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

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
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.

That's another myth. The invasion of the Soviet Union wasn't delayed by the Yugoslav and Greek wars. According to B.H. Liddle Hart in his History of the Second World War, the Nazi's planned to invade the USSR in June of '41 and carreid out the invasion on schedule.

Sandman, every history of the Russian revolution discusses the German occupation of Western Russia. While the occupations proved a tar baby for the Germans, the Germans didn't leave the Russians unpunished. They allowed Tsarist generals to establish new armies in the occupied territories, and they areas provided a base of operations for the Whites against the Reds. It took the Russians years and millions of lives to retake the formerly occupied areas.

Ned, the main credit for ending WWI should go to the subjects and soldiers of the German and Austrian Empires, who overthrew their governments and went on strike against the war.

[JCG]

To Drake:

That's basically saying that Yugoslavia/Greece never happened, or even that the weather could have better that year, etc. which would also mean using a sort of "crystal ball" too, now that you have so anxiously introduced the term.

In any case, this whole thread could be an exercise in such "crystal ball"-ing too, if you want to push the issue. Do you?

The Germans were SEVERELY exhausted and lacking FUEL by the time they reached the outskirts of Moscow. That is a severe tactical disavantage, is it not?

The Siberians had neither of those problems, historically. Or you perhaps presume to say that they did, or would have had them?

And of course if it comes down to urban combat in important Russian cities, the Germans didn't have a particularily good record a couple of years down the road....even under better conditions that those of Winter '41.

The Germans couldn't realistically hold Moscow, and even that wouldn't have meant the utter and complete fall of Russia, as you are arguing.

[Ned]

Hindsight is worth everything. Germany could have won the war if, after the fall of Stalingrad, it sued for peace with the USSR and pulled its forces out. Thereafter, Germany would have had to make massive investments in fighters and pilots to wrest control of the skies from the Allies. Then it needed to build long range bombers to reduce England to rubble and make the Atlantic unsafe for shipping.

So long as it had air superiority, cross-mediterranean and cross-channel invasions would have been impossible.

In due course, Germany invades England. The United States then sues for peace.

As I said, hindsight.

Could have been done, IMHO.

[Drake Tungsten]

I never wanted to get involved in this "what if" thread. I just thought that your belief that the Germans were crazy for thinking that they could conquer Russia in 1941 was unfounded. The Germans were extremely close to beating the Russians, certainly close enough to show that it was possible.

[JCG]

I have too much free time today, lol...

Originally posted by David Floyd
Look! Unfounded Assertion Man! Ruuuuun!

Haha. Anyways, that statement was unfounded, yes, but now I'm trying to found it...even if you disagree, so there.

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.

Acceptable for Stalin and for Mother Russia, considering they pushed the Germans back away from Moscow and other areas...

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.

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?

That would seriously hamper Russian activities, but I don't think it would have been out of the question to partially rebuild it over the winter/spring, even at the cost of a couple of million Russians.

Besides, then the Germans would have been unable to use it too...So they wouldn't have any possible advantages of that hub....

Therefore, even if no reconstruction was possible, the war might have continued in many other areas, and then you could argue that a stalemate could have been reached in the short term...

In the long term, all bets are off, I'd say the Russians could win, even if just fighting a guerrilla war, if they could manage to hold/transport a good number of industries far behind the line, like they did in real life, AFAIK.

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

Sorry for the time-related errors (I will assume you are correct on that), but then, if the Siberians were ALREADY THERE, then I see no chance for the exhausted Germans to have taken the city at all.

And of course, the would-be occupying Germans would also be mostly DEAD too if the city was torched/involved in prolonged urban fighting.

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.

Well, they could even *partially* rebuild the connections in those few months, but certainly the war would be harder for the Russians until that happened, yes.

That could extend the duration of the war in the Ostfront for a year or so, but most probably, the Germans would have committed similar versions of their real life errors in 1942 and onward, so the result would be similar too, just later.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Hindsight is worth everything. Germany could have won the war if, after the fall of Stalingrad, it sued for peace with the USSR and pulled its forces out.

Stalin would never have accepted. Even if he did, Hitler would have had to know that Stalin was merely using the time to rebuild and prepare for a counter-strike. No, the Nazis had to attack and had to defeat the Communists and replace them with a Fascist government.

If Hitler had not attacked Stalin in '41, Stalin would have attacked Hitler in a few years anyway. He had been occupying strategic areas to defend the USSR, he began moving industry to Siberia before the invasion and expanding it. Stalin was gearing up for war. He just didn't expect to be sneak attacked.

[David Floyd]

che,

That's another myth. The invasion of the Soviet Union wasn't delayed by the Yugoslav and Greek wars. According to B.H. Liddle Hart in his History of the Second World War, the Nazi's planned to invade the USSR in June of '41 and carreid out the invasion on schedule.

Yes, I actually have that book, it's a pretty good survey of the war in my opinion.

Ned,

Hindsight is worth everything. Germany could have won the war if, after the fall of Stalingrad, it sued for peace with the USSR and pulled its forces out. Thereafter, Germany would have had to make massive investments in fighters and pilots to wrest control of the skies from the Allies.

Not possible. I doubt seriously that Germany could have even beaten Britain in an air war, just for the simple matter that Britain was able to throw a much higher proportion of resources into their air force, while most of Germany's necessarily went into the army.

Throw in the United States, and you can forget about it.

In due course, Germany invades England.

Not possible because of the United States. Even assuming Germany could wrest control of the seas and air from Britain - which is unlikely, but I suppose conceivable if they were not fighting the Russians - they could not wrest control of the seas and air from Britain and the United States, or even the United States by itself. The US industrial might and economy was just too large for Germany to compete with.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
serb,

Here we go again

Any time.

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.

The soldier weren't supose to turn around, they should go forward. No matter what I say, you always portray it as "Russian crap", even if it was a unique night operation, an operation no one did before.

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.

If...if...if...THEY DIDN"T. All your "IF" and "it could happen if David was in charge" is bs speculation, and worth nothing. We have a nice saying, perhaps Ralph will able to translate it for you, (I can't): "Esli by, da kaby, to vo rtu rasli by griby." It describe your statments very well.

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.

You do not understand. YOU have no benefit to look on events from point of 1945. You look on WW2 from point of MODERN American, who rised on Hollywood propagandisic crap and who just can't imagine what type of war it was.

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.

American ignorant and arrogant crap. Typical for you.

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.

Crap. Total crap. USA had the largest GNP because it wasn't affected by war. In scenario where Hitler attack USA instead of SU, your economy would be badly damaged.
Also, economic and industrial potential don't determinate everything in war. If you don't have an army to protect your industrial potential, your industry cost nothing. If your population don't want to fight full scale war, your economy worth nothing. If you will proove to me that US population was ready to fight untill last men standing as Russians done, and was ready to accept loss of millions people, then I will admit that USA had more chances then SU to win against nazi alone. You can't proove this because never in your history you didn't participated in war of such scale.

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

So, what you think Soviets should seige Berlin? It should took years. Soviets. Leningrad was under seige since 1941 untill 1944 for exaple. Soviets were in the middle of hostile territory and Germans fight feirsly, for the last man standing. In case of long seige their resistance would only increased.

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.

More reliable tanks?
BS. You are trying to convince me that American tanks were better adopted to Russian war theater then Russian tanks? Don't make me laugh. It's typical anti-Russian crap.
And btw, do you know the average lifetime of tank on battlefeild?

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.

They why he didn't do this?

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.

Red army in 1945 was the most powerfull and expirenced army in the World. If you still think that US could easily wipe out Soviets from Europe in 1945, go ahead.

[QUOTE]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. QUOTE]
To gain battle experience? Nice, very nice.
When Russians gained their battle experience on battlefeild, paying millions of lifs for this, you have read the books. Now you saying that Russians bad warriors, while US army is victorious. Really nice.

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.[/

100 000 German and Italian troops in Africa in compare with 5 mln of them on Eastern front. Yep, really big and long-term effect.

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

I doubt it. Perhaps it's no secret for Americans and Brits. As for me, it's complete mystery.

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.

Bs. Your reference to a-bombs cost nothing. Because if Nazi weren't in war with SU, they would spent more resources to invention of nukes. A-bomb wasn't their priority progect, because Eastern front demant tanks, artilary, planes, etc. If they it wasn't necesary for them to spent such amount of resourses to produce those things, they could have a-bomb earlier then USA.

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.

Lets see. USA could out produce Germany, but don't have experienced army, which means that USA COULD won vs. Germany alone. SU COULD (try to prove me otherwise) out produce Germany and have experienced army, which means that it COULDN'T won vs. Germany alone. Nice logic David, brilliant logic.

No.

5%

[David Floyd]

JCG,

Acceptable for Stalin and for Mother Russia, considering they pushed the Germans back away from Moscow and other areas...

Yes, but the point is dead soldiers can't participate in counter attacks.

That would seriously hamper Russian activities, but I don't think it would have been out of the question to partially rebuild it over the winter/spring, even at the cost of a couple of million Russians.

"Partially rebuild it"...not "out of the question"....certainly far away from having complete control over an undamaged rail network, wouldn't you agree?

Besides, then the Germans would have been unable to use it too...So they wouldn't have any possible advantages of that hub....

Except for the incalculable advantage of the Red Army being relatively immobile during the time when they had the best chance to push back the Germans.

Sorry for the time-related errors (I will assume you are correct on that), but then, if the Siberians were ALREADY THERE, then I see no chance for the exhausted Germans to have taken the city at all.

Probably not - weather defeated the Germans. If they had started earlier, and gone for an early Moscow option instead of for Kiev, Moscow probably would have been taken.

As things were, Typhoon came pretty damn close to succeeding, wiping out almost 7/8 of the Soviet forces defending Moscow.

That could extend the duration of the war in the Ostfront for a year or so, but most probably, the Germans would have committed similar versions of their real life errors in 1942 and onward, so the result would be similar too, just later.

What you aren't getting is that if the Russians were unable to launch a credible counteroffensive in Winter of 1941, they would have probably simply launched a ridiculous one because of political pressure. This would have the double-whammy effect of eliminating several hundred thousand more Soviet troops, AND allowing the Germans to start their 1942 offensive much further east.

Don't tell me that wouldn't have been significant.

[JCG]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I never wanted to get involved in this "what if" thread. I just thought that your belief that the Germans were crazy for thinking that they could conquer Russia in 1941 was unfounded. The Germans were extremely close to beating the Russians, certainly close enough to show that it was possible.

Possible, maybe. Likely, I think maybe not. Then again, as you say this is all a "what if" thread, so we are just pointing to subjective probabilities, that's all....

Don't get me wrong, I can accept that the Germans may have had a chance at beating the Russians, (they certainly hurt them good in real life), but I don't believe the necessary conditions had a realistic probability of being fulfilled.

Therefore I believe the chances are much higher that we'd see a modified repeat of the real life Ostfront, even if Moscow was taken, even for a short time...

[David Floyd]

serb,

The soldier weren't supose to turn around, they should go forward. No matter what I say, you always portray it as "Russian crap", even if it was a unique night operation, an operation no one did before.

And in fact that's how many Russians saw it - just another mechanism to force them to charge into machine gun fire. But you are also ignoring the substance of my post, which was that it disoriented the attackers as much as or more than the defenders. The fact is that the searchlight tactic was a failure, and they were soon switched off and abandoned in the future.

If...if...if...THEY DIDN"T. All your "IF" and "it could happen if David was in charge" is bs speculation, and worth nothing.

This whole thread is based on counterfactual reasoning anyway. If you want to come out and play, fine, and if not, fine, but don't blast me for going along with the point of the thread.

You do not understand. YOU have no benefit to look on events from point of 1945.

Again, you still don't address the primary points that FDR was not qualified to make a competent judgement about those types of matters, and that he used as much propaganda as Stalin to achieve his ends. Focus on the points, not on me.

Crap. Total crap. USA had the largest GNP because it wasn't affected by war. In scenario where Hitler attack USA instead of SU, your economy would be badly damaged.

How is Hitler going to attack the US?

Further, even before the war, the US still had a much larger GNP than Russia, and much more industrial and economic potential. I suggest you read a book entitled "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers", by Paul Kennedy.

Also, economic and industrial potential don't determinate everything in war. If you don't have an army to protect your industrial potential, your industry cost nothing. If your population don't want to fight full scale war, your economy worth nothing. If you will proove to me that US population was ready to fight untill last men standing as Russians done, and was ready to accept loss of millions people, then I will admit that USA had more chances then SU to win against nazi alone. You can't proove this because never in your history you didn't participated in war of such scale.

But that's the whole point. The US didn't need to fight to the last man standing. The US was powerful enough to outproduce Germany in every field of production exponentially, and strangle them to death through economics, before dropping the atomic bomb and forcing surrender.

More reliable tanks?
BS. You are trying to convince me that American tanks were better adopted to Russian war theater then Russian tanks? Don't make me laugh. It's typical anti-Russian crap.

Sorry, the simple fact is that US tanks were built to last longer than Soviet ones. Soviet ones were designed to enter battle, fight for a few months, and then be replaced.

