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

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by 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?

Just because the Communists in St. Petersburg agreed to it doesn't mean the communists in Kiev agreed to it, or in Minsk or elsewhere. Especially since the Germans were putting Communists to the bayonett. The Communists in the occupied territory launched liberation struggles, as did the anarchists. The entire eight month period of German occupation was filled with sabotage and guerilla war and reprisals.

The Germans were able to move some troops away, but they weren't able to shift the bulk of their forces. If they had, they would have practically doubled the number of forces on the Western front, and nothing would have stopped them.

It was a gamble on Germany's part. They bit off more than they could chew, but they felt they needed to control the Slavic breadbaskets of Poland, Byelorussia, and the Ukraine. If there hadn't been a total collapse of Russian production (which is what precipitated the Russian collapse in the first place) as well as Communist resistence, maybe it could have saved them by staving off the bread riots that eventually ended the war.

It was a gamble either way. If they had accepted Russia's terms of no annexations, no reparations, they could have moved all their troops West, but would have left themselves open for Communist influence on their border.

[Ned]

Well, Che, one learns something every day. So it appears we owe German greed and communist partisans significant credit for the Allied victory in WWI.

Yeah, the Germans were really stupid to not withdraw their troops out of occuppied territories to the East in order that they could shift the bulk of their forces to the West.

[Sandman]

The Germans were able to move some troops away, but they weren't able to shift the bulk of their forces. If they had, they would have practically doubled the number of forces on the Western front, and nothing would have stopped them.

Do you have any backing for this claim?

The Germans used their best troops for the offensive, and stationed substandard troops in their eastern conquests. How much difference would these troops have made?

[JCG]

Soviet Russia would have won even with no lend-lease. Probably up to a year and a half-later, probably not.

I think I've posted something about this before, though....Next question? j/k

EDIT:

In specific:

Germany still made too many serious screw-ups on their own, Hitler was still alive and contributing to said screw-ups, lend-lease certainly made the Soviet victory much much much easier but didn't "save them from the jaws of inevitable defeat", and I repeat: Germany still made too many serious screw-ups on their own.

It's truly amazing how they thought they even had a realistic chance at conquering Russia in 1941...

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by Ned
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.

Lend lease was pass into law March 11, 1941, However my Encyclopedia does not state which month it started to ship material to Europe.

[Drake Tungsten]

It's truly amazing how they thought they even had a realistic chance at conquering Russia in 1941...

Considering how closely they came to defeating Russia in 1941, in spite of the delays caused by the invasion of Yugoslavia, I think that they were pretty accurate in their assessment.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I consider it highly arrogant for the Russians here to say that they would have fought on forever against the Germans and not assimilated and become Fascists if the Germans won in Russia.



It is like they think they are somewhat better than the Poles, Ukrainians, etc. If the Germans took over the UK, you would have had a country in Fascists in 10 years. Saying that the USSR would never have become Fascist under Nazi rule is the height of arrogance and is greater bull**** than anything I've read here.

You are crazy, and have no idea wtf are you talking about.
Assimilation of Russians?
Read about Hitler's "final solution" to understand what kind of assimilation he offered to inferior races. You just can't understand that we had only two choices- to win or to be exterminated by "assimilators".

[JCG]

"Close"? If by that you mean "close" to getting to Moscow...then that wouldn't have helped the Germans win the war, either.

To just scratch the surface, Moscow wasn't the key to defeating the Russians....never was, never will be.

Was it an important city? Yes. Would it have ended the campaign? No.

The city would have been at least torched by the retreating Russians themselves making it useless for anything, and the Siberians coming back from the East would have kicked out any Germans still in the city.

In my opinion, Barbarossa was a gigantic gamble, which brought incredible victories but it had no chance of truly knocking the Russians down for the count.

Nothing would have changed by taking Moscow.

[Drake Tungsten]

Moscow was the heart of the Russian rail system. How exactly were the Russians supposed to move their troops into position for a massive counterattack without control of Moscow? If Germany could have captured (and held) Moscow, the Soviets would've been done for...

