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

[David Floyd]

Not to threadjack by own topic, but how so? Did Hitler divert forces from the Eastern front to Africa as a result?

Most certainly so.

As a direct result of Torch, Hitler had to a)scrape together a force to invade Vicy France, b)send large reinforcements to North Africa, in terms of men and supplies, and c)divert hundreds of transport aircraft, fighters, and attack aircraft to the Mediterranean.

What this meant was that these forces were unavailable to resupply 6th Army in Stalingrad (only half of the transports before Torch remained in the East), and Germany did not have adequate reserves for a credible counterattack and relief operation. von Manstein made a good effort, and had he penetrated to within 20 miles of Stalingrad, von Paulus would, against orders, have broken out to meet him. With the extra ground and air forces, this would have been possible.

As an indirect result of Torch, Italy fell (without Torch, no 1943 invasion of Sicily/Italy). This forced the Germans to take over Italian occupation duties in the Balkans (27 German divisions in the Balkans), occupy Italy (at the end of the war, Kesselring surrendered around a million men in Northern Italy), and reinforce France (at the time of the Normandy landings, almost 50 divisions, including 10 panzer divisions). If the majority of these forces were available in the East, Russia would have had serious problems.

[Ned]

Lincoln, merely reciting totals tells us little or nothing. When did the aid get there. The critical moments were in late '41 and late '42. If the bulk of the aid got there from mid 1943-mid 1945, the aid only permitted the Soviets to roll back the Axis. The US defeated them on the Western front.

[Dis]

This is just my opinin so bear with me.

Even if Hitler had taken Stalingrad and Moscow, the war wouldn't have ended there. The Russian people would still have faught on. I do not think the Eastern front was winnable from the German perspective.

what lend-lease might have done was help the Soviets too much allowing them to seize Berlin before we were able to get there. So there is the possiblility that we hurt ourselves by doing that. But of course that is just hindsight. It was too risky to even allow a remote chance of German victory on the eastern front.

[David Floyd]

AH,

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.

All the heroism in the world didn't stop the great German battles of annihilation at Kiev, Minsk, Vyazma, etc.

Heroism played a part, but charging into machine gun fire will not win wars. Wars are won because of economics and logistics, and US aid provided economic superiority and vital logistical aid.

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

As to Leningrad, most of the forces tasked to actually take the city in 1942 were used up by Army Group South in and around Stalingrad and the Caucusus.

to their defeat before Moscow in late '41,

Good question. At the end of 1941, there were entire Russian units equipped with Western tanks. But Germany was mainly stopped here by the weather. What is important, though, is that a failure to take Moscow in '41 didn't preclude taking it in '42, and even if Germany NEVER took Moscow didn't necessarily mean Germany would be defeated.

or to their defeat at Stalingrad in late '42?

Oh certainly. By 1942, Lend Lease was coming in, in full swing, supplying Soviet armies and running Soviet industry (for example, Lend Lease provided 45% of all Soviet coppor ore and 55.5% of all Soviet aluminum). Further, I've already explained how Torch diverted large German forces at the critical moments.

monk,

What you are failing to realize is that even the absence of a large-scale German victory did not necessarily translate to a full German defeat. Stalemate could easily have resulted without Western aid, and if it came down to mutual exhaustion, I believe that the Soviets would have lost that battle.

[monkspider]

David, it is possible that the loss of these divisions may have been critical at several points in the larger picture of the Soviet/German war. But saying they were responsible for the victory at Stalingrad was a bit of a stretch. Hitler's overall plan for capturing Stalingrad was quite flawed from the get-go. His coherence had considerably deteriorated by this point as well, as demonstrated by his stubborn decisions for the Germans to fight to the last in Stalingrad, when there were many oppurtunities for them to escape.
If these divisions were on the field at Stalingrad, I imagine they would have just been caught in the Stalingrad pocket and captured as well.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Even if Hitler had taken Stalingrad and Moscow, the war wouldn't have ended there. The Russian people would still have faught on.

I actually don't think. They would have adopted to their new masters . The commie propaganda might have been rooted still, but if things got better, there might have been a lot of Russian fascists.

[David Floyd]

Ned,

Lincoln, merely reciting totals tells us little or nothing.

I'm not Lincoln

When did the aid get there.

Throughout the war.

The critical moments were in late '41 and late '42.

Ah, that's where you're wrong. Due to the total focus of Soviet industry on things such as tanks and aircraft, that industry was unable to produce things such as railroad tracks, locomotives, sufficient trucks, etc. Every moment of the war was "critical".

If the bulk of the aid got there from mid 1943-mid 1945, the aid only permitted the Soviets to roll back the Axis.

If the Germans had remained in the Ukraine (especially the Donets Basin and the great food producing areas), their agricultural and industrial output would have been greatly increased. Rolling the Germans out of occupied territory was vital.

[David Floyd]

Even if Hitler had taken Stalingrad and Moscow, the war wouldn't have ended there. The Russian people would still have faught on.

Maybe, but without the massive communications and transportation hub of Moscow (which was THE central railway hub), it would have been extraordinarily difficult to transport troops around to where they were needed.

[monkspider]

David, I am very much a believer that if Germany had displayed particular brillance, they could have still forced a stalemate and caused the alies to sue for peace as late as '44. I am just not convinced that the American/British supplies were critical in insuring that this wasn't the case.

[David Floyd]

David, it is possible that the loss of these divisions may have been critical at several points in the larger picture of the Soviet/German war. But saying they were responsible for the victory at Stalingrad was a bit of a stretch.

Without destroying 6th Army, the Soviet Union would not have had the major victory they had - if Germany had retained the 6th Army, which was the largest army in the German military, they would have had a lot of additional punching power.

With additional aircraft, 6th Army could have been resupplied for longer and to a much greater degree. With additional reserves, Manstein would have had a much greater chance of breaking to within 20 miles of Stalingrad, in which case von Paulus would have ordered 6th Army to break out.

Hitler's overall plan for capturing Stalingrad was quite flawed from the get-go.

Certainly, and I'm not saying these additional forces would have let the Germans take and hold Stalingrad at that time. I'm saying they very well could have saved 6th Army.

If these divisions were on the field at Stalingrad, I imagine they would have just been caught in the Stalingrad pocket and captured as well.

Nope, sorry. These divisions, if sent to the Eastern front, would have been part of Manstein's relief force, they would not have been thrown in as reinforcements to 6th Army.

[Dis]

Yes but that would have been in 1942 before they would have taken Moscow. I'm certain they wouldn't be able to hold it after the other fronts opened up for the allies.

[David Floyd]

I am just not convinced that the American/British supplies were critical in insuring that this wasn't the case.

I'm not sure how you can argue that, given the huge percentage of production Lend Lease accounted for WRT the Soviets. You have to also add to that Lend Lease Allied actions in North Africa, Italy, and France. Allied intervention - especially Lend Lease - was vital for the Soviet victory, in my opinion.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by David Floyd

All the heroism in the world didn't stop the great German battles of annihilation at Kiev, Minsk, Vyazma, etc.

Heroism played a part, but charging into machine gun fire will not win wars. Wars are won because of economics and logistics, and US aid provided economic superiority and vital logistical aid.

Its true heroism and courage alone won't win you a war but all the equipment in the world won't save you either if you don't have them.

The Russian people rose to the occasion magnificently and paid a huge price in blood. That should never ever be forgotten.

The whole war in the West was a sideshow by comparison.

[David Floyd]

Yes but that would have been in 1942 before they would have taken Moscow. I'm certain they wouldn't be able to hold it after the other fronts opened up for the allies.

I don't know. A few more German victories on the Eastern front in 1942 would have been a huge boost, and the presence of the 6th Army would have greatly reduced the pressure on Army Group South.

If Operation Torch was launched a little later, it might have made much greater success. This, though, would have probably encouraged the US into thinking the US Army was ready for an invasion of France in early 1943, which IMO would have been a disaster.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by David Floyd

Nope, sorry. These divisions, if sent to the Eastern front, would have been part of Manstein's relief force, they would not have been thrown in as reinforcements to 6th Army.

Possibly, German efforts to relieve the 6th Army were for the most part, quite laughable. It's unlikely that these forces could have made a major difference even if they were used for this purpose. But anything is possible.

I'll grant you, however, that if they were able to free up the 6th army, this would admittedly have been a major event. Regardless of how unlikely it might seem in hindsight.