Mrstrategy
Banned
Would russia be able to win against germany in ww2 without lend lease from England and U.S?
Would russia be able to win against germany in ww2 without lend lease from England and U.S?
As I recall, very little Lend Lease arrived before 1943, and the Soviets essentially ended any possibility of German victory before then, at Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad.
We're talking no LL to the soviets, not The US and Britain being neutral, so there's still the bombing campaign, still an invasion of Normandy, etc. which will draw German forces away from the Eastern Front.No - without LL the Germans manage to fight the Red Army to a standstill at Stalingrad or Kursk creating a stalemate/ceasefire.
We're talking no LL to the soviets, not The US and Britain being neutral, so there's still the bombing campaign, still an invasion of Normandy, etc. which will draw German forces away from the Eastern Front.
True... but the Soviet victory was by the narrowest of margins, and the Soviet people and economy were stretched to the very limit. Even the modest amount of Lend-Lease that arrived in 1941-1942 was significant in those circumstances.
There was a very long, very erudite discussion of this on the USENET forum soc.history.war.world-war-ii a few years ago. And the final summation (generally agreed by all participants) was that it was too close to call. No one could say definitely that the USSR would have survived without Lend-Lease, or that it would not.
If the USSR survives the crisis of 1941-1942, it will eventually "win", in the sense that Germany will be defeated and the USSR will be on the winning side. But it might not be true that the USSR will "win against Germany". In WW I, Romania survived and was on the winning side at the end - but had lost 2/3 of its territory and capitulated first.
Effect of no LL would be showing only in 1944. Till end of 1943 everything would be more or less same. However in 1944 there will be no Bagration and collaps of AG Center and Soviets will be advencing much slowly.Thats what I have been writing about. The lack of LL alone would have most likely allowed the Germans to fight the RA to a standstill by the end of 42 or in mid 43. Without LL AND a war against the West, the USSR loses the Caucasus in late 1942 and its economy collapses in late 1943 at the latest.
More like by mid 1945 Soviets will be on Vistula. On other side in this situation in mid 1945 western allies could be just somewhere in France!No - without LL the Germans manage to fight the Red Army to a standstill at Stalingrad or Kursk creating a stalemate/ceasefire. Even if the Soviets manage to win these two battles their advances in the 43-45 period would not resemble their OTL performance but rather one "Mars" offensive after another - offensives with horrendous casualties for very little gain. By mid 1945 the Soviets have either quit the war - or are standing at the mid 1944 OTL frontline - for twice the casualties.
Would russia be able to win against germany in ww2 without lend lease from England and U.S?
Effect of no LL would be showing only in 1944. Till end of 1943 everything would be more or less same.
Effect of no LL would be showing only in 1944. Till end of 1943 everything would be more or less same. However in 1944 there will be no Bagration and collaps of AG Center and Soviets will be advencing much slowly.
Result? More death Soviet, more death Western allies as there will be more German soldiers and tanks in France and Italy and very likely some German town will get instant sunshine. At the end Soviets occupy Poland, Hungary and Romania as OTL. Czechoslovakia will be in same position as OTL or worst as Soviets will not even pull out from there.
As a consequence war with Japan may go well into 1946.
LL was best investment US and west did. Saved thousands maybe millions of west allied lives.
No LL at all? Probably not due to the food issue alone, but the lack of explosives, aluminum, communications equipment, trucks, etc. make it pretty tough to do anything like what they did historically. The US alone provided $11 Billion in LL in 1940 dollars. Without that the Soviets might not collapse, but the Wallies have to do most of the heavy lifting them and the Soviets end up much further east and much more exhausted and might well implode post-war. A lot more Soviets would starve to death during the war without LL food.Would russia be able to win against germany in ww2 without lend lease from England and U.S?
A lot of LL arrived in 1941-42, but it was much smaller than what came from 1943 on. It is arguable whether they could have made it through 1942 without LL or at least pull of Stalingrad. It should be noted that during the Caucasus campaign over 40% of Soviet AFVs in that area were LL models. Without LL Kursk may not even happen due to the Soviets being further East and worn down than IOTL.I believe the answer is generally Yes, but at significantly greater cost and without the ability to make the grand advances of 1944-5 that the Red Army made.
As I recall, very little Lend Lease arrived before 1943, and the Soviets essentially ended any possibility of German victory before then, at Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad. Kursk probably wasn't going to end in German victory either. After Kursk, the USSR is going to win - it's just a matter of how long it takes and how much that victory costs.