German-Soviet war ranges from a stalemate on the 1941 border in the very best case for the Russkies (but the 1939 border is rather more plausible) to a second Brest Litovsk compromise peace, with Stalin being forced to cede the Baltic states, Belarus, and Ukraine to Germany, in a plausible best case for Germany, and the a border on the Dnieper as a possible compromise.

 

[RGB]

11:1?

That alone is enough to pinpoint where you need to start correcting your impressions of the conflict!

------

Food was by far the most important thing that Lend-Lease provided, after that the raw materials. It certainly made things much easier and prevented starvation in frontline zones.

Food was really tight, as any of my relatives can tell you. Wild plants were a common ingredient in food as filler in some mostly-agricultural areas because everything else went to the front.

Everything else mattered a lot less. When people mention locomotives, trucks and such, they completely ignore everything that was built pre-war. Silly thing to do.

Still, without LL victory would be much slower in coming, and perhaps there would be no manpower left to take Europe as per OTL.

 

[The Red]

One thing many on this forum fail to understand-The Soviets won the War not America.Without America we would have still won but lost the cold war.

 

[hopper2cool]

One thing many on this forum fail to understand-The Soviets won the War not America.Without America we would have still won but lost the cold war.

I would disagree with this. The US, UK, and USSR were ALLIES. Remove one and the others are in a much worse place.
I do believe that the USSR was the most important of the allies. I also completely disagree with Americans who say "We saved your butt in WW2". That does not make the opposite right though. There is not real way to know what would happen with a truely neutral US. Britain might have had to drop out of the war which would make things much harder for Stalin. Japan might have invaded Russia whick probably wouldn't have done much damage but certainly wouldn't have helped.

 

[The Red]

I completely agree but without the Americans and probably even the British the Soviets still would have won.The importance of the US is overblown,I'd say in the general scheme of things Britain was a greater contributor than them.

 

[General Zod]

One thing many on this forum fail to understand-The Soviets won the War not America.Without America we would have still won but lost the cold war.

Sure, sure, Uncle Joe was guaranteed to conquer all of Europe the moment Barbarossa started, if those pesky Americans had not interfered with their D-day and nukes, magical Siberian factories and Kremlin clone facilities ensured that the Socialist Fatherland could win any conventional war, against any enemy in any condition, all of continental Europe's manpower and industrial potential arrayed against them can't compare. Ahh, the magical world of Communist propaganda.



How they are going to attack along the whole front and make rapid advances without trucks ? And who's going to feed their soldiers ? And how much their kill ratio is going to worsen if they go on the offensive with a much less mobile Red Army and lacking all the tanks and artillery pieces they shall not produce as they send factory workers to farm Central Asia or Soviet Union shall starve ?

And speaking of kill ratio, let's give a look to the other half of the PoD: Britain shall go bankrupt and sue for peace in 1942. Which means no Allied bombing, the whole industrial potential of continental Europe shall be directed against the Soviets, the Wehrmacht can use all the men they wasted in flak defenses, Africa, Italy, and France on the Eastern Front, not to mention the fact that Italy can keep sending men there too, and Spain, Vichy France shall enthusiastically join the Axis and do the same, and there is very good chance that Turkey shall do the same. With the UK leaving the war, anti-Communist resistance movements in Europe shall dwindle to a trickle, which means less need for German garrisons, and local fascist vassals more able and willing to contribute men and material to the Axis war effort.

The Red Army is not going to win this war (winning as in "putting a boot outside their pre-war borders"). At the very best they can hope to reach a stalemate and win a decent compromise peace, when their strategic reserve runs dry.

 

[RGB]

And speaking of kill ratio, let's give a look to the other half of the PoD: Britain shall go bankrupt and sue for peace in 1942. Which means no Allied bombing, the whole industrial potential of continental Europe shall be directed against the Soviets, the Wehrmacht can use all the men they wasted in flak defenses, Africa, Italy, and France on the Eastern Front, not to mention the fact that Italy can keep sending men there too, and Spain, Vichy France shall enthusiastically join the Axis and do the same, and there is very good chance that Turkey shall do the same.

All those men? Numbers, please? I'm under the impression that the vast majority was already on the Eastern Front and they already exceeded their own operational capacity, otherwise we'd have none of the endless "they moved a little faster = Moscow fell" nonsense.

With the UK leaving the war, anti-Communist resistance movements in Europe shall dwindle to a trickle, which means less need for German garrisons, and local fascist vassals more able and willing to contribute men and material to the Axis war effort.

