WI Lend-Lease Aid to USSR Stops in Mid-1944?

Deleted member 1487

Soviets already have all the supplies and vehicles they need for Bagration while their agricultural production in 1944 was recovering. The slowdown is going to come in the autumn, not the summer.
Never mind then the famine that happened in 1946 and 47. It was recovering, but was not back online enough and famine was just around the corner.
 
Why is he going to do more ITTL? Because you think so?

Yes. His behavior at this time was grasping at any kind of straws he could and trying to leverage military advantage out of said straws. The entire Bulge was a military boondoggle that fatally weakened other parts of the front, yet Hitler leapt all over it anyways. Stalin has offered him another straw to grasp, he is going to take it.

Hitler in late-44/early-45 is not the same man as he was in 1941, 42, or even 43. He is even less rational and far more desperate.

No the west isn't a special snow flake, they just have several orders more GDP and production capabilities than the Soviets and Germans combined.
Which won't stop them from taking more casualties and advancing slower when the Germans throw more forces westward. The Western Allies prosecuted the entire ground war in a cautious and casualty-averse manner and the appearance of more German forces is going to exacerbate that. Your trying to pretend that only the Soviets and Germans will be adversely affected by the WAllies suspending lend-lease to the Soviets when the historical record is clear that the WAllies enjoyed a supreme military benefit in supplying the Soviet military and economy and are now just tossing that benefit away. They are going to have to deal with the consequences of their actions and those consequences are not ones they will like.

Never mind then the famine that happened in 1946 and 47. It was recovering, but was not back online enough and famine was just around the corner.
Which was limited to various, relatively isolated and unimportant portions of Central Asia and the Caucasus.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Which was limited to various, relatively isolated and unimportant portions of Central Asia and the Caucasus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1946%E2%80%9347
The last major famine to hit the USSR "began in July 1946, reached its peak in February–August 1947 and then quickly diminished in intensity, although there were still some famine deaths in 1948."[1] The situation spanned most of the grain-producing regions of the country: Ukraine, Moldavia and parts of central Russia.The grain harvest in 1946 totaled 39.6 million tons - 2.4 times lower than in 1940. With the war, there was a significant decrease in the number of able-bodied men in the rural population, retreating to 1931 levels. There was a shortage of agricultural machinery and horses. The Soviet Government with its grain reserves provided relief to rural areas and appealed to the United Nations for relief. Assistance also came from the Ukrainian diaspora in North America, which minimized mortality.[2][3]
No US LL or relief means a lot more death in the USSR in 1944-48.

Which won't stop them from taking more casualties and advancing slower when the Germans throw more forces westward. The Western Allies prosecuted the entire ground war in a cautious and casualty-averse manner and the appearance of more German forces is going to exacerbate that.
Except you haven't proven that the Germans would strip out more than IOTL just because Stalin unilaterally claims he will stop.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1946%E2%80%9347
No US LL or relief means a lot more death in the USSR in 1944-48.

*whistles*

That is a lot of "citation needed" and disputed claims. I mean, you totally neglected this bit:

Economist Michael Ellman claims that the hands of the state could have fed all those who died of starvation.[1] He argues that had the policies of the Soviet regime been different, there might have been no famine at all or a much smaller one.[1][1] Ellman claims that the famine resulted in an estimated 1 to 1.5 million lives in addition to secondary population losses due to reduced fertility.[1] However, Russian historians reject such claims. Professor of History S. Kulchitsky asserts that the famine of 1946-1947 had a death toll in Ukraine that numbered in "the tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands, and certainly not in the millions".
There is also this bit:

Partly as a result of this famine, unlike many countries in Europe and North America, the Soviet Union did not experience a Post–World War II baby boom.
Which is pretty false: Chris Bellamy in Absolute War notes that there was a post-war baby boom, although unlike in Europe and North America it was ultimately inadequate to make up all of the demographic losses.

Just goes to show how poor a source wikipedia is.

