StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Some have said that the material aid delivered to the USSR by the western-Allies was a mistake, because they were simply strengthening a future foe.

Suppose no material aid was delivered to the USSR during WW2, nothing at all. No arms, trains, trucks or food. Nothing. How would this have effected the progression of the war?

IIRC, this question has been asked before and I think the general feeling was that while the USSR would still be victorious, it could not sustain deep penetrations later on in the war.

Wasn't Shukov the one who said that the rare minerals sent over by the US were crucial in keeping the war machine running? Granted, I am not an expert on the USSR at all, but I recall reading something like that once.

Most of the weapons the US and Britain sent weren’t too useful, and tended to arm Soviet troops in the Far East. However the supply of trucks, canned food, aviation fuel, armor plate and minerals like Molybdenum was something the USSR could not have easily done without. The western allies did also benefit to a degree from the trade, the USSR for example supplied most of the lumber used to build camps for US troops building up before Overlord in England for example, and it just provided yet another theater in which the Germans felt compelled to commit air power. While much is made of allied losses running convoys to Russia, the reality is that only two or three actually suffered really heavily, and most passed with no losses at all. Most allied aid went through Iran or the Far East anyway, completely avoiding German interdiction.

1) Soviet Union's death toll rises due to
2) The war drags on longer than up to 1945 - possibly a year longer or so, since the rapid advances heavily relied on newfound motorization from allied aid
3) War hunger is much more severe

I believe we discussed this several times, while lend-lease was nowhere crucial in the early war phase, later on it became important, and ultimately it was important for the reconstruction of the USSR.

A Friend of mine sent me an article a while back, written by a Soviet tank driver and to him the Sherman was an excellent tank. As well, 10,000 Aircobra fighters were used by the Soviets.

1) Huge starvation problems. Russian troops were kept this side of starving by huge amounts of spam sent over, so without that you're either going to see a lot of very weak troops (possibly compromising counterattacks and offensives) or an even bigger civilian death toll.

2) Huge supply problems. You won't see any Operation Bagration without American lend lease lorries ferrying supplies up to the front line artillery and tanks, you won't see the kind of massive railway construction that allowed such a huge concentration of men and material.

3) War drags on even longer, possibly another year or two with the Russians sustaining huge casualties and simply battering Germany down even more so than they did.

4) As pointed out, I believe Zhukov and a number of others were decidedly vocal (especially considering the country they were in) in saying categorically that American raw materials were vital in keeping the Russian war machine alive (i believe in Overys book one of the figures given is that even in 1945 42% of the minerals used by the USSR were still coming from the US).

5) Tanks, planes, ammo, rolling stock, railway lines, and a multitude of other things supplied almost completely by the US well into 1945 and the end of the war when Russias industry had supposedly recovered.

I believe Zhukov and a number of others were decidedly vocal (especially considering the country they were in) in saying categorically that American raw materials were vital in keeping the Russian war machine alive

I'd say one can look at statistics to determine which parts of the lend-lease were most crucial instead of looking at general statements. Shipment volume is known, after all, and so are the domestic industry production numbers.

For example, aviation fuels were pretty critical, while other items not so much. Food (spam) was important, else the calorie diet for both soldiers and civilians would've gone lower than IRL, and it would undeniably lead, if not directly then indirectly, to more deaths.

Tanks, planes and ammo weren't as crucial as raw materials such as high-grade fuel, and foods.

Would the war really last longer? Doesn't that come down to the Nazi government, more than anything else? Even without lend-lease, if the Normandy landings still happen, Germany is doomed regardless of how well the Soviets are able to push back. Without fuel and logistics support they might not be pushing into Berlin, but the deeper into Russia the German armies are the more they're fucked when Normandy happens. I guess a weaker Red Army (or one unable to concentrate for offensives the way it was historically) might allow the Germans to pull more troops back to the west.

Even without lend-lease, if the Normandy landings still happen, Germany is doomed regardless of how well the Soviets are able to push back

Is the Reich really doomed to fail in the same short time, though? Don't mean to be insulting, but the Western Allies as opposed to the USSR, had a very low threshold for suffering. What if their troops start dying by the millions in a lock-down frontline in France, or even get pushed down with increased German reserves, since the USSR wouldn't be able to inflict such large losses on Germany during 1944, and wouldn't be as powerful to conduct "Bagration" as it did IRL?

