No Lend-Lease

[RGB]

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

Magnitogorsk, Sverdlovsk, Omsk, Novosibirsk, Kemerovo, Rubtsovsk, Barnaul, Krasnoyarsk, Tyumen.

You'd need ASBs on steroids for the Japanese to reach those.

------

As for actual kill ratios on the eastern Front: somewhere much closer to 1:2.5 rather than 1:11 (where do people get this number from?). The ratio rises somewhat if you consider the much higher Soviet POW mortality compared to the reverse situation.

 

[The Dean]

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

That's true but the Soviets had already infiltrated Cambridge and had Fuchs, Philby, Blunt, Burgess and Mclean in place. The they would have eventually acquired all of those advances.

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.

Quite possible, it just depends how much the Empire could manage to supply to Britain as to how long it could hold out.

 

[Wolf]

That's true but the Soviets had already infiltrated Cambridge and had Fuchs, Philby, Blunt, Burgess and Mclean in place. The they would have eventually acquired all of those advances.



Quite possible, it just depends how much the Empire could manage to supply to Britain as to how long it could hold out.

And if the Kriegsmarine can control the Atlantic they'll get a trickle at best.

 

[The Dean]

And if the Kriegsmarine can control the Atlantic they'll get a trickle at best.

Churchill was completely insa...I mean inflexible about negotiating with the Germans so he would have probably sent the Tizard mission to Russia and thrown his hat in with the Soviets if the USA wouldn't play ball.

 

[Wolf]

Churchill was completely insa...I mean inflexible about negotiating with the Germans so he would have probably sent the Tizard mission to Russia and thrown his hat in with the Soviets if the USA wouldn't play ball.

Maybe, but would he have been ok with the Soviets I have always been under the impression that he disliked Stalin more than Roosevelt did and that it was FDR who kept the two others together.

 

[The Dean]

Maybe, but would he have been ok with the Soviets I have always been under the impression that he disliked Stalin more than Roosevelt did and that it was FDR who kept the two others together.

I don't think so read this from the British Archives 1940-53.

"Churchill was indeed a classic Realpolitiker - Alliances, military force and the 'balance of power', not ideologies, were the principal concepts which underpinned his view of international politics. Churchill's remark that if Hitler had invaded Hell, he would at least have made 'a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons' was indication enough of the Prime Minister's determination to have any ally in the British crusade against Nazi Germany. Yet it is an oversimplification to portray Churchill's wartime support for the Soviet Union as merely a knee-jerk reaction to Hitler's offensive in June 1941."

You can see the complete archive here.

 

[stevep]

Guys

I think like so many of these issues the key point is our little Lepidopterial friends. What causes the change and how do the various players interact as a result? We seem to be presuming also that no L-L means no US military involvement in Europe although unclear whether a Pacific war with or without the US is occurring.

For Britain the two big questions are:
a) Is it just L-L or does the US not create its Neutrality Zone? That was important both because it shortened the section of the Atlantic that needed to be covered and possibly more importantly, if the US doesn't join the war then there's no 2nd happy time for the U boats. Instead they have to fight against a steadily improving escort force in the Atlantic.

b) Even more importantly, how does Britain react to no L-L? The down side is we have Churchill, who has no idea of how to win a war or basic economics. However there is an awful lot that could do to save resources. For instance what if the US is not supplying L-L because Britain drastically cuts back rather than expanding its purchases from the US. Could save a hell of a lot of funds that way. Also as often mentioned, by cutting back on the bombing campaign Britain could save a hell of a lot of resources, a factor that could be compounded by some of that saved resources being committed to the convoy battle. Since that would mean a huge saving on lost MS and cargos as well as the men involved.

Also L-L was not an unmixed factor for Britain Unlike other countries L-L came with very heavy strings attached for Britain. It was forbidden to trade in huge areas while having to give unrestricted access to its home market to the US, the latter keeping its own tariffs as well. Also it had to supply for free all the maintenance and support for the US forces operating in British territory. Have read this exceeded the total resources Britain got from L-L. Also did hear that Australia made a gain from L-L which I suspect was the US paid for resources obtained from them. Hence without L-L Britain could see a much better economic position that it might seem.

