United States going full turtle in 1930?

Whether it’s the swastika or the hammer and sickle which stretches from the Atlantic to the Urals, neither is a particularly good end for the people of Europe compared to OTL... or the US.
 

Anchises

Banned
Nazi Germany was almost certainly going to lose the war against the USSR.

It benefitted from an extremely incompetent political and military soviet leadership and was unable to win because nazism comprised its own fatal contradiction. The only way to defeat the USSR was to liberate the Peoples of the western part of the USSR, not to conquer a lebensraum at their expense and to mass murder 70% of them and reduce the 30% remaining into slavery.

Lend-lease’s effect for the soviet war effort has long been way overestimated and needs being debunked.
Lend-lease was always marginal (from 0,5% to 10% of soviet military production) and, most importantly, most of lend-lease US military equipments were shipped to the USSR in 1944-1945. That is way after the soviets had decisively won the war on their own.

The soviet population was 190 million people in 1941. It was most of all this huge demographic reserve that enabled the USSR to endure dramatic losses and to bring in new troops after their incompetent commanders and their tyrannical rulers had sent to death millions of soldiers. This and the industrial capacity of the USSR that dwarved German military production from the beginning to the end of the war.

The importance of Lend and Lease wasn't giving the Soviets military products.

Lend and Lease allowed them to reach the levels of production they did IOTL.

Without the trains, the food, the trucks, the fuel, the machine parts and ressources, the Soviets would never be able to field the huge Red Army of OTL.

My personal oppinion is that the Soviet war economy would have fallen of a cliff in 1943. Because trucks, trains and machine parts would have been neglected leading to HUGE problems.

And most importantly: Starvation. The Nazis captured and held important agricultural areas. If no one ships them the food like IOTL, the Soviet workforce will seriously suffer.

And that is without reviewing the effects of no U.S. forces in the West. This would also create butterflies that seriosusly strenghten the Wehrmacht in the East.

The Germans won't reach the Urals in 90% of "neutral USA TLs" but the Soviets won't reach Königsberg either.

The East will be a huge graveyard with a bloody border and two exhausted criminal regimes.
 
Lend-lease’s effect for the soviet war effort has long been way overestimated and needs being debunked.
Lend-lease was always marginal (from 0,5% to 10% of soviet military production) and, most importantly, most of lend-lease US military equipments were shipped to the USSR in 1944-1945. That is way after the soviets had decisively won the war on their own.

Matteo, your statement just doesn't make any operational or strategic sense and sounds very 1946 Soviet revisionist. Without the trucks and trains delivered by the convoys, none of the material you state the Soviet war economy was making will get the front. Additionally, look at the 1st Artic convoy called "Dervish" in August 1941. Note the one critical delivery was a crane capable of unloading the future shipping. You have to actually look at the infrastructure the Allies provided to the Soviet's rather than the useless Valentine or Grant tanks.

Without that infrastructure and truck/train support, the Soviets cannot follow through with their deep-strike operations and will be stuck doing frontal attacks without break throughs.
 
Matteo, your statement just doesn't make any operational or strategic sense and sounds very 1946 Soviet revisionist. Without the trucks and trains delivered by the convoys, none of the material you state the Soviet war economy was making will get the front. Additionally, look at the 1st Artic convoy called "Dervish" in August 1941. Note the one critical delivery was a crane capable of unloading the future shipping. You have to actually look at the infrastructure the Allies provided to the Soviet's rather than the useless Valentine or Grant tanks.

Without that infrastructure and truck/train support, the Soviets cannot follow through with their deep-strike operations and will be stuck doing frontal attacks without break throughs.

I did not say it was not useful. Unquestionably the advanced fighter jets that both the US and the UK sent to the USSR were quite useful in the battle of Stalingrad.

I of course don’t even less deny that US industry and finance were the economic spearhead if allied (the globality of allies) victory. This is an established and unquestionable fact.

What I said is that Lend-Lease was marginal in soviet non crumbling in 1941-42 and in soviet victory. The soviets would have won without Lend-Lease, although it would have taken more time and blood.

But your disagreeing to my statement does not make me a soviet propagandist.

LL profited much more and was far more vital for Britain (who got 3 times as much aid as the USSR) than for the USSR. And if you go to proportions, France benefitted much more from LL than the USSR, compared to respective belligerence and war efforts (France got a third of the amount of aid given to the USSR)

As to the figures and delivery rhythms, they are historically established and unquestionable. Just read the State Department’s archives.
 
"Report to Congress on lend-lease operations, Volumes 18-24" states (page 14), that between March 1941 and October 1945, UK was given $30.269B, USSR given $10.8B, and France given $1.4069B in aid." Most of France's aid during the war went to arm the Free French divisions and not to infrastructure. Page 25, "The one-third of Lend-Lease USSR received was in industrial materials and products for expansion or relocation of Soviet Industry."

To state the French during the war "benefited" more than the USSR is just not factual. I provided you my sources, please look them up in the Library of Congress.
https://books.google.com/books?id=A...AQhKMAc#v=onepage&q=france lend-lease&f=false
 
"Report to Congress on lend-lease operations, Volumes 18-24" states (page 14), that between March 1941 and October 1945, UK was given $30.269B, USSR given $10.8B, and France given $1.4069B in aid." Most of France's aid during the war went to arm the Free French divisions and not to infrastructure. Page 25, "The one-third of Lend-Lease USSR received was in industrial materials and products for expansion or relocation of Soviet Industry."

To state the French during the war "benefited" more than the USSR is just not factual. I provided you my sources, please look them up in the Library of Congress.
https://books.google.com/books?id=A_w_EoObv-EC&pg=RA3-PA27&lpg=RA3-PA27&dq=france+lend-lease&source=bl&ots=pAwbnsd-jf&sig=A5zs6wbOFucEGauzIPbKvuSlq1Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj475fo9ZncAhVOtlMKHT_vCOc4ChDoAQhKMAc#v=onepage&q=france lend-lease&f=false

France got 3.2 billion dollars help through Lend Lease, not 1.4 billion.

Now you can do simple maths and agree to my statement that France proportionately benefitted far more from Lend-Lease than the USSR did.
 
France did not received $3.2B during the war. They received $1.4B during the war and an additional $1.8B after the war ended as part of Lend Lease

USSR's Lend Lease was received in late 1941 through August 1945 and then all Lend-Lease aid ended.

That is the difference why USSR's Lend Lease was more useful.
 
Top