What would they do? Drop a nuke on Germany? That's a possible outcome, but it means the war indeed lasts longer. IRL, by start of 1945 it was clear Germany is crushed. In our alternative, is it so clear?

Oh yeah I know where you're coming from, but how likely is that really? Even without the ability to launch massive attacks, the Russians are still there sucking up German manpower and resources; why would it be orders of magnitude harder for the Allies to roll up the west? Once the Germans move troops away from Russia, they'd be more vulnerable to Russians even without the ability to concentrate.

To pick an operation, would the Russians have been able to cut off the Germans at Stalingrad without the fuel and support provided by the other allies? I agree that losing the ability for large encirclements and attacks would leave the Germans many more troops.

To pick an operation, would the Russians have been able to cut off the Germans at Stalingrad without the fuel and support provided by the other allies?

Yes, they would be able to win at Stalingrad and at Kursk as well, especially as the lend-lease shipments during 1941-1942 were rather neglible. But Stalingrad, despite it's decisive nature, did not lead to the entire German front crumbling, and Bagration in 1944 did exactly that.

Certainly, but destroying, capturing and tying up so much German material is important with regard to the viability of the Normandy landings without supporting Russia. Russia doesn't have to be BEATING the Nazis at that point, just applying enough pressure to prevent the Germans being too prepared back west.

I'd speculate that without the ability for Saturn etc, the situation would be dramatically different (with far more German troops in the field), but if those early attacks were possibly without the allied shipments then the Germans should still be unable to extricate themselves from the Russian front.

Oh, they are constrained in either case, but in case Russia doesn't advance as fast in 1944, Germany certainly would have more leeway to deal with Normandy, etc. If Russia is incapable of a decisive offensive, Germany doesn't need to keep huge amounts of manpower and AFVs pinned down in preparation of "Bagration". If "Bagration" doesn't happen, German units from the West won't be drawn out to the East either, meaning Germany can sustain itself against even a two-front assault longer than in IRL.

It's interesting, on another forum someone once commented that the internal combustion engine didn't revolutionise warfare, it simply made it quicker to get from one set piece battle to the next. It's not something I entirely agree with but it's probably applicable to this scenario. In Soviet offensives, the majority of the fighting/destruction of German force seems to have been accomplished in the breakthrough stages and large encirclement operations early in the operation. Likewise the campaigns in NWE by the Western Allies could be seen as set piece battle - pursuit - set piece battle - pursuit. In that case the war might not last significantly longer simply because the Germans are going to run out of men at some point; combined with effects of the CBO (which only peaked in early 1945) the Allies might be able to make significantly better speeds once they enter Germany proper.

But isn't the draining of the German mobilization reserve heavily dependent on what kind of losses they suffer on the Soviet front? Bagration was really a hard kick in the nuts and replenishing these losses ultimately was already nigh-impossible for Germany (hence the rise of Volksturm in 1945).

Bagration was a kick in the nuts for the German Army in general (really, the decline of the Panzertruppen was from Kursk onwards) but it also sort of proves my point. AGC had been almost totally stripped of mobile reserves because of Soviet deception efforts - they had around 400 tanks/sp guns at the start of the battle, and only one panzer division in operation reserve. Even then it was controlled by OKH, not AGC, and they didn't even recognise a major Soviet offensive had opened until July 25th! Eventually that number rose to 800, though I'm wary of using that number as I'm not sure if it includes (for example) the eventual panzer reinforcements that arrived when Rokossovsky hit Warsaw. My rough understanding is that most of AGC died in the initial battles and the encirclement of Minsk, a penetration of 250-300 km; if nothing else most of the Wehrmacht lacked the mobility to retreat faster than the Soviet could advance.

With nothing to counter-attack Soviet breakthroughs with, most of AGC died in the initial Soviet thrusts. Which IMO would suggest that if they can do that without Lend-Lease the war won't be significantly longer, because at some point they will run out of trained, fit men.

With no material aid to Russia?

We get a Mark One and two Model 1561s initated over Germany minimal. If they hold out, they get a-bombed every 2 or so weeks.

