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.
Two points.

First, I find it hard to come up with a scenario where the US, UK, and USSR are all fighting against Germany, but there is no assistance at all from the US and UK (even if its just the UK passing on what the US sends them), while something like 90% of the German army is fighting the Russians. To get the leadership of the US and UK so hardline anti-communist that they are willing to cut their own throats like this, its very likely that they are not in a war against Germany in the first place, or their leadership is so clueless that all their other was measures are similarly self-defeating.

You could, just, have the Axis manage to cut the lend lease routes, but that is such an Axis wank that if they can do that, yes, they are probably going to win.

However, to play along, the material sent to the USSR doesn't just disappear into thin air with the loss of lend lease. I think this was covered on one of the "what if the Japanese struck north?" threads. The UK in particularly is much stronger than in IOTL. The Allied effort is much less effective and there is now a chance of the Axis actually prevailing in the USSR, which is bad as that wins the war for them, but at least the US and particularly the UK uses the material elsewhere.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
TYou could, just, have the Axis manage to cut the lend lease routes, but that is such an Axis wank that if they can do that, yes, they are probably going to win.

Murmansk can fall with a simple enough POD.

Could Japan close off Vladivostok in a way that wouldn't trigger a war with the USSR? Doubtful. And if war does break out between Japan and the USSR, the lack of Vladivostok as a Lend-Lease route would be only one a million butterflies introduced into the TL.

I see no realistic way for the Persian Corridor to be closed by the Axis. If I am not mistaken, the Persian Corridor was the largest avenue of Lend-Lease supplies to Russia.
 
Errr, soviets advance slower with far most losses and they end up in stronger position?
Stronger? They retreated from Czechoslovakia because that was the deal in Jalta. No LL probably no retreat. Best for west here I can see neutral or western Czech Republic and Soviet Slovakia.
 
Two points.

First, I find it hard to come up with a scenario where the US, UK, and USSR are all fighting against Germany, but there is no assistance at all from the US and UK (even if its just the UK passing on what the US sends them), while something like 90% of the German army is fighting the Russians. To get the leadership of the US and UK so hardline anti-communist that they are willing to cut their own throats like this, its very likely that they are not in a war against Germany in the first place, or their leadership is so clueless that all their other was measures are similarly self-defeating.

You could, just, have the Axis manage to cut the lend lease routes, but that is such an Axis wank that if they can do that, yes, they are probably going to win.

However, to play along, the material sent to the USSR doesn't just disappear into thin air with the loss of lend lease. I think this was covered on one of the "what if the Japanese struck north?" threads. The UK in particularly is much stronger than in IOTL. The Allied effort is much less effective and there is now a chance of the Axis actually prevailing in the USSR, which is bad as that wins the war for them, but at least the US and particularly the UK uses the material elsewhere.

Allied leadership doesn't have to be "hardline anti-communists" or "clueless".

THey just have to realize that Stalin is just as bad as Hitler, to be a little confident about their eventual victory and to give some serious consideration to the Post War situation.


From the perspective of the Western Allies, it does not matter whether the Soviets and Nazi are fighting in Poland, or if they are tied up in a bloody siege of Moscow, as long as the naze forces are being bled white.

But good point about those supplies going SOMEWHERE, such as the UK effort.
 
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.
Uranus they will very likely manage. Kursk? Both sides would be exausted so very likely not rapid advence afterwards.
And same way France will be occupied one more year, more US death and of course Final solution in Europe will be indeed final. Nazis will move on Gypsies and others more then OTL.
 

Deleted member 1487

Murmansk can fall with a simple enough POD.

Could Japan close off Vladivostok in a way that wouldn't trigger a war with the USSR? Doubtful. And if war does break out between Japan and the USSR, the lack of Vladivostok as a Lend-Lease route would be only one a million butterflies introduced into the TL.

I see no realistic way for the Persian Corridor to be closed by the Axis. If I am not mistaken, the Persian Corridor was the largest avenue of Lend-Lease supplies to Russia.
No Vladivostok was the largest. Persia the distant second. Persia though didn't become a major route until 1943 IIRC.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
IIRC, Harry Truman was the one who suggested that the Allies help Russia if it looked like Germany was winning, and help Germany if it looked like Russia was winning, and thereby cause both the Nazis and the Bolsheviks to bleed one another white. Of course, he said that when he was just a senator and didn't have the weight of responsibility later placed upon him.
 