Except you haven't proven that the Germans would strip out more than IOTL just because Stalin unilaterally claims he will stop.
It's quite simple: Hitler was willing to strip out tons even without a truce. Given his lack of rationality and desperation for a miracle, he is going to seize upon Stalin's offer. It's what men grasping at straws do. You are arguing against a very basic part of human nature here.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

*whistles*

That is a lot of "citation needed" and disputed claims. I mean, you totally neglected this bit:

There is also this bit:

https://translate.google.com/transl....ru/weekly/2004/0173/analit06.php&prev=search
What's his qualification other than Soviet apologism?

Which is pretty false: Chris Bellamy in Absolute War notes that there was a post-war baby boom, although unlike in Europe and North America it was ultimately inadequate to make up all of the demographic losses.
And? There were high birthrates everywhere when soldiers returned from war. That doesn't mean there were major problems regardless. Birth rates go up, but what were survival rates? The German baby boom was blunted until the 1950s due to the later return of PoWs and the high death rates of infants until the late 1940s.

Just goes to show how poor a source wikipedia is.

It's quite simple: Hitler was willing to strip out tons even without a truce. Given his lack of rationality and desperation for a miracle, he is going to seize upon Stalin's offer. It's what men grasping at straws do. You are arguing against a very basic part of human nature here.
Based on what? His trust of Stalin? He stripped out all that was felt acceptable IOTL and he's not going to trust Stalin anymore than IOTL. Funny how you always are willing to twist things to the benefit of the Soviets when it suits you, then its all about 'human nature'.
 
Birth rates go up, but what were survival rates?

Better then before the war, worse then many other places.

Based on what? His trust of Stalin?
His desperation. Stalin's words will be confirmed when Guderian grudgingly admits that the Soviet build-up will be proceeding at a much slower rate.

You want to ignore Hitler's behavior in late-44/early-45? Okay, that's fine. It's not like you have a history of ignoring German behavior in order to posit some pie-in-the-sky scenario for them to achieve victory.

Funny how you always are willing to twist things to the benefit of the Soviets when it suits you,
The ATL situation isn't to the benefit of the Soviets, at best its as good as IOTL. Really, cutting lend-lease isn't to the benefit of anyone: the Soviets have to spend more time building up for their offensive and getting things in order while rearranging their economy to compensate for the loss of lend-lease, the Germans suffer from a longer war, bombardment, and economic collapse, various countries which were still occupied by the Germans suffer from longer Nazi repression and fighting, and the WAllies suffer from a longer war and additional military casualties as well as political chaos at home as the pro-Soviet public vent their anger on their governments. The only person this suits is Hitler and that is only because he was just as willing to settle for a climactic bloodbath as an end as he was for final victory. The bigger the bloodbath, the better.
 
You mean different people will die; it might well save more lives in the end because the Germans were a LOT less die hard against the Wallies than the Soviets and if they think they could surrender without being butchered they probably wouldn't fight to the bitter end; so in the end more Soviets and Germans end up living.

Germans didn't surrender en masse until pretty late in 1945, even on the Western Front. And if the war lasts longer, more die in concentration camps (who unlike German military forces are civilians), or we get a few atomic bombs dropped in the Fatherland if things really go on.
 
So on June 15th 1944, (pre Bagration) there is a 1 year cease fire on the following terms (with the option to renew).

a) Germany withdraws to her 1914 boundary without demolitions or forced transfer of resident people (within 30 days in stages).
b) Soviets gain the rest of Poland, including Lvov, Krakow, all the way up to the Carpathians. (and Warsaw and Poznan and Ruthenia)
c) Germans evacuate the Baltic states and Finland.
d) On Romania: Germans evacuate Moldova, Dobruja and Bulgaria but retain access to Transylvania and Ploesti and Bucharest. Germans no longer have access to Black Sea
e) Germans give up all Soviet POWs of war, including collaborators with Germany
f) Soviets return just selected classes of German POWs including pilots, technicians etc, the bulk remain.

At the very least all the new German equipment/replacements being shipped east could go west. And you would think the Germans could send 4 or 5 of the best equipped Panzer divisons across from the east to the west pretty quickly and pull back the fighter aircraft at least to Germany even if fuel limitations.

And the best infantry divisions could trickle in later.
 

