Russia with no Lend Lease

LittleSpeer

Monthly Donor
Im trying to argue that Russia with no lend lease what so ever could not win against the Germans. In his own words,
Humans waves + Soviet Military Production=350 tanks a month-german prodution which is worse.
Im doing this to prove a point so attack this as you would if i was new to the site and was saying Russia could win.
 

Bearcat

Banned
Im trying to argue that Russia with no lend lease what so ever could not win against the Germans. In his own words,
Humans waves + Soviet Military Production=350 tanks a month-german prodution which is worse.
Im doing this to prove a point so attack this as you would if i was new to the site and was saying Russia could win.

Without lend lease, and the flood of American trucks it brought, the Red Army cannot develop the mobility to push the Germans out of the USSR.

By the same token though, Germany has no realistic exit strategy for ending the war. Why should the Sovs ever surrender? That just results in slavery and genocide.

So the war continues.

Eventually, Germany will collapse, and be unable to maintain its forces in the east. So then the Sovs win. But its a far grimmer win than IOTL.
 
Russia without lend lease falls apart. Forget the trucks, the cloth, the aircraft, the high grade fuel and the waterproof telephone wire. The one criticial thing with which the Russian's couldn't fight or survive was food. Tens of thousands of pounds of food was sent to Russia. This was critical to allowing the Russians to mobilize such a large army. Without food once the Germans occupy the Ukraine, Belaraus and other major agrarian areas the Russians would fall apart
 
There would be large-scale starvation, and the situation would become a lot more dire. Resistance might degenerate to the Chinese level. At best, the Russians would be able to stop the Germans somewhere inside the country, but would have no capacity to launch large mechanised offensives. Crushing Germany from the west while the east remains static will be a job of eastern-front level carnage for America. Britain will be utterly exhausted, even moreso than OTL. The consequences for the people of the USSR would be nightmarish.
 
Lend Lease was neither so desperately important to the Soviets as the Americans claim, nor as trivial as the Russians do.

Soviet counter-attacks would be much slower without those American supplied trucks and rail equipment, but it would happen.

Similarly the food, while nice (and quite possibly saved many lives) I doubt actually saved that many from starvation.
 
Lend Lease was neither so desperately important to the Soviets as the Americans claim, nor as trivial as the Russians do.

Soviet counter-attacks would be much slower without those American supplied trucks and rail equipment, but it would happen.

Similarly the food, while nice (and quite possibly saved many lives) I doubt actually saved that many from starvation.

The soviets had severe food shortage issues BEFORE the war, without losing their best agricultural land and calling 10 million+ working age men to the front. Without American food, Stalin wouldn't have been able to mobilize as many divisions because more workers would have been needed in the fields to prevent MASS starvation

An army crawls on its belly - Napoleon
 

wormyguy

Banned
See above (Darthi). The battle started to tilt in the Soviet's favor well before the first lend-lease goods made it to the front lines. The Soviets will have to create their own refineries for high-grade aviation fuel, but the air war was never terribly important on the Eastern Front, and the Soviets never really did all that terribly well in it at any point OTL. There will be a shortage of trucks, but there's no reason they simply could not have produced fewer tanks than OTL (many of which did not make it to the front lines in time for fighting OTL) and more trucks. Stalingrad and Kursk will happen more or less along OTL lines, although Bagration will probably have to wait until late 1944. I'm presuming that no lend-lease means no US involvement in the European Theatre of Operations, which means that Europe is going to be Red.
 
Lend Lease was neither so desperately important to the Soviets as the Americans claim, nor as trivial as the Russians do.

Soviet counter-attacks would be much slower without those American supplied trucks and rail equipment, but it would happen.

Similarly the food, while nice (and quite possibly saved many lives) I doubt actually saved that many from starvation.

Dathi THorfinnsson

A teacher of mine liked to talk about his time in the Red Army. He was a Romanian Jew who fled to Soviet Russia to escape the Nazis. He told the Soviets he was a Communist escaping Nazi persecution. As a teacher, he knew more than enough about the tenets of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin to dazzle the NKVD, so he happily spent the war years as a Red Army cook. One of the lines he said that I always enjoyed was: "Boy, if it wasn't for American Spam we never would have made it. The Americans fed our army, while the farms of Russia fed the civilians."
 
