USSR without Lend Lease

I know this topic has been discussed before, but as we all know, the search function sucks. So I'm here to bring up Lend Lease again. We know the purpose of Lend Lease was to provide war materials to the allies in Europe, first with the UK, and later to the USSR. These shipments, especially those to the USSR, were supposed to be only war materials; guns, ammo, etc. However it turned out that much non-war material was being sent to them, in particular the Soviet Union. Things such as food, copper wire, building materials, and luxury goods were being sent. It is also known that the Soviets also got atomic weapon secrets from Lend Lease, which is why Stalin wasn't surprised when Truman said the US had them. The state department did not want to send the USSR materials that could be used to rebuild the Soviet Union after the war, given our anti-communist policy. So in reality, the USSR was only kept afloat by donations from Capitalist countries.

Now I ask what if Lend Lease either was given to the soviets, or that no non-war materials were sent to them, only guns and ammo? What would happen to the USSR after the war? Without having the necessary materials to rebuild, how would the Soviet Government be able to handle all of the refugees? Could not having the materials necessary to rebuild after the war lead to a revolution or civil war?
 
No trucks, gas, locomotives, etc is going to negatively impact the Soviet Mechanized Offensives in a major way 1944-45.

Michael
 
Fewer Soviet troops on the front due to the needs of the workforce to work in the fields and in the factories. Less tanks and planes as more of the industrial output goes towards trucks and other logistical vehicles. Poor communication/logistics due to lack of American Jeeps and radios. Less planes and other vehicles due to lack of rubber (synthetic or otherwise) and fewer sources of aluminum.

You would see less troops fighting due to the need of a larger workforce of farmers and factory workers; and a longer war due to the lack (or shortage) of logistical and communication equipment.
 
IMHO the net result is that the Western Allies get to Berlin first, and the war ends with a divided Poland, Austria occupied only by the west. Hungary may end up under tripartite occupation like Austria did, Soviets still probably get to Romania/Bulgaria. Less direct contact with Tito, but Yugoslavia goes Communist. Albania - who knows, could end up under Brit occupation & Hoxha never takes power.

Why all this = basically Germany knocking USSR out of the war, with Hitler in charge, not going to happen too many stupid decisions made. Geography and numbers still work for the USSR, but absent lend-lease they do not function as well. Also, absent LL food production as well as imported food is down, leading to famine deaths and even less efficiency of workers due to poor diet.
 
IMHO the net result is that the Western Allies get to Berlin first, and the war ends with a divided Poland, Austria occupied only by the west. Hungary may end up under tripartite occupation like Austria did, Soviets still probably get to Romania/Bulgaria. Less direct contact with Tito, but Yugoslavia goes Communist. Albania - who knows, could end up under Brit occupation & Hoxha never takes power.
I dunno... would the Wallies even WANT to occupy more of Germany? It was seen by pretty much everyone at the time as a burden from what i understood.

It might lead to a situation with the Wallies allowing the USSR to take up occupation of their German sector, but keeping control of the Western half of Poland. Extreme awkwardness for everyone involved. Probably leads to WW3.
 
Last edited:
Russia still wins in the end. I think the biggest impact will be during the 1943-44 time. After that, they'll be pumping out stuff fast enough that it wont make much difference.

Maybe move everything back half a year to a year on the eastern front. This might mean the Wallies take Berlin. Or they might get defeated in France. Or they might not attack until the Russia started winning, giving us the same result.
 
I heavily doubt we'll see the allies lose in the West, the numbers, technology and logistics are just too much in their favour (Rommel understood this, which was why he beefed up the defences so much, he knew that the beaches would be the only place he could push the allies back).
 
Russia still wins in the end. I think the biggest impact will be during the 1943-44 time. After that, they'll be pumping out stuff fast enough that it wont make much difference.
I would like to point out that is when Soviet war production peaked, late 44 and 45 it started falling due to sheer exhaustion
 
The Soviet Union would not win without lend lease. Off the top of my head the most important thing it did was to supply the Soviet Union with enough food to allow it to put a large number of people to work in other sectors or to have them join the military.
 
Manpower is a very real problem.

In OTL they started drafting 17 year olds in '44, and 16 year olds in '45. And of course they grew their population by at least 50% during late '44 by puyshingnthe frontier back - an area that mostly saw no drafts since summer '41.
Still if the war in europe had dragged on a few months more, Stalin would have had to decide which was more important: pull several million men back for the harvest so the peasants can eat this winter or keep them at the front to finish the war quickly.

You can make the argument that had the mid 44 offensives been less successful (as in "small" gains of hundreds or a few thousand square km at a time, rather than the near collapse of OTL), the Soviets might have had to switch permanently to smaller scale operations - like the germans in 41 (full offensive) -> 42 (one large offensive) -> 43 (a few "small" ops).

If you pull a large number (several million?) of men from the army, and reduce the available resources - well lets just say the 44-45 steamroller is not gonna happen.
 
Top