"I see no realistic way for the Persian Corridor to be closed by the Axis."

This was discussed in another forum, but this was the one thing about Case Blue that actually made some sense. If the Germans cut the Volga, they make using this rout much more difficult though not impossible. The rail network in Soviet Central Asia really would need to be upgraded. Being able to ship up the Volga helps that route.

IOTL the Germans did get in a position where they could direct artillery fire onto Volga river traffic, which does imply that all that effort to take over the remaining couple of city blocks in Stalingrad was stupider than it even seems. Obviously taking Astrakhan would have been even better. But the trick is to be able to stay in that position through 1943. This is really difficult but it could have happened. Again, the Allies not even being able to do lend lease to the USSR is really a different war.
 
Regardless of where the Eastern Front is, or even which direction it is moving, unless the Nazis WIN and the Russians stop fighting, it is still going to be a meat grinder, sucking up everything the Nazis can scrape up to send there.

Indeed, even if the Nazis "win" the forces needed to occupy whatever percentage of the SU they end up holding, would be significant.


German air power will still be depleted. German sea power will still be defeated. Allied air power will still be bombing the shit out of Germany and german forces if not more so.


The Allied Invasion force will be, if anything grow faster and stronger with less being shipped east.


The Nazis might have a little more time in this scenario.
 

Daniels

Banned
Uranus they will very likely manage.

Possible but without LL I would give it a 50% 50% chance to suceed. Its far more likely that in this scenario the Soviets are allready stopped at Rostow instead of Kursk. Which gives them a much more better starting position for a renewed assault on the Caucasus in mid 43 then they had in mid 42.
 

Deleted member 1487

"I see no realistic way for the Persian Corridor to be closed by the Axis."

This was discussed in another forum, but this was the one thing about Case Blue that actually made some sense. If the Germans cut the Volga, they make using this rout much more difficult though not impossible. The rail network in Soviet Central Asia really would need to be upgraded. Being able to ship up the Volga helps that route.

IOTL the Germans did get in a position where they could direct artillery fire onto Volga river traffic, which does imply that all that effort to take over the remaining couple of city blocks in Stalingrad was stupider than it even seems. Obviously taking Astrakhan would have been even better. But the trick is to be able to stay in that position through 1943. This is really difficult but it could have happened. Again, the Allies not even being able to do lend lease to the USSR is really a different war.
When the Volga was interdicted IOTL they shifted to the Ural river using the port at Atyrau. So while losing the Volga route was inconvenient, the Germans got nowhere near shutting down Caspian sea traffic. IIRC they only sank 5-6 Soviet ships in the Caspian.
 
Without Lend Lease the Soviets will not have anywhere near the same mobility that allowed them to perform Deep Battle so effectively. Instead we are more likely to see messy, human wave actions like the relief of Stalingrad. Ultimately the Soviets will probably stall the German offensive, because the Germans are also doing bad logistically. However the Soviets are going to struggle to push them back and out. Likely at the cost of many more men, maybe even with the use of biochemical warfare on the part of the Soviets we are going to see the Soviets push back to near their 1939 border. With luck and German collapse, their 1940 border. But they will not manage to conquer Eastern Europe. A lot of Eastern Europe involved severe partisan warfare and successful coups in face of Soviet strength. But with a weaker Soviet military and state they can't do the same. In fact Ukraine even has a decent chance at independence, however most likely it's just where the Soviets are stalled, thus preventing them from even reaching Eastern Europe.
 
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.

Oh yeah. The discussion I referenced went into the relative productivity of the various segments of the Soviet labor force, considering how many of which could be released for military service by substitution with Lend-Lease goods.
 

jahenders

Banned
Allied leadership doesn't have to be "hardline anti-communists" or "clueless".

THey just have to realize that Stalin is just as bad as Hitler, to be a little confident about their eventual victory and to give some serious consideration to the Post War situation.