Deleted member 1487

Germans didn't surrender en masse until pretty late in 1945, even on the Western Front. And if the war lasts longer, more die in concentration camps (who unlike German military forces are civilians), or we get a few atomic bombs dropped in the Fatherland if things really go on.
Falaise or Normandy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falaise_pocket
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord
Estimates of German losses for the Normandy campaign range from 400,000 (200,000 killed or wounded; 200,000 captured)[13] to 530,000.[14]
The Soviets overran the death camps by January, while at the labor camps in Germany there would be death from disease and hunger, but the Allies are still going to overrun most of them pretty quickly as per OTL because of the need to keep pretty much all of OTL forces in the East given the risk of Soviet attack. The Germans won't last long enough for nukes; they might hold out in the East for a few months longer, but they were pretty much finished by the end of 1944 but for a few hiccups.

So on June 15th 1944, (pre Bagration) there is a 1 year cease fire on the following terms (with the option to renew).

a) Germany withdraws to her 1914 boundary without demolitions or forced transfer of resident people (within 30 days in stages).
b) Soviets gain the rest of Poland, including Lvov, Krakow, all the way up to the Carpathians. (and Warsaw and Poznan and Ruthenia)
c) Germans evacuate the Baltic states and Finland.
d) On Romania: Germans evacuate Moldova, Dobruja and Bulgaria but retain access to Transylvania and Ploesti and Bucharest. Germans no longer have access to Black Sea
e) Germans give up all Soviet POWs of war, including collaborators with Germany
f) Soviets return just selected classes of German POWs including pilots, technicians etc, the bulk remain.

At the very least all the new German equipment/replacements being shipped east could go west. And you would think the Germans could send 4 or 5 of the best equipped Panzer divisons across from the east to the west pretty quickly and pull back the fighter aircraft at least to Germany even if fuel limitations.

And the best infantry divisions could trickle in later.
No the armistice would come after Bagaration.
 

Both of which are more demonstrative of the ability and willingness of the Germans to resist the WAllies then of their willingness to surrender. The Soviets inflicted far more losses upon the Germans in half the time during Bagration. I like how wikipedia's casualty estimates for the Germans are all over the place.

The Soviets overran the death camps by January,
Not IATL.

while at the labor camps in Germany there would be death from disease and hunger, but the Allies are still going to overrun most of them pretty quickly as per OTL because of the need to keep pretty much all of OTL forces in the East given the risk of Soviet attack.
Fantasy idea that the Germans won't react to the changed circumstances by transferring forces west.
 
No the armistice would come after Bagaration.

So no official armistice then seems unlikely as the Germans have little to offer and there is no getting around all those incidentals that happened like a million dead at Leningrad.

Soviets would have to slow down operations as things like avation quality fuel would start to be limited. Octomer - December 1944 drive into Hungary might be delayed.

Worst case for the Soviets, once Rommania and Bulgaria are secured, hold the line and wait for the Allies to cross the Rhine before launching your own OTL January 1945 offensives. They should still secure Warsaw, Prague and Budapest against weakened opposition before the Allies do. Hitler will throw everything into holding the Ruhr and it should be easy then.

In this TL, The Soviets grab Northern Norway and places like Bornholm and Vienna and don't give them up. Make Rommania and Hungary new SSRs if they are feeling really bold.
 
So no official armistice then seems unlikely as the Germans have little to offer and there is no getting around all those incidentals that happened like a million dead at Leningrad.

Soviets would have to slow down operations as things like avation quality fuel would start to be limited. Octomer - December 1944 drive into Hungary might be delayed.

Worst case for the Soviets, once Rommania and Bulgaria are secured, hold the line and wait for the Allies to cross the Rhine before launching your own OTL January 1945 offensives. They should still secure Warsaw, Prague and Budapest against weakened opposition before the Allies do. Hitler will throw everything into holding the Ruhr and it should be easy then.

In this TL, The Soviets grab Northern Norway and places like Bornholm and Vienna and don't give them up. Make Rommania and Hungary new SSRs if they are feeling really bold.

And if Stalin's really feeling hard done by, which he would be, he probably doesn't give up Manchuria or Iran, and helps the Communists in Greece just to spite the west.
 
Top