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

[David Floyd]

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.

True enough, but if I have to choose between enough equipment and resources and supplies and heroism to the degree of disregard for human life, I'll take equipment every time.

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

Granted.

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

The presence of the Western Front was, along with Lend Lease, one of the top two reasons the Germans lost in the East.

[David Floyd]

Possibly, German efforts to relieve the 6th Army were for the most part, quite laughable.

Well, Manstein's force drove a huge wedge in the forces in front of him in his attack to relieve 6th Army, punching to within 30 miles of the city.

According to Manstein, the attack failed because, of "the preponderance of the enemy's forces and the deficient strength of our own."

With more ground and air forces available, this could have been very different.

[Alexander's Horse]

Okay here's a quick quiz : How many German units were in North Africa t the time Torch was launched and how many were in Russia? How many armoured divisions?

How many in France for DDay in 44 versus those in Russia?

[David Floyd]

Okay here's a quick quiz : How many German units were in North Africa t the time Torch was launched and how many were in Russia? How many armoured divisions?

That's not as relevant as you think it is.

What's relevant is that Germany did not have the forces available AT THE CRITICAL PLACE AND MOMENT, as a result of Operation Torch.

How many in France for DDay in 44 versus those in Russia?

I'm not even gonna argue that Germany had a chance after the US invasion of France. But that's sorta the point, isn't it? US intervention in the form of Lend Lease and the invasions of Africa, Italy, and France (none of which would have gone off without the US) defeated Germany, not Russians charging into German defenses and being killed en masse until the forced a local breakthrough.

[David Floyd]

Furthermore, it's not the German forces in Africa at the time of Torch that I'm talking about, it's those forces that were transferred to the Mediterranean theater immediately after and as a result of Torch.

[Ned]

Well, what we see after the US gets actively involved is serious over-extention of the German forces in the East. They simply didn't have the manpower or industry to fight and win on two fronts at the same time.

This is why I suggest one has to focus on the effect of Lend Lease prior to America's active involvement in the war - when Germany could effectively concentrate the bulk of her forces on the Easter Front.

David (sorry), but without Lend Lease, would the Soviets have lost Lennigrad or Stalingrad? Either one may have tipped the balance of the war in the East in the Germans favor.

[Adam Smith]

I dont think Lend Lease was the deciding factor, but it was important. A couple things not yet pointed out.

1. Lend Lease supplies also came in by rail from Iran, so the Archangel and Murmansk convoys were not the only routes.

2. Prior to June 41 the Russians were trading the Germans large amounts of food stuffs and raw materials for equally sizable amounts of machinery to build up their industrial area in the Urals. When these flows stopped, Lend Lease filled the gap. The industrial machinery, especially at the time it arrived, may have been more important than some of the military supplies.

3. Dont underestimate the importance of locomotives and rails supplied through Lend Lease. Fighting on the Eastern Front was a logistical nightmare for the Germans given the distances involved and the condition of the infrastructure. Yet the Russians were able to mount huge operations, like the January 45 offensive, which involved moving hundreds of thousands of men and their equipment over hundreds of miles where the track and rolling stock had already been destroyed at least twice before. Lend Lease clearly helped with this.

[David Floyd]

David (sorry), but without Lend Lease, would the Soviets have lost Lennigrad or Stalingrad?

I would say yes.

Leningrad probably would not have falled in 1941 - almost certainly not. However, without Lend Lease supplying the Soviet Union, a Soviet collapse in 1943 was very possible. Without Lend Lease, the large counteroffensive in 1942 would not have been able to be launched on such a large scale, in my opinion.

I think that without huge Soviet military successes in 1942 (made possible by Lend Lease AND Operation Torch), Leningrad would certainly have fallen, because the Soviets couldn't have gotten there quick enough.

Stalingrad is a question. It is certainly a fact that the Germans DID capture most of the city, and it is indisputable that the German defeat was due to the massive Soviet counterattack and the inability of Manstein to relieve the city. But I would hold that the Soviet counterattack, while still possible, would not have been possible on the same scale, and without that massive victory, 6th Army would not have been destroyed - and indeed, there might not have even been a great need to evacuate Stalingrad, had Zhukov's counterattack been stopped.

In 1942, had Germany stopped a counteroffensive, their mobile forces still possessed a significant tactical advantage, and a further battle of encirclement and annihilation could have been possible.

[David Floyd]

Adam Smith,

1. Lend Lease supplies also came in by rail from Iran, so the Archangel and Murmansk convoys were not the only routes.

Very true. Also, a trickle came in via Vladivostok.

The industrial machinery, especially at the time it arrived, may have been more important than some of the military supplies.

To underscore that point, Lend Lease accounted for 28% of all Soviet machine tools. While this amount may not seem too massive, it should be remembered that the Western machine tools were much more complex and versatile than Soviet-produced ones.

Yet the Russians were able to mount huge operations, like the January 45 offensive, which involved moving hundreds of thousands of men and their equipment over hundreds of miles where the track and rolling stock had already been destroyed at least twice before. Lend Lease clearly helped with this.

Lend Lease more than merely "helped" with this - it made it possible. Look at the numbers - 90% of Soviet railroad tracks, rolling stock, etc., were delivered via Lend Lease.

[monkspider]

I doubt that lend-lease had much of an effect on the nature of the battles of Leningrad or Stalingrad. Leningrad, an ill-conceived near-encirclement which lasted only because of the sheer grit of the Soviet people. One million citizens of Leningrad died during the siege, and they still never gave up. 2/3 of the buildings in Leningrad were damaged. Imagine if 2/3 of the buildings in New York were ever damaged in a war! No ammount of Lend-lease is going to affect that kind of determination.

Also Stalingrad wasn't affected much by lend-lease either, it was largely a battle of tactics. With Soviet tactics far outclassing those of the Germans. Even a certain percentile of less supplies won't change that.

There are likely points in the war that are effected in a critical way by lend-lease, but those particular battles aren't examples of them.

[David Floyd]

I doubt that lend-lease had much of an effect on the nature of the battles of Leningrad or Stalingrad. Leningrad, an ill-conceived near-encirclement which lasted only because of the sheer grit of the Soviet people. One million citizens of Leningrad died during the siege, and they still never gave up. 2/3 of the buildings in Leningrad were damaged.

I have never argued that Lend Lease allowed Stalingrad to hold out in 1941. My argument is that Lend Lease allowed the Russians to launch the necessary counterattacks which relieved the city.

Also Stalingrad wasn't affected much by lend-lease either, it was largely a battle of tactics. With Soviet tactics far outclassing those of the Germans.

Stalingrad was decided as a result of the Soviet counterattack, and the German inability to relieve 6th Army. The Russian ability to launch a counterattack on that scale in 1942, following the MASSIVE losses of 1941, certainly had a great deal to do with Lend Lease.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
What's relevant is that Germany did not have the forces available AT THE CRITICAL PLACE AND MOMENT, as a result of Operation Torch.

Perhaps, though the point is whether the forces taken away from the Eastern Front would make a difference. You have to remember the losses on the Eastern Front were huge. A division here or there wouldn't make a bit of difference in the least.

[David Floyd]

Perhaps, though the point is whether the forces taken away from the Eastern Front would make a difference.

You certainly can't argue that additional resources would have HURT the Germans.
Further, considering how close Manstein came to Stalingrad (30 miles, and von Paulus would have broken out if he'd gotten to within 20 or so), it is certainly plausible to state that the reinforcements sent to invade Vichy France and to Africa as a result of Torch could have been effectively used in the relief operation.

[monkspider]

30 miles is a big deal in that circumstance David, since I imagine it would be 30 miles of pure resistance. The Germans got within 6 miles of Moscow in December 41 and they still weren't able to ever take it.
Plus, if Manstein did have a larger relief force, you can never know how the Soviets might have reacted accordingly. All in all, it is still highly unlikely that these extra divisions would have tipped the scales enough to save the sixth.

[David Floyd]

30 miles is a big deal in that circumstance David, since I imagine it would be 30 miles of pure resistance.

Actually he needed 10 miles to trigger a German breakout. 10 miles was not inconceivable.

The Germans got within 6 miles of Moscow in December 41 and they still weren't able to ever take it.

So? I'm not saying that the Germans could have actually retaken Stalingrad and stabilized the line with those extra forces, I'm saying those extra forces could have at least gone far enough to relieve 6th Army and extricate much of it.

Plus, if Manstein did have a larger relief force, you can never know how the Soviets might have reacted accordingly.

For example...?