Still going to leave the economy seriously strained, even with better management and actually planning for a long war. However a lot of the stuff Britain gained from the US could be managed without or obtained from the Commonwealth and empire on better terms. If Britain decided to cut its cloth to its means and made a few good choices it could have maintained involvement in the war at not greatly reduced strength and in some cases stronger. The main difference would have been the weaker Bomber offensive but then considering how little impact it had for much of the war that may not have been a great loss.

A key factor would be if a Pacific war occurred how long before some alliance with the US was set up and how the two interact.

For the SU as several people have said it will not suffer greatly for the 1st year or so as that was relatively insignificant before then. After that the Soviets were pretty much secure except potentially in a long war but their turning of the tide in 42/43 will be more difficult and sustaining the advance to Berlin will be a hell of a lot harder. Again a lot would depend on the way the various factions respond to the changing circumstances. Does Stalin respond to a worsening position [relative to OTL] by interfering more to order reckless attacks to be continued or by seeking to reduce losses and make better use of resources? Do the Germans continue trying to attack again in 43/44 due to the Soviets not having clearly gained the iniative or seek to wear down the weakening Red Army by skilled defensive actions? If Britain is forced out of the conflict [unlikely] or to reduce aid to Russia [highly likely] then things worsen for Stalin. However he still has huge resources and if Britain did make peace, say due to a worsening position both economically and in the Pacific then Stalin can go even further in making his war a crusade against fascism. Much of the resistance activity in occupied Europe after 41 was communist led and many others might decide better Red than Fascist ruled.

All in all a longer and costlier war for all on the European continent. Probably also for Britain and possibly a heavier death toll for America if that means they are fully committed against Japan. Could lead to both dictatorships collapsing in exhaustion or a stalemate or one winning a probably pyrrhic victory.

Steve

 

[Wolf]

I don't think so read this from the British Archives 1940-53.

"Churchill was indeed a classic Realpolitiker - Alliances, military force and the 'balance of power', not ideologies, were the principal concepts which underpinned his view of international politics. Churchill's remark that if Hitler had invaded Hell, he would at least have made 'a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons' was indication enough of the Prime Minister's determination to have any ally in the British crusade against Nazi Germany. Yet it is an oversimplification to portray Churchill's wartime support for the Soviet Union as merely a knee-jerk reaction to Hitler's offensive in June 1941."

You can see the complete archive here.

Interesting. Any chance Churchill would be relived by say Halifax or someone who would be more willing create peace?

 

[The Dean]

Interesting. Any chance Churchill would be relived by say Halifax or someone who would be more willing create peace?

I think the reins of control would have to be pried from his cold dead hands without an election to remove him from power.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The Russians are seriously effected by the lack of lend-lease as they actually had less of a production capacity than the Germans. They were able to focus on several things and mass produce, which increased the number of items produced. If they need to manufacture large numbers of things they in OTL did not need to make, then this benefit drops significantly. Also, the Russians had great difficulty making high tech manufactured goods like radios, which would be crippling. One of their greatest handicaps during the first few years of war was that vehicles (tanks) could not communicate with one another and the Germans would out maneuver and destroy them. Even the vaunted t34 was far less useful without this technology. Also very large amounts of winter gear were shipped, which means that Soviet soldiers might be freezing after the first winter. High grade aviation fuel was unavailable to the Soviets, but they obtained it in large quantities from the US, which means that their airforce might have had an even greater reduction in effectiveness.

The fact of the matter is that without US goods, the Soviets are screwed. They would not lose the war (baring exceptional German leadership that was lacking), but they could not win it. I really do see a Brest-Litovsk peace, with both sides hurt and getting ready for the next round. However the Russians would be much worse off, more losses than OTL with none of the gains.

 

[Wolf]

I think the reins of control would have to be pried from his cold dead hands without an election to remove him from power.

How popular was he? How popular would he be after years of a losing war with British cities being bombed (not a Blitz rates but frequently enough to rattle the populace's nerves), combined with rationing (very possibly more severe without American food and industrial aide)? Could he survive and election challenge?

 

[RGB]

High grade aviation fuel was unavailable to the Soviets, but they obtained it in large quantities from the US, which means that their airforce might have had an even greater reduction in effectiveness.

High-grade aviation fuel was used for the Aerocobras and such, mostly. Soviet planes flew on Soviet fuel. If you want something that was really crucial, it would be corned beef and aluminium.

The fact of the matter is that without US goods, the Soviets are screwed. They would not lose the war (baring exceptional German leadership that was lacking), but they could not win it. I really do see a Brest-Litovsk peace, with both sides hurt and getting ready for the next round. However the Russians would be much worse off, more losses than OTL with none of the gains.

Brest-Litovsk v.2, to be honest, is not possible for political reasons even if nothing else. Except of course there was something else - the Soviets were capable of bleeding Germany white quite before the reverse happened. So the fact of the matter is, there would be no Brest-Litovsk, I'm afraid.

 

[redi.redion]

slsls

Ok that is pure propaganda.
The Russians won the war, are you kidding me.
Without the US joining the war the Germans would have won.
I suggest that read “Dirty little secrets of world war 2”, a book that is all about statistics and numbers.
The Germans had the best-trained army with the best fighting doctrine in comparison the Russians were at best a bunch of amateurs.
They didn’t have an army not in a modern sense anyhow, all they had was manpower that was thrown in the war untrained and under the threat of being shot in the back if they retreated and having their family sent in a gulag in Siberia.
The Russian Army was unprepared and didn’t even have the basic equipment; they were better prepared for World War I than for the second.
The great patriotic war was and still is Stalin propaganda

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Large, bolded letters do not make your arguement any better, just more annoying.

On the issue of a Brest-Litovsk 2, if it were to come about it would likely be a result of the Germans and Soviets making a peace of mutual exhaustion based more-or-less on the current frontlines. As others have said, lack of Lend-Lease is going to seriously hurt the Soviet military capacity as soldiers will be sent back to the farm and factories that built tanks and artillery OTL will need to be devoted to logistical support.

 

[The Red]

Ok that is pure propaganda.
The Russians won the war, are you kidding me.
Without the US joining the war the Germans would have won.
I suggest that read “Dirty little secrets of world war 2”, a book that is all about statistics and numbers.
The Germans had the best-trained army with the best fighting doctrine in comparison the Russians were at best a bunch of amateurs.
They didn’t have an army not in a modern sense anyhow, all they had was manpower that was thrown in the war untrained and under the threat of being shot in the back if they retreated and having their family sent in a gulag in Siberia.
The Russian Army was unprepared and didn’t even have the basic equipment; they were better prepared for World War I than for the second.
The great patriotic war was and still is Stalin propaganda

I think your under the propaganda influence mate.

Never heard of the T-34-the most effective tank of the war?

The ppSH 41?

The Yak-3?

The IL-2?

The soviets were unprepared but certainly didnt just have man power-at the end of the war the Soviets had some equipment that was superior to the Americans.Most of their equipment was less effective but the gap was not that wide and the Soviets of course had equipment that was easy to mass produce.

Remember for every 10 Germans killed 9 were killed in the east.

And the day before Pearl Harbour the Soviets had already saved Moscow and were pushing the Germans back in their first counter offensive.Without America the war would have been longer but still won by the allies.America was the least important of the big three.

 

[redi.redion]

ss

America was the least important of the big three.
You got to be kidding me?
The Americans were the decisive factor in ww2 and ww1.

 

[Shimbo]

America was the least important of the big three.
You got to be kidding me?
The Americans were the decisive factor in ww2 and ww1.

You saying it doesn't make it true (even if you write in big bold letters).

Present some evidence.

 

[The Dean]

How popular was he? How popular would he be after years of a losing war with British cities being bombed (not a Blitz rates but frequently enough to rattle the populace's nerves), combined with rationing (very possibly more severe without American food and industrial aide)? Could he survive and election challenge?

He couldn't and didn't, remember he lost the 1945 election on OTL, but he would be able to resist calling an election in the midst of a deep crisis.

 

[thevaliant]

What happens if say the US listens to Bob Taft et. al and stays isolationist so therefore there is no Lend-Lease. Do the USSR and the UK go under?

Although I haven't yet read the rest, what is your stance on the US itself?

Is it merely 'We won't give lend lease' but we are still at war with Germany and Japan, keeping any aid for ourselves? Slower Soviet advance. Better US one is probably the result. With the United States in Berlin in May 1945 rather than the USSR.

Interesting post war situation but doesn't radically alter the result of the war.

 

[thevaliant]

You saying it doesn't make it true (even if you write in big bold letters).

Present some evidence.

He went on my ignore list within a minute of me reading his posts. But I still get to see them, including the big bold letters, in replies to his rubbish.

*Sigh*