[Serb]

Hi

Originally posted by Arrian
****. Another pissing match over who saved who's ass?

Just notice who started it. Do you ever saw that me, Vagabond or any other Russian started such thread?

As usual, certain US posters put up speculation about just how important our contributions were to Allied victory, and Serb shows up frothing at the mouth.

And what do you think I should do? Just seat and listen David's bs theories how American tanks saved Moscow in 1941?Or his bs theory that Russians weren't able to beat nazi alone, while USA esialy could.

[JCG]

Yes, it would have seriously impaired transport and communications, but are you arguing that the Russians would have simply given up and raised the white flag? No. Would they try to reconquer Moscow? Yes.

You think that the Siberians wouldn't have attacked and defeated the seriously underequipped, tired and exhausted Germans that would have been "holding" whatever remained of Moscow?

The Germans would have been forced to get the heck out of Moscow, and they would have to hold the line over the winter, as per Hitler's orders, but at considerable number of kms away from the city. No big change from real life.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Arrian, I don't negate that lend-lease was important, even very, although I wouldn't call it crucial.

I'm 100% agree.

But I mind if any of the sides (Russia and America) says about the other "We saved your butts", "You'd have lost without us" or "if we hadn't won in <battle1>, you would have lost <battle2>". This is ridiculous, just like the opinion I once heard from an UK guy, that "the Britains won the war with a little help from the US and Russia". All allied powers put their weight in the victory.

Of course, it was allied victory. But why people like David are always saying smth like this: "you are ****y warriors, without our refregirators all of you would be dead now"?

And about the "we are the greatest" propaganda... See, I said the same propaganda thing to Serb. It seems to exist in every large power. Be it America, Russia, even UK, not to talk about France, le Grand Nation.

Of course it exist and I realize that I'm affected by this. Some people just can't admit it or absolutely unaware that they are brainwashed. *looks in David's direction *

But understand, if I meet a dude on the street, who repeats to say "face it, I'm the greatest and you and all others are scum", I may not hit in his face because he's indeed stronger than me, but he hardly ever will be my friend. And that's the answer to all this why-does-everyone-hate-Americans stuff. Be nice to us and we'll be nice to you, that simple.

I know two such dudes Imran and David.

And finally: I'm not anti-american, not at all. The United States are a fascinating country, and although I would never move over the pond, I enjoyed my short staying and I have a couple of dear friends there. What makes some of my statements sound anti-american is, that I can't stand this pride stuff and that I'm consequently anti-war (except in civ games that is ) and therefor believe, that this fascinating country is led by, well let's say it not using bad words, a sick and greedy government.

You are anti-American

[Drake Tungsten]

You think that the Siberians wouldn't have attacked and defeated the seriously underequipped, tired and exhausted Germans that would have been "holding" whatever remained of Moscow?

The Germans would have been forced to get the heck out of Moscow, and they would have to hold the line over the winter, as per Hitler's orders, but at considerable number of kms away from the city. No big change from real life.

Breaking out the crystal ball, are we? There's no way to know what would've happened had the Germans conquered Moscow. The Siberians may have reconquered the city, but they also might have failed. It's certainly difficult to dislodge an enemy from an urban area, particularly an enemy as tactically skilled as the Germans. As I said, if the Germans captured and held Moscow, then the Russians were finished. Who knows if that would've been possible had the Germans began Barbarossa a few weeks earlier?

[David Floyd]

Arrian,

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.

And I must disagree. US and British airpower ruled the skies over Europe by 1944, both at night and in the daytime. Strategic bombers were heavily hitting transportation, industry, etc., and tactical aircraft were ranging over France, all protected by P-51s.

Further, without Russia, Lend Lease would not have inhibited US production, and the US would have been even more massive in terms of military equipment.

Once Swedish iron ore was cut off to Germany, as well as Turkish chromium, Germany would have been in major trouble. In my opinion, given enough Allied support to Sweden and Turkey, those countries could have been convinced to sell all of their excess iron ore and chromium to the US.

Further, even if we could have, it would no doubt have been much bloodier and taken longer.

Possibly, although possibly not. If we had simply dropped atomic bombs on Germany, that likely would have been it, especially if we got Hitler and some of the higher ranking Nazis. If the German military took charge of Germany, it's quite likely they would have ended the war.

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 was still nowhere near the capacity of the US and Britain, and it ignores the fact that many vital resources came from outside of Continental Europe.

which would have gone a long way toward redressing their deficiencies (such as naval power, air power, etc).

Not without sacrificing large parts of their army. Even as early as 1912 or so, the Germans recognized that they could not maintain their position as the greatest land power AND challenge Britain at sea. Throw air power into the equation and this is even more significant.

order to still have an Allied victory, the UK & US would have had to successfully invade Europe.

Why? The US didn't have to invade Japan, and Japan was certainly less likely to surrender than Germany, given their culture.

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).

Even with air superiority it's still doubtful he could have pulled off Sealion, due to a lack of transport craft and naval power.

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.

If you want to talk about a massive industrial base, look at the US, not Russia. Russia was puny in comparison. Russia's victory was more due to America's industrial and economic base rather than its own.

JCG,

Soviet Russia would have won even with no lend-lease. Probably up to a year and a half-later, probably not.

I think I've posted something about this before, though....Next question?

Look! Unfounded Assertion Man! Ruuuuun!

To just scratch the surface, Moscow wasn't the key to defeating the Russians....never was, never will be.

In 1941, Moscow was a major communications and transportation hub, the central point for the north-south and east-west rail lines. To take this away would have deprived the Red Army of much of its mobility, which could easily have cost them the war.

The city would have been at least torched by the retreating Russians themselves making it useless for anything, and the Siberians coming back from the East would have kicked out any Germans still in the city.

The Siberians were already on the Moscow front at the beginning of Operation Typhoon, and most of them died during Typhoon or the Russian counterattack in the winter anyway.

Yes, it would have seriously impaired transport and communications, but are you arguing that the Russians would have simply given up and raised the white flag? No. Would they try to reconquer Moscow? Yes.

But you just said they would have torched the city on their way out. Even if they got it back, it would still be wrecked as a transportation hub, now wouldn't it?

You think that the Siberians wouldn't have attacked and defeated the seriously underequipped, tired and exhausted Germans that would have been "holding" whatever remained of Moscow

The Siberian troops were ALREADY THERE, and if the Germans had taken Moscow, would have been mostly DEAD after the fall of Moscow.

The Germans would have been forced to get the heck out of Moscow, and they would have to hold the line over the winter, as per Hitler's orders, but at considerable number of kms away from the city. No big change from real life.

Doubtful, considering the Soviets would have had far less forces to counterattack with, would not have had their central transportation hub, and would have been starting from further back.

But even if that's true, it would have been a massive net gain for the Germans, because it would have crippled the Russian transportation center for at least a few months, and probably longer.

serb,

You are crazy, and have no idea wtf are you talking about.

Ah yes, your usual response. Funny how anyone on this forum with any grounding in history says the same about you

Just seat and listen David's bs theories how American tanks saved Moscow in 1941?

Never once have I said US tanks were the key to the SU's victory.

or his bs theory that Russians weren't able to beat nazi alone, while USA esialy could.

It's all industry and economics, and the US was light years ahead of Germany and Russia in all of those fields (and was pretty much equal to every other nation in the world, combined, by 1945, and was still growing).

But why people like David are always saying smth like this: "you are ****y warriors, without our refregirators all of you would be dead now"?

Refridgerators had nothing to do with it, and you know I never said that. Let's stick to what I DO say, not what you WANT me to say.

Some people just can't admit it or absolutely unaware that they are brainwashed.

Pot, kettle, black.

[Adam Smith]

Which was still nowhere near the capacity of the US and Britain

In 1944 US Steel Corp, by itself, outproduced all of Germany and Occupied Europe. Not to mention Bethlehem Steel, Inland, Jones & Laughlin, Kaiser.....