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

[Harovan]

Right, I don't like the American gov't. So what? I don't like the German one either.

[David Floyd]

serb,

Here we go again

Bullsh*t.
It was well prepared. It started at night and first time in history large light projectors were used there.

You are referring to the battle of Seelow Heights where Zhukov had the "brilliant" idea to use searchlights to disorient the Germans. And this worked to a small degree, against the least experienced Germans, such as the Volksstrum.

What you of course don't mention, is that these huge searchlights (143 of them), did more to disorient the Soviets. They were so bright the soldiers couldn't turn around, and they were also blinded from the front because the light reflected off of the smoke and dust from the bombardment.

Please get your facts straight.

Well, perhaps I oversimplificated a bit.

What, YOU? Oversimplify? Nah!

they prefered to stay and continue the fight.

No they didn't. They wanted to break out, but Hitler ordered them to stay. Field Marshal von Paulus would have probably broken out anyway if Manstein got within 20 miles of Stalingrad.

Almost 60 years ago their president said that:"... courage, fortitude and devotion of defenders of Stalingrad will inspire forever in hearts of all free people. Their glorious victory stemmed the tide of invasion and marked the turning point in war of Allied Nations against the forces of aggression."

Believe me, Roosevelt used propaganda too. He was basically sucking up to the Soviets, whom he wanted concessions from, especially in the area of attacking Japan.

But in any case, FDR was no more qualified than Stalin to talk about the strategic situation, reasons for victory and defeat, etc. He was a politician, not a strategist, economist, soldier, etc., and he did not have the advantage of looking back on the event from many years later.

In accordance with David, Russians saved their asses because of weather and American trucks,

Well, the Germans were stopped at Moscow because of bad weather, and lost in the East because of Lend Lease, as well as Western Allied landings in France, Sicily, Italy, and Africa.

And American victorious army could single handenly defeat nazi, because US military is the best military force in human history.

Wars have to do with economics and industrial potential more than they do with the size of one's army. And it is a fact that the United States was by far the greatest industrial power of the war. In fact, by 1945 the US accounted for approximately 50% of the world's GNP. That is, a country with a smaller population than the Soviet Union was producing as much as the rest of the world combined. The US also had the atomic bomb. I don't doubt for a second that the US could have defeated Germany without Soviet help.

In 1941 Hitler ordered to TOOK Moscow, not to seige it. And they lost about 1 million of soldiers and didn't acheived their goal. Now compare it with Russian 300 000 and completed goal.

Completely different situation. Don't be ridiculous. We both know the situation before Moscow in 1941 was far different from the situation before Berlin in 1945

Do you know how Russians called your Shermans? "Zazhigalka" Which means 'lighter". Do you know which the first thing Russian tankists do when they received new Sherman? They remove leather interior out of tank. Because your Shermans fire like lighters if were hit and ther was no chance for crew to survive.

So what? The Red Army still equipped an entire corps with them, as well as various other units, not to mention various British light tanks. One reason for this was that they were far more reliable - ie, would last longer - than Russian tanks, which were built to roll into battle, last about 3 months, and if they weren't destroyed by then they'd be virtually unusable anyway.

You are quite a dreamer David. your theories sometimes are very funny. Americans could have won war in 1944?

If Patton could have rolled into Southern Germany, when the Germans had virtually no troops in Germany or on the West Wall, I certainly think the war could have been ended.

Americans could easily won war vs. Red Army in Europe in 1945? USA could wipe the floor with Russia?

Looking at it from an economic and industrial standpoint, the Soviet Union was a midget compared to the United States. As I've said before, army sizes don't really matter in the long run - especially when you have no replacements, as was the case with the Red Army.

Btw, if so, then why did you stoped? Why you didn't finished war in 1944, if you could. Don't have balls for that?

As usual, you don't bother to check your facts. Eisenhower had to manage a coalition of forces, not just one army, and it just so happened that Patton and Montgomery hated each other. The decision to divert resources towards Monty's Operation Market Garden was in many ways political.

Then what you was waiting for? Stalin asked about this since the beggining of war. Why you jamped in war only when it was absolutely clear that nothing could stop Russians? Why you just seat and watch how millions of people killing each other, if you could stop this and save those people?

Do you understand NOTHING about logistics and supply? Obviously you do not. Do you understand ANYTHING about the need for the US Army to get battle experience before taking on forces in France? Obviously not. A landing in 1942 was impossible for reasons of training, shipping, and logistics, and a landing in 1943 was impossible because of shipping, logistics, and decisions made in 1942 to open a front in Africa, which had a very real long-term effect upon the number of German forces in the East.

you think Soviets didn't have air superiority during Berlin offence?

It's no secret that the US and Britain were far better than the Russians with regards to the use of tactical air power.

Arrian,

If Nazi Germany had concentrated on one front at a time w/o intereference, the outcome of the war would most likely have been different.

Again, because of economic and industrial realities, as well as ever growing US tactical and strategic airpower and atomic weapons, it is unlikely in the extreme that Germany could have defeated the Western Allies.
On the other hand, due to economic and industrial realities, as well as other factors, it is highly unlikely that the Soviet Union by itself could have defeated Germany.

Britain and the US knew that keeping the USSR fighting was crucial to their prospects for success, based on what happened in WWI, when Russia surrendered. The Germans were then able to unleash their eastern forces on the western front, and damn near won the war.

No they didn't. I tried to argue that point once, and Chris62 proved me wrong. Germany had no chance, even after transferring troops from the Eastern Front.

If Hitler had managed to win in the East, the UK & US would have faced a much stronger "Fortress Europe" assuming Hitler didn't manage to successfully invade Britain.

By this point, even assuming a great German victory and an attempted invasion of Britain in 1942 or 1943, British and American air power was WAY too strong, and the Germans did not have the amphibious or airborne or naval forces to invade anyway.

Ned,

Thereafter, Lend Lease certainly helped the Soviets roll back the Germans primarily due to the locomotives, rails and trucks. But, as I suggested, it would have been sufficient simply for the Soviets to tie the German Army up deep in Russian territory, while the Allies landed in France and took Berlin. A rollback was not necessary. Think of how the world would have been different if the USSR had never even come close to Poland, let alone Berlin.

Which sorta reinforces my point that the Soviet Union could achieve no better than stalemate on its own, in the best case scenario.



Saint Marcus,

weren't the total supplies the USSR got in the Lend Lease deal about 1% of their total production in the war? I remember reading it somewhere, I'll look it up.

No.

[monkspider]

I don't know David, I keep seeing the statistics that Americans giving about 11 billion in aid comparted to about 200 billion in total Soviet war expenditures. So it was probably closer to 5%.
Of course 5% of 200 billion is still a large ammount though.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by 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.

The USSR was in severe danger of losing until Stalingrad, and it was really a matter of logistics - the USSR couldn't undertake an offensive of any nature without mass preparation and stockpiling, so every bit of materiel and transport removed from Soviet preparations equaled delay in offensives and counter-offensives.

Put another way - the Soviets could have produced the items that they got under lend-lease, but only by diverting production capacity from something else, like T-34's and Katyushas. The "cost" doesn't matter - comparing Ford trucks to T-34's on a cost basis is silly, especially between a market priced capitalist economy and a centrally planned priced communist one. The real comparisons would be in factory square footage, man-hours of direct and indirect labor, (especially skilled labor), and utilization of machine tools. Having to waste space, skilled labor and machine tools on truck transmissions when you could be producing tank transmissions is not a good thing.

Another way of looking at logistics is those mass artillery barrages they were so fond of - imagine starting offensives (like the big push against Army Group Center in 1944) with less artillery prep, leaving more German defenders intact.

[David Floyd]

I don't know David, I keep seeing the statistics that Americans giving about 11 billion in aid comparted to about 200 billion in total Soviet war expenditures. So it was probably closer to 5%.
Of course 5% of 200 billion is still a large ammount though.

A large amount that came at a critical time and allowed the Soviet Union to produce critical items for the war effort. One thing Lend Lease provided was enough food to feed an army of 12 million men for five years - imagine what would have happened without that.

[Arrian]

DF,

I said it is likely the outcome would have been different. I didn't say "Germany would have won." I think a stalemate of some sort would have been more likely. Germany certainly wouldn't have invaded an conquered the US. But absent an Eastern Front, could we have managed to successful invade and conquer them? Further, even if we could have, it would no doubt have been much bloodier and taken longer. It is also a lot more likely that we would have used nuclear weapons on Germany.

If Germany had either not attacked Russia or had managed to beat them, the Nazis would have had the opportunity to consolidate their hold on Europe and its industrial capacity... which would have gone a long way toward redressing their deficiencies (such as naval power, air power, etc). In order to still have an Allied victory, the UK & US would have had to successfully invade Europe. So all the Germans had to do was fend that invasion off in order to prevent the Allied victory you are so sure would still have happened.

And this ignores the possibility of Britain falling. If, for instance, Hitler had half a brain and decided to finish with the UK before attacking the USSR, he may have been able to pull it off (rolling with this "if he had half a brain" theory, he also would not have ordered the Luftwaffe to stop bombing airfields & factories in order to bomb cities instead).

-Arrian

[Ned]

In order to really answer the question of whether Lend Lease saved Russia, it appears that Stalingrad is the critical battle. Could the Soviets have mounted its massive counter-attack without Lend Lease?

I don't know the answer to this question. But my simple guess is yes, they could have. The reason I say this is that Lend Lease apparently did not begin until 1942 - what month, I do not know. But the preparations for the counter-attack had to begin early to mid 1942. This means to me that the bulk of the weapons, ammo, and troops were assembled by the Russian using their own resources.

Thereafter, all those locomotives, rails and trucks would have helped solve the Soviets logistics problem, even while the Germans continued to struggle in this department. This is why I think the Soviets crushed the Germans on the Eastern front from 1943 forward.

[Sandman]

Anyone without a patriotic axe to grind knows that it was the SU's industrial base which was the key factor in their victory. This stuff about lease-lend is pure fantasy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Someone (*cough*Sandman) hasn't been studying history .

[Sandman]

What particular parts of history have I not been studying?

My comment about lease-lend relates to it being a minor factor in the Soviet victory, not the sole reason for their victory. I didn't dispute it's existence.

[chequita guevara]

cbeast!

[Imran Siddiqui]

My comment about lease-lend relates to it being a minor factor in the Soviet victory, not the sole reason for their victory.

That shows the part of history you haven't been studying.

Even those on this thread with no political axe to grind (MtG) have acknowledged that lend-lease was a MAJOR factor in the Soviet victory. And since where does major factor equate to sole factor? I know of no one on this thread saying that. What people are saying on this thread is that lend-lease was a significant factor in the Eastern Front, and there is a distinct possibility that without it, the Soviets could have lost Moscow.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
Britain and the US knew that keeping the USSR fighting was crucial to their prospects for success, based on what happened in WWI, when Russia surrendered. The Germans were then able to unleash their eastern forces on the western front, and damn near won the war.

This is a myth. The bulk of German forces in the East after the Russian collapse were still in the East on Armistice Day. They had to occupy Poland, the Baltic States, the Ukraine. The Germans landed troops in Finland, and everywhere were fighting against local forces and the Communists.

[Ned]

Che, I thought they had settled with the communists. Wasn't there a cease fire agreement between the communist government in St. Petersburg and Berlin?

[Sandman]

Even those on this thread with no political axe to grind (MtG) have acknowledged that lend-lease was a MAJOR factor in the Soviet victory. And since where does major factor equate to sole factor? I know of no one on this thread saying that. What people are saying on this thread is that lend-lease was a significant factor in the Eastern Front, and there is a distinct possibility that without it, the Soviets could have lost Moscow.

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 believe that I am vindicated on this minor point.