Last edited:

Old Airman

Banned
A teacher of mine liked to talk about his time in the Red Army. He was a Romanian Jew who fled to Soviet Russia to escape the Nazis. He told the Soviets he was a Communist escaping Nazi persecution. As a teacher, he knew more than enough about the tenets of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin to dazzle the NKVD
He didn't need to lie in order to stay in the USSR. Unlike Britons and Americans, Soviets didn't turn back European Jews fleeing Holocaust. However, one's life was certainly easier if one was a fellow Commie and not damned capitalist. However, I'm curious as far as "he knew Marx because he was a teacher" goes. Not many school teachers even in today's USA know enough Marx to pass for a commie or at least fellow traveler. Much less in pre-war Romania, which was as close to commiephile country as Iran is Philosemitic today :) In other words, a knowledge of Marx's teaching could send one in jail fast. I find it easier to believe that your prof WAS an actual Commie back in Romania, but he was too scared/ashamed/whatever to tell you the truth.
One of the lines he said that I always enjoyed was: "Boy, if it wasn't for American Spam we never would have made it. The Americans fed our army, while the farms of Russia fed the civilians."
I think that pretty much being the case since late 1943. A bit of boring math. Americans supplied 5 mln tons of food, give or take. Assuming that Red Army had 12 mln servicemen (and women) on average, you have (roughly) 1000 lb of food per soldier in 2-year period. Now, 500 lb per person per year is not enough to feed a person (Red Army's wartime norm was about 3 pounds of dry/canned food person per day), but a lot of American stuff was high-calories food like meat, sugar etc., although not exclusively. Spam was so omnipresent in the Red Army, it had been called Second Front (Western Front) by soldiery. So yes, it wouldn't probably be a stretch to say that Red Army ate American meat for 2 years. However, it does not prove the claim "Soviets would starve to death en masse without it". Yes, part of manpower would have to switch to food production. Yes, it would affect the progress. No, it would not cause a catastrophe.

As far as general importance of Lend Lease goes, it was neither as important nor as negligible as either side of Cold War propaganda machine claims. It would be safe to say that it's importance up to (and including) Kursk was not critical. So, without LL, I still expect Red Army to break Nazi war machine, but "10 Stalin's strikes", including Bagration, probably would not happen. It would be, most likely, long slog to the border. And glassed Central Europe at the end, once Americans get their bomb...
 

Emera78

Banned
He didn't need to lie in order to stay in the USSR. Unlike Britons and Americans, Soviets didn't turn back European Jews fleeing Holocaust. However, one's life was certainly easier if one was a fellow Commie and not damned capitalist.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...erneumann-trans-edward-fitzgerald-770485.html

Margarete Buber-Neumann was a German Communist who fled Nazi Germany to live in the Soviet Union with her husband, the politician Heinz Neumann. Heinz was arrested by the secret police in l937 and shot in Lubyanka prison; Margarete was deported to Siberia. Her "crime" was being the wife of a "traitor".

After two years in labour camps, in 1940 she was extradited to Germany as a result of the Stalin-Hitler Pact and sent to Ravensbrück concentration camp, where she survived five years. After the war she recovered in Sweden, where she wrote this sharp personal recollection. Long out of print, it is a welcome memoir that still shocks.
(...)
The writing is always cool and draws the reader into the greatest betrayal of all: Stalin's handover of German Communist prisoners to Hitler.

http://www.oneworld-publications.com/pdfs/Jew_Wmn_Prsnr.pdf
Later, in 1940, she was forcibly handed over – together with about one thousand other German and Austrian refugees, mainly Communists and many of them Jews – to the Nazi authorities at the border that then separated Nazi and Soviet occupied Poland

And glassed Central Europe at the end, once Americans get their bomb...
6 in 1945. 5 more in 1946 to a total number of 11. Not enough to "glass" Central Europe. Enough to destroy some army HQ's or a couple of industrial or military centers.
 
Last edited:

Old Airman

Banned
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...erneumann-trans-edward-fitzgerald-770485.html

6 in 1945. 5 more in 1946 to a total number of 11. Not enough to "glass" Central Europe. Enough to destroy some army HQ's or a couple of industrial or military centers.
This episode had been reused to death by anti-Communists to prove that Stalin was as bad for Jews as Hitler. Just like Rigg's infamous writings had been used by antisemites to prove that Adolph was actually chummy with ZOG. Both are blown out of all proportions to serve agendas of those who promote the rotten ideas...
6 in 1945. 5 more in 1946 to a total number of 11. Not enough to "glass" Central Europe. Enough to destroy some army HQ's or a couple of industrial or military centers.
When I was researching on LL amount (American sources are surprisingly stingy on concrete numbers of food supplies being sent, although very wordly in their praises of American help), I've met American wartime analysis that every 6 months of LL to Soviets shortened the war by a full year. So, it would be safe to assume that, without LL, the war drags on until at least 1947. Without post-war reductions of military budget (and number of nukes being produced), glass covered Germany (as well as Prague, Warsaw, Romanian oilfileds, Wien etc.) does not look too ASBish.
 
As the Nazis declared war on the US, the US will be in the war whether there is lend&lease for the Soviets or not. This implies that sooner or later - probably later - a second front is opened. However, at this time the Western Allies will rule the German skies and the Wehrmacht is a lot deeper in Russia than IOTL. So probably the western Allies might reach the Reich when the Soviets sill fight on their own soil and furthermore Western Allies might liberate not only Berlin, but also Warsaw...

Furthermore, no lend&lease implies completely differetn relations between western Allies and Soviets. In particular, I doubt that the Americans would retreat from Berlin and Eastern Germany to let the Soviets have their occupation zone.
 
LL won't affect the war until mid 1942, I think. Nazis were stopped at Moscow before LL took effect, but after that it would be tough, especially after Nazis offensive at 1942. Numerically LL was much less than what produced internally, but it supplied crucally needed materials. There would be starvation among civilans as much more food would be sent to frontlines. And Red Army lose much mobility.
I don't see USSR actually losing the war (though I am biased at that point), but there would not be OTL "the Glorious Victory". As others said more like painful slogging to the borders for years.
There also a question what Allies would do meanwhile. If US stays out of war completely for some reason there might be a standstill ranging from some kind of Brest-Litovsk treaty to return to status quo. No Soviet Europe at least for that time (and probably never as USSR suffered even more then OTL). But that scenario is not very likely considering Japan and all.
In second scenario, Allies lead completely separate war with Nazi. In that case it is likely that Berlin would fall to them eventually, but later then OTL. Depending how Soviets were doing, Iron Curtain may fall no further west then Visla. And if in that scenario Allies are strongly anticommunsit and wielding A-bomb, and Soviets are in a bad shape, far from victorious and seeminly overpowering as in OTL, there may even be attempt to crush "the Red Threat" in its lair. Of course it depends how Allies fared in Europe war, they likely would be in no mood for another round.
 

Emera78

Banned
This episode had been reused to death by anti-Communists to prove that Stalin was as bad for Jews as Hitler. Just like Rigg's infamous writings had been used by antisemites to prove that Adolph was actually chummy with ZOG. Both are blown out of all proportions to serve agendas of those who promote the rotten ideas...
I don't care who used it , and in what way. Only wanted to pointed out the incorrect claim that Jews or Communists were safe in Soviet Union or not deported by Stalin to Nazi Germany.

I've met American wartime analysis that every 6 months of LL to Soviets shortened the war by a full year. So, it would be safe to assume that, without LL, the war drags on until at least 1947.
That is assuming the Lend Lease materials are not used for anything else.
USA can field more divisions( there was a plan for 213 divisions with 63 armoured
http://www.history.army.mil/documents/wwii/ww2mob.htm), can equip more insurgents in Europe or supply Nationalist Chinese forces.
Shermans alone sent to Russia were in the number of 4,102, the same for Air Cobras, 4,719 . That's a lot of war material(not to mention food and other equpiment).
Also-no Arctic Convoys-more shipping for Allies and defence of Atlantic.

So there are many possibilites for US to influence the outcome of the war.

A-with more divisions(not 213 as this is the maximum number I believe, but perhaps 20 or so more) and more shipping available they can create another front in Balkans, assisted by Tito, and arming Yugoslav partisans into an full fledged army on its own after landing there. This would cut German positions in Europe(between Germany and Soviet Union). Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia weren't strong Nazi allies and with proper diplomatic and military actions would likely revolt and change sides to the Allied camp. With luck the Iron Curtain is on the Bug river.

B-they can supply and support Nationalist Chinese so that they win the war against Communists.

C-they can field more equipment to partisans in Poland( which received very small number of supplies compared to Yugoslavia), heavily disrupting German transport and logistics.

Overall there is a possibility of non-communist Central Europe or non-communist China.

That the Lend Lease is not supplied to Russia, doesn't mean the massive amounts of equipment and supplies won't be used for something else.

Without post-war reductions of military budget (and number of nukes being produced), glass covered Germany (as well as Prague, Warsaw, Romanian oilfileds, Wien etc.)
Romanian oilfields could be nuked although German targets like Hannover would be more valuable due to their role in German industry and war effort, then places like Vienna. Warsaw or Prague wouldn't be nuked -they were of little value to industrial effort compared to German targets and capitals of US allies-both the Polish and Czech governments in exile. With the material available and possible proximity of Allied forces in Southern Europe then it would be more reasonable to supply insurgents in those cities to stage succesfull revolts.
 
Last edited:

kenmac

Banned
Although USA was still not at war with Germany, 11 March 1941 the American Congress adopted the so-called Lend-lease act which envisaged lending or leasing arm and ammunition, provisions and other material to nations in a state of war with the states of the Nazi bloc, thus per definition the prime bene­ficiary was Great Britain.
Immediately after the German attack on the Soviet Union 22 June 1941 the British Prime- Minister Churchill promised British assistance to USSR. A British credit line was subse­quently opened 16 August 1941, and arms deliveries from England were immediately initiated with the American Lend-lease principles as guidelines. (The British Lend-lease to the Soviet Union was formalized in a British-Soviet agreement sig­ned only 26 June 1942.)
24 June 1941 Soviet assets in American banks (which had been frozen after the Soviet attack on Finland 30 November 1939) were released by President Roosevelt, which enabled the
Soviets to immediately purchase 59 fighters (including at least 21 P-40s). Negotiations concerning application of the Lend-lease act were simultaneously initiated.
A high-level Soviet aviation commission led by Maj.Gen. and Director of LII M.M.Gromov (and including the famous test-pilots G. F. Bajdukov, A.B .Yumashev etc.) was dispatched to USA in late August 1941. Gromov's delegation made a daring trip along the future ALSIB-route through Siberia to Alaska in two GST-flying boats, and then investigated and studied tested various American combat aircraft at several USAAF bases. The Soviet delegation was prepared to fly home with a number of Boeing B-17s, which was absolutely refused by the Americans (Gromov attempted even a direct appeal to President Roosevelt whom he had met after his non-stop ANT-25 flight from Moscow to San Jacinto, California in July 1937). After rejection of the Martin B-26 proposed by the Americans the Russians settled for five B-25 Mitchell bombers which were delivered by ship to Murmansk in late 1941. An interesting point is that Sikorski R-4 helicopters offered to another Soviet delegation were also refused by the Russians.
After return of Gromov's partly unsuccessful Soviet delega­tion the first US-Soviet Lend-lease protocol was signed in Moscow 1 October 1941. As President Roosevelt declared the defense of Russia vital to USA the Lend-lease act was formally extended to USSR on November 1941.
American Lend-lease to the Soviet Union can be divided into the following phases:
- "pre Lend-lease" 22 June 1941 to 30 September 1941
- first protocol period from 1 October 1941 to 30 June 1942 (signed 1 October 1941)
- second protocol period from 1 July 1942 to 30 June 1943 (signed 6 October 1942)
- third protocol period from 1 July 1943 to 30 June 1944 (signed 19 October 1943)

- fourth protocol period from 1 July 1944, (signed 17 April 1945), formally ended 12 May 1945 but deliveries continued for the duration of the war with Japan (which the Soviet Union entered only 8 August 1945) under the "Milepost" agreement until 2 September 1945 when Japan capitulated. 20 September 1945 all Lend-Lease to Russia was terminated.
In addition to the aircraft deliveries American Lend-lease deliveries to Russia included also more than 400.000 trucks, over 12.000 tanks and other combat vehicles, 32.000 motorcycles, 13.000 locomotives and railway cars, 8.000 anti-aircraft cannons and machine-guns, 135.000 submachine guns, 300.000 tons of explosives, 40.000 field radios, some 400 radar systems, 400.000 metal cutting machi­ne tools, several million tons of foodstuff, steel, other metals, oil and gasoline, chemicals etc. A price tag was naturally attached to all deliveries, with following typical fighter prices:
P-40 Kittyhawk - 44.900 dollars, P-39 Airacobra - 50.700 dollars and P-47 Thunderbolt - 83.000 dollars.
Regardless of Soviet cold-war attempts to forget (or at least diminish) the importance of Lend-lease, the total impact of the Lend-Lease shipment for the Soviet war effort and entire national economy can only be characterized as both dramatic and of decisive importance. The outcome of the war on the East front might well have taken another path without Lend-lease.
 

kenmac

Banned
Lets not forget British-USSR Lend Lease.

On December 1st 1941, Red Army tank strength stood at 6347, with only about 1400 being medium or heavy. Thus, British Lend-Lease vehicles represented 25% of all available Russian medium/heavy tanks. The importance of Lend-Lease vehicles becomes even more evident when the situation in front of Moscow is examined in more detail. According to Soviet sources, the Red Army had a total of 670 tanks, of which 205 were medium or heavy. Of the integrated and Independent tanks units operating in the Battle for Moscow, Hill asserts that 30 – 40% of their medium/heavy tanks were of British origin!
During the spring and early summer of 1942, tanks from the UK continued to play a valuable role in Soviet formations. While the ratio of LL to domestic vehicles steadily declined as Russian production began to kick in, LL vehicles still amounted to 16% of total available strength.
 
As the Nazis declared war on the US, the US will be in the war whether there is lend&lease for the Soviets or not.
Except that Lend Lease was a major part of why the Nazis declared war on the US in the first place. If Lend Lease had not gradually turned the US into a de facto belligerent by late 1941 Hitler probably wouldn't have decided it was a good idea to declare war against the US just to boost relations with Japan.
 
Top