Que? Explain this one to me.

The Red Army is not going to win this war (winning as in "putting a boot outside their pre-war borders"). At the very best they can hope to reach a stalemate and win a decent compromise peace, when their strategic reserve runs dry.

Depends on what you mean by "decent compromise peace" - 1941 borders seem possible to me, 1939 borders seem likely. You, however, mention Brest-Litovsk #2.

Wasn't gonna happen, American trucks or no. That kind of peace wouldn't be agreed to by any marginally sane Soviet leadership, because it means certain defeat in a quickly upcoming rematch. Especially, of course, due to the food-starved population.

Starving people for a few years until victory could be done (as per OTL); starving them for a decade to rebuild before a certain defeat isn't possible.

 

[The Dean]

Another butterfly from this would be without Lend-Lease there would be no Tizard mission. That would mean no sharing of British knowledge and technology with America. That would mean no cavity magnetron, no colossus, no gas turbines and no tube alloys for the US to play with. So you can kiss goodbye to 10cm radar, jet aircraft and the atom bomb for America.

 

[The Red]

Sure, sure, Uncle Joe was guaranteed to conquer all of Europe the moment Barbarossa started, if those pesky Americans had not interfered with their D-day and nukes, magical Siberian factories and Kremlin clone facilities ensured that the Socialist Fatherland could win any conventional war, against any enemy in any condition, all of continental Europe's manpower and industrial potential arrayed against them can't compare. Ahh, the magical world of Communist propaganda.



How they are going to attack along the whole front and make rapid advances without trucks ? And who's going to feed their soldiers ? And how much their kill ratio is going to worsen if they go on the offensive with a much less mobile Red Army and lacking all the tanks and artillery pieces they shall not produce as they send factory workers to farm Central Asia or Soviet Union shall starve ?

And speaking of kill ratio, let's give a look to the other half of the PoD: Britain shall go bankrupt and sue for peace in 1942. Which means no Allied bombing, the whole industrial potential of continental Europe shall be directed against the Soviets, the Wehrmacht can use all the men they wasted in flak defenses, Africa, Italy, and France on the Eastern Front, not to mention the fact that Italy can keep sending men there too, and Spain, Vichy France shall enthusiastically join the Axis and do the same, and there is very good chance that Turkey shall do the same. With the UK leaving the war, anti-Communist resistance movements in Europe shall dwindle to a trickle, which means less need for German garrisons, and local fascist vassals more able and willing to contribute men and material to the Axis war effort.

The Red Army is not going to win this war (winning as in "putting a boot outside their pre-war borders"). At the very best they can hope to reach a stalemate and win a decent compromise peace, when their strategic reserve runs dry.

I did not mean that the Soviets will reach Berlin in 1945 but they will still reach it.

Britain will not surrender,ever,unless theres a coup which is unlikely.

Remember American aid only arrived in large quantities for the Soviets from mid 1943,by which time the Germans cannot hope to win the war and only get a suitable peace,which Stalin will never accept and neither will Churchill unless its more or less unconditional.

And I don't remember D-Day or the Bombs turning the tide anyways,the only thing the American entry did was ensure our victory a statement which would be underlined in Febuary 1943 anyways.

Im seeing the war lasting to 1947 with a completely red europe.

 

[RGB]

Im seeing the war lasting to 1947 with a completely red europe.

It'd be fun, but I can't. The USSR really was low on men and logistical capacity. Germany or any of its puppets had no qualitative advantage by then, but that's neither here nor there. Logistics are far more important.

Even Berlin seems a stretch. Even Warsaw seems like a major achievement.

What I CAN see happening is (an unreasonably determined) USSR having to rely on Eastern European allies that they could acquire if they push far enough. Which could result in a very interesting Europe, but no guarantees that it will be all red at all.

 

[Wolf]

Also by 1942 that Fell to 7 to 1 . and by 1944 it was at 4 to 1 and rember by then the Soviet Union was attacking along the Whole Frount .
And Lend Lease sent the Realy importian iteams to the USSR that was radios and Boots .

Agreed. Numerical superiority can only go so far.

I would disagree with this. The US, UK, and USSR were ALLIES. Remove one and the others are in a much worse place.
I do believe that the USSR was the most important of the allies. I also completely disagree with Americans who say "We saved your butt in WW2". That does not make the opposite right though. There is not real way to know what would happen with a truely neutral US. Britain might have had to drop out of the war which would make things much harder for Stalin. Japan might have invaded Russia whick probably wouldn't have done much damage but certainly wouldn't have helped.

