No Russians lend lease

Would russia be able to win against germany in ww2 without lend lease from England and U.S?

  • yes

  • no

  • maybe


Results are only viewable after voting.

Caspian

Banned
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.
 
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.

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.
 
I have read some works that gave the most important effect of the lend and lease in the flow of trucks and jeeps but not on their use by the army. The edge for the URSS was that they not need to build them so all industry and resources were focused in building tanks and guns, so if that works are correct no lend and lease means not only less mobility and general resources but also less tanks and it could be a real problem when they lost the quality adventage and only got numbers (i.e. post 1943).
 
IMO, yes, but not to the degree they 'won' in OTL. They'll still get rid of the Germans, but there'll be no Warsaw Pact, and they may not even get the Baltic States back.
 

Daniels

Banned
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.
 
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.
 

Daniels

Banned
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.

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.
 
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.



Agreed.

The thing is that the West is still there, and causing more and more trouble as time goes on.

If nothing else, eventually the Allies will get the bomb.


Meanwhile in the East, every man that the Soviets put into farming or production is one less man to fight.

And every man they DON'T put into farming or production that was needed, means food or ammo, or weapons they need and don't have.


Fewer trucks means they are using mules and horse transport, with the need to feed them, and they are slower.
 
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.
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 - 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.
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!
 

jahenders

Banned
Would russia be able to win against germany in ww2 without lend lease from England and U.S?

Yes, probably, but at much higher cost and it would take much longer for them to push into Germany.

The Wallies supplied 400K vehicles (mostly trucks), 2K locomotives, 11K train cars, 20K tanks, and 18K aircraft. They also provided desperately need aviation fuel, food, and ammunition.

The UK supplies (though fewer) might had, at times, a greater impact because they arrived earlier. In 1941 the UK delivered about 500 tanks and provided supplies and training for the Russians. The US supplied about 200 that year. Some estimates suggest that about 30% of the medium/heavy tanks before Moscow in 1941 were from the UK.

Here's several good summaries of the impact:
http://ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/
https://rbth.com/business/2015/05/08/allies_gave_soviets_130_billion_under_lend-lease_45879.html
http://www.historynet.com/did-russi...ase-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Without Lend-Lease, I believe that the Soviets could have stopped the Germans, but could not have driven them back.
 

Daniels

Banned
Effect of no LL would be showing only in 1944. Till end of 1943 everything would be more or less same.

Very incorrect. LL was allready helpful in 1942 and very helpful in 1943. The effects of no LL would be showing at the end of 1942 allready. Until then most things would have been more or less the same but from November 1942 things would have been much different. Uranus would have been far less successfull than OTL for example, Kursk would have been either not possible of very close. In 1942 for example the Soviets produced 35 000 motor vehicles - LL delivered 80 000. In 1943 the Soviets produced 45 000 motor vehicles LL delivered 120 000. In the years 42/43 the Soviets produced 48 500 tanks and sp guns - LL delivered 8500 - 15% of total Soviet tank supply. Domestic aircraft production for 42/43 was 60 000 pieces LL delivered 13 000 = 18% of total Soviet aircraft supply. By the middle of 1943 LL had allready supplied 1.3 million tons of food - enough to feed 4 million people for one whole year ect ect.

So again no LL most likely is enough for the Germans to battle the Soviets to a standstill somewhere on the December 1942 or July 1943 frontline. Even if the Soviets manage to win both Uranus and Kursk, their advance will be rolled back by at least a year with much larger casualties.
 
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.


Errr, soviets advance slower with far most losses and they end up in stronger position?
 

Deleted member 1487

Would russia be able to win against germany in ww2 without lend lease from England and U.S?
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.
 

Deleted member 1487

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.
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.
 
Last edited:
Top