The Soviet Union did not "beat back" the Nazis in 1941. Hitler started Barbarossa too late and without enough petroleum reserves which led to many costly delays. He was beaten by the Russian winter. Even the destruction of the Sixth Army at the end of 1942 was due more to idiotic Nazi planning (i.e. extending a narrow finger of advancement in the south that was easy to encircle and cut off in the aforementioned brutal Russian winter) than anything the Red Army pulled off.
This sounds like the memoirs of German generals who claimed it was Hitler's bad decisions and the weather that caused their failure (the subtext being that the Slavic subhuman Mongol Bolshevik Jewish hordes had nothing to do with it). Such special pleading ignores the Soviet victory in the battle of Moscow (winter 41-42), and the fact that even when the Soviets were losing or retreating (both before and after that key battle) they were attriting German forces--and the Germans had a lot fewer reserves and also had to worry about other fronts. It also ignores the fact that time was on the Soviet side, as long as they could trade space for it, and that with every passing few months, Soviet military leadership got better, the troops got more hardened, the new factories in the Urals kept increasing output, the Soviet intelligence gathering and skill at deception operations improved, and the ability of Zhukov and other generals to coordinate the movement of tank armies increased exponentially to where they had the Germans outclassed.
Mention was made of the Soviet air force, but by 43 the Germans were having to pull their planes out of the USSR (or just not replace them) because of the necessity of dealing with the Allied air offensive in the West. The Soviets by late 43, early 44 probably had more warplanes than were really essential to their purposes.
One problem with this discussion is that it doesn't really focus on the question of Lend Lease but keeps bringing in other issues, like the U.S. not entering the war. I am assuming that the withholding of Lend Lease was the only change and that otherwise the U.S. and Brits were in the war to win.
But it was obvious to the U.S. and British leaders that the harder and more effectively the Soviets fought, the less the casualties that the U.S. and Britain would experience later on. Indeed, by mid-1944 the British had exhausted their reserves and U.S. leaders were worried about possible horrific combat losses and highly publicized defeats in one or more major battles that might weaken the American people's will to continue the war. So I think a decision by the Western Allies to withhold Lend Lease from the Soviets, even in 1941-42, would have been so foolish that it could only come about through Alien Space Bat intervention.
And IF there was no Lend Lease for them, the Soviets might have found ways to improvise and make up for it. For instance, if they couldn't produce or man as many T-34s, maybe they could decide to mount longer range guns on them. Or invented some new type of explosive. We really don't know.
One thing is sure, a slowed-down Soviet march west would have played havoc with the battle of Normany. For instance, there would have been no Operation Bagration--the largest offensive of the war--to tie down the Germans in the east. So the Soviets would indirectly have obtained their revenge for the denial of Lend Lease: The losses of U.S. and British troops in France would have been double or triple what they were in OTL.
Last edited: