Importance of American lend-lease to Soviet war effort in WW II?

[monkspider]

Today in my history of the CCCP class, my professor stated in no uncertain terms that American lend-lease program was the "make or break" factor in the Soviet's victory.
I found this to be a dubious statement altogether, considering other factors which could easily be considered much more critical, but I won't go into that here.
I told her politely that my studies on the subject have produced a dissenting opinion. I told her that, for example, the much-heralded motorized transports that the Soviet Union recieved from the USA accounted for no more than 5% of the Soviet total. She concured, but she argued that the arrival of things like blankets and bullets, plus the psychological support of having a strong ally was the most important factor in the Soviet Union's success. I didn't argue with her on that point, but I still disagree, and chalk up her overall arguement to misplaced patriotism.

So what does the great Apolyton intelligentsia think?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd have to agree that things like blankets and bullets allowed the Soviet Union to win on the Eastern Front.

Sorry, but I think your Prof is totally right.

[David Floyd]

Today in my history of the CCCP class, my professor stated in no uncertain terms that American lend-lease program was the "make or break" factor in the Soviet's victory.

Your instructor is absolutely correct.

Consider, for example, the fact that Lend Lease provided 317,900 tons of explosives, which was equal to half of the Soviet Union's total wartime supply.

As to trucks, the Soviets produced a total of 281,500 during the war, as opposed to Lend Lease shipments of 409,500. Lend Lease also provided 59% of Soviet aviation fuel, 93% of Soviet railroad rails, and 82% of Soviet locomotives. None of those had an immediately obvious impact in the same manner as tanks and planes, but were just as vital nonetheless.

[David Floyd]

Oh, and when serb sees this, the **** is going to hit the fan, I can guarantee that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

... (addition) You have to remember that the Soviet victory was no sure thing. They could have easily lost on the Eastern Front in 1942. Any little bit definetly helped.

[monkspider]

Fair enough Imran, I just don't know if the USSR really got these things in quanities that could really tip the scales in either direction. After all, the archangel run was proved quite deadly for the majority of the convoys who attempted it.
Plus there is the question of whether or not the USSR could have won without these supplies. If they could have, that defeats her arguement altogether. And based on a preponderence of these facts, I would find it quite likely that the USSR could have won without lend-lease.

[David Floyd]

Fair enough Imran, I just don't know if the USSR really got these things in quanities that could really tip the scales in either direction.

See my post as to the numbers.

And based on a preponderence of these facts, I would find it quite likely that the USSR could have won without lend-lease.

That's very unlikely, in my opinion.

Soviet victory was due to a combination of Lend Lease, Western Allied activity in North Africa and France, the vastness of Russia, and the weather.

[David Floyd]

They could have easily lost on the Eastern Front in 1942.

You could also easily argue that absent Operation Torch, the great victory at Stalingrad would not have been won.

[Dis]

bah! women history teacher. both of my history teachers were women, and look how bad my history knowledge is. . They skip over the good stuff like wars. We hardly spent any time on wars, and spent most time on boring culture stuff.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I doubt the USSR would have won without Western supplies (American or British). They needed those things to stay in it until they could turn it around. If Hitler took Moscow in '42, I'd say the war on that side would be over.

[David Floyd]

They skip over the good stuff like wars. We hardly spent any time on wars, and spent most time on boring culture stuff.

Yes, my Western Civ teacher skipped WW2 altogether except for the Holocaust, and barely touched WW1. Pissed me off.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by David Floyd


You could also easily argue that absent Operation Torch, the great victory at Stalingrad would not have been won.

Not to threadjack by own topic, but how so? Did Hitler divert forces from the Eastern front to Africa as a result? Even if so, remember that German forces in Africa (and the whole western front for that matter) were just a miserable fraction of what was facing the Soviets in the East.

[Alexander's Horse]

I think the decisive factor was the incredible heroism of the Russian people in the face of an unbelievably cruel onslaught. Let's not forget the 20 million Russian dead.

But lendlease was a much more important ingredient than the Soviets were ever prepared to admit. They went to great lengths to try and hide any Western aid from their propagand newsreels but sometimes you can see it in evidence.

[Ned]

I'm sure Linclon or others will chime in here on the sheer volume of supplies given the Soviets, but I'd just like to ask whether American aid was critical to holding the Nazi's off at Leningrad, to their defeat before Moscow in late '41, or to their defeat at Stalingrad in late '42? By 1943, the US had landed in Africa and begin its push into Italy. The airwar over Germany was picking up steam. Even if the Soviets never collapsed the Eastern front one more inch, Germany was doomed.

[monkspider]

Exactly Alex, even if I did underscore western support slightly, there were many factors far more important to Soviet victory.

General Winter, General Mud, sheer determination of the Soviet peoples, Hitler's blunders, etc etc etc.