And btw, do you know the average lifetime of tank on battlefeild?

Not offhand, no, but this only reinforces the point that the Soviets didn't design their tanks for reliability or long life, but simply to meet the immediate battle necessities. US tanks had other advantages.

They why he didn't do this?

I already told you. Eisenhower cut off his oil, so that he could supply Montgomery. Eisenhower had to manage a plethora of political questions, not just military matters.

Red army in 1945 was the most powerfull and expirenced army in the World. If you still think that US could easily wipe out Soviets from Europe in 1945, go ahead.

It would have been a long war, but the US would have won due to industrial and economic factors.

100 000 German and Italian troops in Africa in compare with 5 mln of them on Eastern front. Yep, really big and long-term effect.

If there were only 100,000 Axis troops in North Africa, why were 250,000 captured at the end of the Tunisian campaign (added to those already killed, wounded, and captured)? Also, look at the forces used to invade Vichy France, and subsequently occupy Italy and the Balkans. I will point out ONCE AGAIN that this distracted Germany at a CRITICAL time on the Eastern Front.

I doubt it. Perhaps it's no secret for Americans and Brits. As for me, it's complete mystery.

That's not surprising.

Bs. Your reference to a-bombs cost nothing. Because if Nazi weren't in war with SU, they would spent more resources to invention of nukes. A-bomb wasn't their priority progect, because Eastern front demant tanks, artilary, planes, etc. If they it wasn't necesary for them to spent such amount of resourses to produce those things, they could have a-bomb earlier then USA.

Don't make me laugh. Most of the German super weapons were designed to combat Britain, such as the V-1 and V-2, jet bombers, etc. Further, Germany was no threat to develop the atomic bomb - they didn't have the necessary resources or technical expertise, although they certainly had more than the Soviet Union, who was only able to develop the atomic bomb because they stole it from the US. Kurchatev and his team would have taken at least another decade, more than likely.

Lets see. USA could out produce Germany, but don't have experienced army, which means that USA COULD won vs. Germany alone. SU COULD (try to prove me otherwise) out produce Germany and have experienced army, which means that it COULDN'T won vs. Germany alone.

You can't ignore German factors. German production was far closer to Soviet production than US production, and without US Lend Lease would have been even closer. The German military was also of better quality than the Red Army, and by 1942 occupied almost half of the Soviet Unions population base and much of its agricultural and industrial base. Don't give me your usual **** while pointing out PRE WAR Soviet resources - you have to look at the situation after the German invasion, as well.

[David Floyd]

Well, I'm off to study (study German, appropriately enough )

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by David Floyd
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.

We are talking just about $11 billion versus more than $300 billion in the total US war expenditures.

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.

Let's just leave alone the last sentence from the above quote, which BTW looks extremely arrogant. Let's rather compare war expenditures: $300 billion for the US versus $190 billion for the USSR. By the end of the war, Soviet industry set such a pace that even America could hardly outproduce the USSR in military equipment.

Just don't forget that, unlike the USSR, a significant part of your GDP had to be spent on certain level of luxuries for your decadent asses.

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.

Well, that's true. The importance of Moscow can hardly be overestimated. With the fall of Moscow, the situation for the USSR would have become extremely diffucult. Yet that wouldn't have been the end. At least you can't claim that for sure.

[Serb]

Originally posted by JCG

Sorry for the time-related errors (I will assume you are correct on that), but then, if the Siberians were ALREADY THERE, then I see no chance for the exhausted Germans to have taken the city at all.

Exactly. THAT"S WHY they didn't capture it in real life. The rest is David's bullsh*t about weather.

[David Floyd]

Oh, one final thing. If Hearts of Iron lives up to his potential in terms of realism, I propose the following multiplayer grudge match: David Floyd (Germany) vs. serb (Soviet Union). Then we'll see

Oh, alrgiht, one more quick reply:

Vagabond,

We are talking just about $11 billion versus more than $300 billion in the total US war expenditures.

Yes, and that's a lot of tanks and planes, wouldn't you say?

By the end of the war, Soviet industry set such a pace that even America could hardly outproduce the USSR in military equipment.

Not exactly. For example, in 1945 the Soviet Union produced barely 40% the number of aircraft the US did.

Just don't forget that, unlike the USSR, a significant part of your GDP had to be spent on certain level of luxuries for your decadent asses.

And we still outproduced you. Go figure.

At least you can't claim that for sure.

Granted. I just claim it as a likely possibility, looking at the fact.