Sure Japan would not do that much, but still if the Soviets lost Kamchatka and Vladivostok and other parts of Siberia while it would not have lost them the war they would have had to divert more troops to the Far East, further putting them into a stranglehold. They would be between a rock and a hard place.


A question for someone; Where were the Soviet Siberian factories located? Could Japan, if they had gotten a foothold in Siberia?

Sure, sure, Uncle Joe was guaranteed to conquer all of Europe the moment Barbarossa started, if those pesky Americans had not interfered with their D-day and nukes, magical Siberian factories and Kremlin clone facilities ensured that the Socialist Fatherland could win any conventional war, against any enemy in any condition, all of continental Europe's manpower and industrial potential arrayed against them can't compare. Ahh, the magical world of Communist propaganda.



How they are going to attack along the whole front and make rapid advances without trucks ? And who's going to feed their soldiers ? And how much their kill ratio is going to worsen if they go on the offensive with a much less mobile Red Army and lacking all the tanks and artillery pieces they shall not produce as they send factory workers to farm Central Asia or Soviet Union shall starve ?

And speaking of kill ratio, let's give a look to the other half of the PoD: Britain shall go bankrupt and sue for peace in 1942. Which means no Allied bombing, the whole industrial potential of continental Europe shall be directed against the Soviets, the Wehrmacht can use all the men they wasted in flak defenses, Africa, Italy, and France on the Eastern Front, not to mention the fact that Italy can keep sending men there too, and Spain, Vichy France shall enthusiastically join the Axis and do the same, and there is very good chance that Turkey shall do the same. With the UK leaving the war, anti-Communist resistance movements in Europe shall dwindle to a trickle, which means less need for German garrisons, and local fascist vassals more able and willing to contribute men and material to the Axis war effort.

The Red Army is not going to win this war (winning as in "putting a boot outside their pre-war borders"). At the very best they can hope to reach a stalemate and win a decent compromise peace, when their strategic reserve runs dry.

Agreed. A question, General what kind of terms would the Brits have gotten from the Germans? Could Germany recruit anti-communists in Britain and around the world to fight the Russian?

 

[The Dean]

I did not mean that the Soviets will reach Berlin in 1945 but they will still reach it.

Britain will not surrender,ever,unless theres a coup which is unlikely.

Remember American aid only arrived in large quantities for the Soviets from mid 1943,by which time the Germans cannot hope to win the war and only get a suitable peace,which Stalin will never accept and neither will Churchill unless its more or less unconditional.

And I don't remember D-Day or the Bombs turning the tide anyways,the only thing the American entry did was ensure our victory a statement which would be underlined in Febuary 1943 anyways.

Im seeing the war lasting to 1947 with a completely red europe.

I think your correct in all that. Then the Soviets would get the advances that went to the USA with the Tizard Mission as Fuchs, Philby, Blunt, Burgess and Mclean fed it back to Moscow.

 

[Wolf]

Another butterfly from this would be without Lend-Lease there would be no Tizard mission. That would mean no sharing of British knowledge and technology with America. That would mean no cavity magnetron, no colossus, no gas turbines and no tube alloys for the US to play with. So you can kiss goodbye to 10cm radar, jet aircraft and the atom bomb for America.

Or at least significantly retard their development. I figure if the Germans become the superpower in Europe and Japan is Asia I see a joint American/Canadian fortress North America going down. Things will get nasty. A Nazi-American Cold War would have been worse than OTL's

I did not mean that the Soviets will reach Berlin in 1945 but they will still reach it.

Britain will not surrender,ever,unless theres a coup which is unlikely.

Remember American aid only arrived in large quantities for the Soviets from mid 1943,by which time the Germans cannot hope to win the war and only get a suitable peace,which Stalin will never accept and neither will Churchill unless its more or less unconditional.

And I don't remember D-Day or the Bombs turning the tide anyways,the only thing the American entry did was ensure our victory a statement which would be underlined in Febuary 1943 anyways.

Im seeing the war lasting to 1947 with a completely red europe.

The Brits might not have much choice, Germany can wear them down in attrition if nothing else, or starve them out. And if the Germans can manage to help the IRA out a little more, they can make life unpleasant along with sabotage which will be even worse than OTL with the Brits relying on their own industrial capacity instead of the vast industrial capacity of the United States.