From the perspective of the Western Allies, it does not matter whether the Soviets and Nazi are fighting in Poland, or if they are tied up in a bloody siege of Moscow, as long as the naze forces are being bled white.

But good point about those supplies going SOMEWHERE, such as the UK effort.

Good points and the W Allies could reasonably argue, "Look Stalin, we're trying to open that 2nd Front you've been whining about; do you want us to do that or just send you some stuff and watch?"
 
Allied leadership doesn't have to be "hardline anti-communists" or "clueless".

THey just have to realize that Stalin is just as bad as Hitler, to be a little confident about their eventual victory and to give some serious consideration to the Post War situation.


From the perspective of the Western Allies, it does not matter whether the Soviets and Nazi are fighting in Poland, or if they are tied up in a bloody siege of Moscow, as long as the naze forces are being bled white.

Without lend-lease, the Soviets are not as effective at bleeding the Nazis white. When the WAllies land at Normandy and find themselves facing many more German forces then they would have otherwise.

Not aiding the Soviets also means more dead British and Americans, not just more dead Soviets. Since the WAllies actually care about their men's lives, that means they will always aid the Soviets regardless of their personal reservations about Stalin. The lives of their men in the immediate future is more of a concern then (from their perspective at the time) what the Soviets might do after the war. It's as simple as that.
 
Without lend-lease, the Soviets are not as effective at bleeding the Nazis white. When the WAllies land at Normandy and find themselves facing many more German forces then they would have otherwise.

Not aiding the Soviets also means more dead British and Americans, not just more dead Soviets. Since the WAllies actually care about their men's lives, that means they will always aid the Soviets regardless of their personal reservations about Stalin. The lives of their men in the immediate future is more of a concern then (from their perspective at the time) what the Soviets might do after the war. It's as simple as that.
That's what I was trying to say from page one. Seems guys want to Soviets bleed so bad they don't realize in Normandy (or somewhere else) British which already had men power issues will bleed, Americans, which mostly lack experience will bleed. Have fun with war sometimes till fall 1945 or even early 1946 in Europe.]

And Japan? With Germans holding, Soviets not attacking in Manchuria could go same way.
Soviets paid for L-L not just with money but also with blood which saved blood of soldiers from West.

And of course with war in Europe lasting longer it is possible Jews and Gypsies of Europe will be almost gone! Of course other prisoners in KL will have a lot of good time too.
 
Without lend-lease, the Soviets are not as effective at bleeding the Nazis white. When the WAllies land at Normandy and find themselves facing many more German forces then they would have otherwise.

Not aiding the Soviets also means more dead British and Americans, not just more dead Soviets. Since the WAllies actually care about their men's lives, that means they will always aid the Soviets regardless of their personal reservations about Stalin. The lives of their men in the immediate future is more of a concern then (from their perspective at the time) what the Soviets might do after the war. It's as simple as that.
bolster


If the Soviet onslaught is weakening, is Hitler's response going to be to sensibly husband his resources and to bolster defenses on the quiet Western "Front",?


Or is he going to push for massive and costly counter offensives in an attempt to WIN the war against Russia so that he can turn ALL his forces to the West?

(which still would not happen because occupation)

Meanwhile the tens of thousands of planes sent to SU, will be bombing and strafing everything grey in Western Europe.
 
That's what I was trying to say from page one. Seems guys want to Soviets bleed so bad they don't realize in Normandy (or somewhere else) British which already had men power issues will bleed, Americans, which mostly lack experience will bleed. Have fun with war sometimes till fall 1945 or even early 1946 in Europe.

A lot of it is based on a combination of the recriminations over Western inability to act over the Soviet post-war actions and the downplaying of the importance of the Soviet Union's military role in the war, both products of the Cold War. The cold reality is though, keeping Eastern Europe out of Soviet hands and winning the WAllies winning the war at the smallest possible human toll (particularly to themselves) are pretty mutually exclusive.
 
Without lend-lease, the Soviets are not as effective at bleeding the Nazis white. When the WAllies land at Normandy and find themselves facing many more German forces then they would have otherwise.
Don't forget Wally invasion of Italy in 1943. That's what forced Hitler to abandon Kursk.
 
Top