MKSheppard wrote:We get a Mark One and two Model 1561s initated over Germany minimal. If they hold out, they get a-bombed every 2 or so weeks.

Considering how thoroughly and disgustingly the Commies infiltrated the Manhattan Project, how many nukes will Stalin order dropped on Germany, just to show he can and he's not afraid of the US?

Sidewinder wrote:Considering how thoroughly and disgustingly the Commies infiltrated the Manhattan Project, how many nukes will Stalin order dropped on Germany, just to show he can and he's not afraid of the US?

What on Earth are you talking about?

phongn wrote:What on Earth are you talking about?

Japanese apologists sometimes claim the REAL reason Truman authorized nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was to intimidate Stalin so the Soviets wouldn't dare challenge US supremacy in the post-war world. It's bullshit, but would Stalin have known that in 1945? Would he believe the US was trying to do what the UK and France did (after Soviet invasion of Finland, but before the German invasion of Poland), i.e., playing the Fascists against the Commies to weaken both factions so they wouldn't be able to challenge the Western powers?

Considering Stalin's paranoia, he might buy that kind of bullshit, and order the Soviet's second nuke (the first tested in an area securely under Soviet military control, of course) to be used against a German city as a demonstration of strength.

Nothing you said makes any sense. The Soviets invaded Finland after Germany attacked Poland. Why would Stalin interprete the US dropping a nuke on Berlin as an attempt to play fascists and communists against each other? And the Soviets wouldn't test their first nuclear weapon until 1949.

1949 after four years of peace, the Soviets could have never afforded a full scale nuclear weapons program during wartime, let alone a war they fight without Lend Lease. No nation on earth could reasonably have done it except the US because of its dominate geographic and economic position. Remember the Manhattan Project was a 2 billion dollar program. In comparison the Two Ocean Navy Bill of 1940 which included over 1.3 million tons of warships in over 250 hulls, over 30 of them battleships, large cruisers and aircraft carrier, as well as 15,000 planes, was a 4 billion dollar program. Obviously money per say doesn’t matter, but the resources it represents do. If the Soviets had had any slack left, let alone economic slack on that scale, they would have turned it right into more conventional weapons because unlike the US they were fighting for their very existence in very direct terms.

Sidewinder wrote:Japanese apologists sometimes claim the REAL reason Truman authorized nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was to intimidate Stalin so the Soviets wouldn't dare challenge US supremacy in the post-war world.

I read that claim in a rather respected historical book (Racing the Enemy), but then, it was one of the reasons, not the sole one. Is there something I don't know? The US didn't try to indimidate USSR with nuclear weapons?

Sidewinder wrote:Would he believe the US was trying to do what the UK and France did (after Soviet invasion of Finland, but before the German invasion of Poland)

Sidewinder, you'd have to know your dates UK and France sold out Czechoslovakia in the Munich Betrayal in 1938. German attack on Poland happened in 1939. Soviet war with Finland happened in 1940.

Sidewinder wrote:Considering Stalin's paranoia, he might buy that kind of bullshit, and order the Soviet's second nuke (the first tested in an area securely under Soviet military control, of course) to be used against a German city as a demonstration of strength.

Which nuke? The USSR got nuclear weapons in 1949. Germany would be smoking cinders before that year verily. And Skimmer is right, what Soviet nuclear program in wartime? That's bullshit.

Sidewinder wrote:

phongn wrote:What on Earth are you talking about?

Japanese apologists sometimes claim the REAL reason Truman authorized nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was to intimidate Stalin so the Soviets wouldn't dare challenge US supremacy in the post-war world. It's bullshit, but would Stalin have known that in 1945? Would he believe the US was trying to do what the UK and France did (after Soviet invasion of Finland, but before the German invasion of Poland), i.e., playing the Fascists against the Commies to weaken both factions so they wouldn't be able to challenge the Western powers?

Considering Stalin's paranoia, he might buy that kind of bullshit, and order the Soviet's second nuke (the first tested in an area securely under Soviet military control, of course) to be used against a German city as a demonstration of strength.

*sob*

Poor History. What are you doing to it, you cruel man? How could you even think of tortures so vile? No, not THERE, don't put it THERE, you sadist!

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin