USSR without US aid?

During Operation Barbarossa, the US provided the USSR with large amounts of material aid, trucks, weapons, fuel etc. And as I´ve understood, there is still a debate wheter the American aid saved the USSR from defeat at the hands of Hitler. Some Western historians claim that´s the truth. Russian historians denies this (no surprise) and instead claim that the aid was helpful, but not decisive for the outcome of the war.

I´m not too familiar with the issue, so I ask you learned people what your opinion is:
What if the USSR had not recieved any material aid from USA during WWII?
 
During Operation Barbarossa, the US provided the USSR with large amounts of material aid, trucks, weapons, fuel etc. And as I´ve understood, there is still a debate wheter the American aid saved the USSR from defeat at the hands of Hitler. Some Western historians claim that´s the truth. Russian historians denies this (no surprise) and instead claim that the aid was helpful, but not decisive for the outcome of the war.

I´m not too familiar with the issue, so I ask you learned people what your opinion is:
What if the USSR had not recieved any material aid from USA during WWII?

Well, to start with, it's something of a stretch to say that the Russians had any help during Operation Barbarossa itself. The first agreement was concluded in October, but the halt outside Leningrad and the battle around Moscow happened long before it could arrive - hence the idea that Russia would have collapsed in 1941 without western help that didn't actually exist yet is fanciful.

The portion of lend-lease grew, but it didn't become really operationally vital until the sweeping offensives in the last two years of the war.

So, without lend-lease the war in the east is longer, slower, and bloodier for all concerned. By the same token, the war in the west is bloodier, since it means either the WAllies bludgeoning our way across more of Europe against greater resistance, or Germany being immolated with nuclear bombs.

But then, what does "material aid" mean? Properly it's aid which is made of matter, and invasions of Europe, nuclear bombs, any other kind of bombs... The question is essentially "what would have happened had America not been in any way involved in the war", why is why it's a hypothetical.
 
Short term, the Soviets would be very lucky to go on the offensive, being almost entirely dependent on Lend-Lease for trucks, locomotives radios food and aluminum. The best they could hope for would be to hold off the Axis long enough for their own factories east of the Urals to begin making some of these things.

Long term, any Soviet offensives are going to be longer, more complicated and bloody. Normandy either faces much stronger resistance, or fails, and Poland is liable to change hands several times in '44/'45. Just my two cents.
 
What about food? The US sent a huge amount of meat to the Soviet Union that propped up their economy in a time of enormous stress. Had it not been for that, there may have been (even more) widespread starvation across the USSR, which could have severely impacted their war effort.
 
Note that the Soviets may still purchase goods from the United States, which is a partial answer.


There are good reasons to refuse the Soviet Union credit: As a nation, it refused to accept all debts from Tsarist Russia, it also, by definition, seeks to destroy Capitalism around the world. There is also the possibility of making a profit at the expense of the Soviets to the benefit of the US economy.


If the Allies don't lend, the Soviets will have to spend. But the Soviets do have things they can sell to the Allies--Raw Materials, schematics, possibly oil.


Lend Lease emerged after the UK was running out of money in 1941. If the Soviets have to operate under Cash and Carry rules, they can last as long as they have money to pay with or goods to sell in exchange. I'd like to know, myself, whether the Soviets simply paying for American war material is viable through the end of the war.
 
Last year someone here posted a link to a list of all the material sent to the USSR by the United States. It was a simply astonishing amount of stuff, from Spam to railroad engines, along with all sorts of weapons. U.S. trucks alone played a major role in allowing Soviet offensives to succeed, and the food the U.S. shipped staved off widespread starvation. The same thread, which I can't find right now, included some excellent analysis of the impact of those supplies and what their lack would have meant.

ETA: found it

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=185613

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=170807
 
Last edited:
Note that the Soviets may still purchase goods from the United States, which is a partial answer.

There are good reasons to refuse the Soviet Union credit: As a nation, it refused to accept all debts from Tsarist Russia, it also, by definition, seeks to destroy Capitalism around the world. There is also the possibility of making a profit at the expense of the Soviets to the benefit of the US economy.

If the Allies don't lend, the Soviets will have to spend. But the Soviets do have things they can sell to the Allies--Raw Materials, schematics, possibly oil.

Lend Lease emerged after the UK was running out of money in 1941. If the Soviets have to operate under Cash and Carry rules, they can last as long as they have money to pay with or goods to sell in exchange. I'd like to know, myself, whether the Soviets simply paying for American war material is viable through the end of the war.

Even if they have the cash, do they have the shipping necessary to transport it from the US to Murmansk? Hiring American freighters and crews to make the run would be more expensive than the cargo.
 
Top