15-10-2002 09:21									#1
	Importance of American lend-lease to Soviet war effort in WW II? Suffering from ads?

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 found this to be a dubious statement altogether, considering other factors which could easily be considered much more critical, but I won't go into that here.
I told her politely that my studies on the subject have produced a dissenting opinion. I told her that, for example, the much-heralded motorized transports that the Soviet Union recieved from the USA accounted for no more than 5% of the Soviet total. She concured, but she argued that the arrival of things like blankets and bullets, plus the psychological support of having a strong ally was the most important factor in the Soviet Union's success. I didn't argue with her on that point, but I still disagree, and chalk up her overall arguement to misplaced patriotism.

So what does the great Apolyton intelligentsia think?

Last edited by monkspider on 15-10-2002 at 09:31

	15-10-2002 09:24									#2
	Suffering from ads?

I'd have to agree that things like blankets and bullets allowed the Soviet Union to win on the Eastern Front.

Sorry, but I think your Prof is totally right.

	15-10-2002 09:27									#3
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: 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.

Your instructor is absolutely correct.

Consider, for example, the fact that Lend Lease provided 317,900 tons of explosives, which was equal to half of the Soviet Union's total wartime supply.

As to trucks, the Soviets produced a total of 281,500 during the war, as opposed to Lend Lease shipments of 409,500. Lend Lease also provided 59% of Soviet aviation fuel, 93% of Soviet railroad rails, and 82% of Soviet locomotives. None of those had an immediately obvious impact in the same manner as tanks and planes, but were just as vital nonetheless.

	15-10-2002 09:27									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Oh, and when serb sees this, the **** is going to hit the fan, I can guarantee that.

	15-10-2002 09:27									#5
	Support Apolyton

... (addition) You have to remember that the Soviet victory was no sure thing. They could have easily lost on the Eastern Front in 1942. Any little bit definetly helped.

	15-10-2002 09:28									#6
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

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.

	15-10-2002 09:31									#7
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: 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.

See my post as to the numbers.

quote: And based on a preponderence of these facts, I would find it quite likely that the USSR could have won without lend-lease.

That's very unlikely, in my opinion.

Soviet victory was due to a combination of Lend Lease, Western Allied activity in North Africa and France, the vastness of Russia, and the weather.

	15-10-2002 09:32									#8
	Suffering from ads?

quote: They could have easily lost on the Eastern Front in 1942.

You could also easily argue that absent Operation Torch, the great victory at Stalingrad would not have been won.

	15-10-2002 09:32									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

bah! women history teacher. both of my history teachers were women, and look how bad my history knowledge is. . They skip over the good stuff like wars. We hardly spent any time on wars, and spent most time on boring culture stuff.

	15-10-2002 09:32									#10
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I doubt the USSR would have won without Western supplies (American or British). They needed those things to stay in it until they could turn it around. If Hitler took Moscow in '42, I'd say the war on that side would be over.

	15-10-2002 09:33									#11
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: They skip over the good stuff like wars. We hardly spent any time on wars, and spent most time on boring culture stuff.

Yes, my Western Civ teacher skipped WW2 altogether except for the Holocaust, and barely touched WW1. Pissed me off.

	15-10-2002 09:34									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd You could also easily argue that absent Operation Torch, the great victory at Stalingrad would not have been won.

Not to threadjack by own topic, but how so? Did Hitler divert forces from the Eastern front to Africa as a result? Even if so, remember that German forces in Africa (and the whole western front for that matter) were just a miserable fraction of what was facing the Soviets in the East.

	15-10-2002 09:35									#13
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I think the decisive factor was the incredible heroism of the Russian people in the face of an unbelievably cruel onslaught. Let's not forget the 20 million Russian dead.

But lendlease was a much more important ingredient than the Soviets were ever prepared to admit. They went to great lengths to try and hide any Western aid from their propagand newsreels but sometimes you can see it in evidence.

	15-10-2002 09:36									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I'm sure Linclon or others will chime in here on the sheer volume of supplies given the Soviets, but I'd just like to ask whether American aid was critical to holding the Nazi's off at Leningrad, to their defeat before Moscow in late '41, or to their defeat at Stalingrad in late '42? By 1943, the US had landed in Africa and begin its push into Italy. The airwar over Germany was picking up steam. Even if the Soviets never collapsed the Eastern front one more inch, Germany was doomed.

	15-10-2002 09:37									#15
	Inflate your Upload Space

Exactly Alex, even if I did underscore western support slightly, there were many factors far more important to Soviet victory.

General Winter, General Mud, sheer determination of the Soviet peoples, Hitler's blunders, etc etc etc.

	15-10-2002 09:38									#16
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Not to threadjack by own topic, but how so? Did Hitler divert forces from the Eastern front to Africa as a result?

Most certainly so.

As a direct result of Torch, Hitler had to a)scrape together a force to invade Vicy France, b)send large reinforcements to North Africa, in terms of men and supplies, and c)divert hundreds of transport aircraft, fighters, and attack aircraft to the Mediterranean.

What this meant was that these forces were unavailable to resupply 6th Army in Stalingrad (only half of the transports before Torch remained in the East), and Germany did not have adequate reserves for a credible counterattack and relief operation. von Manstein made a good effort, and had he penetrated to within 20 miles of Stalingrad, von Paulus would, against orders, have broken out to meet him. With the extra ground and air forces, this would have been possible.

As an indirect result of Torch, Italy fell (without Torch, no 1943 invasion of Sicily/Italy). This forced the Germans to take over Italian occupation duties in the Balkans (27 German divisions in the Balkans), occupy Italy (at the end of the war, Kesselring surrendered around a million men in Northern Italy), and reinforce France (at the time of the Normandy landings, almost 50 divisions, including 10 panzer divisions). If the majority of these forces were available in the East, Russia would have had serious problems.

	15-10-2002 09:40									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Lincoln, merely reciting totals tells us little or nothing. When did the aid get there. The critical moments were in late '41 and late '42. If the bulk of the aid got there from mid 1943-mid 1945, the aid only permitted the Soviets to roll back the Axis. The US defeated them on the Western front.

	15-10-2002 09:42									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

This is just my opinin so bear with me.

Even if Hitler had taken Stalingrad and Moscow, the war wouldn't have ended there. The Russian people would still have faught on. I do not think the Eastern front was winnable from the German perspective.

what lend-lease might have done was help the Soviets too much allowing them to seize Berlin before we were able to get there. So there is the possiblility that we hurt ourselves by doing that. But of course that is just hindsight. It was too risky to even allow a remote chance of German victory on the eastern front.

	15-10-2002 09:44									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

AH,

quote: I think the decisive factor was the incredible heroism of the Russian people in the face of an unbelievably cruel onslaught. Let's not forget the 20 million Russian dead.

All the heroism in the world didn't stop the great German battles of annihilation at Kiev, Minsk, Vyazma, etc.

Heroism played a part, but charging into machine gun fire will not win wars. Wars are won because of economics and logistics, and US aid provided economic superiority and vital logistical aid.

Ned,

quote: I'm sure Linclon or others will chime in here on the sheer volume of supplies given the Soviets, but I'd just like to ask whether American aid was critical to holding the Nazi's off at Leningrad

As to Leningrad, most of the forces tasked to actually take the city in 1942 were used up by Army Group South in and around Stalingrad and the Caucusus.

quote: to their defeat before Moscow in late '41,

Good question. At the end of 1941, there were entire Russian units equipped with Western tanks. But Germany was mainly stopped here by the weather. What is important, though, is that a failure to take Moscow in '41 didn't preclude taking it in '42, and even if Germany NEVER took Moscow didn't necessarily mean Germany would be defeated.

quote: or to their defeat at Stalingrad in late '42?

Oh certainly. By 1942, Lend Lease was coming in, in full swing, supplying Soviet armies and running Soviet industry (for example, Lend Lease provided 45% of all Soviet coppor ore and 55.5% of all Soviet aluminum). Further, I've already explained how Torch diverted large German forces at the critical moments.

monk,

What you are failing to realize is that even the absence of a large-scale German victory did not necessarily translate to a full German defeat. Stalemate could easily have resulted without Western aid, and if it came down to mutual exhaustion, I believe that the Soviets would have lost that battle.

	15-10-2002 09:45									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

David, it is possible that the loss of these divisions may have been critical at several points in the larger picture of the Soviet/German war. But saying they were responsible for the victory at Stalingrad was a bit of a stretch. Hitler's overall plan for capturing Stalingrad was quite flawed from the get-go. His coherence had considerably deteriorated by this point as well, as demonstrated by his stubborn decisions for the Germans to fight to the last in Stalingrad, when there were many oppurtunities for them to escape.
If these divisions were on the field at Stalingrad, I imagine they would have just been caught in the Stalingrad pocket and captured as well.

	15-10-2002 09:45									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Even if Hitler had taken Stalingrad and Moscow, the war wouldn't have ended there. The Russian people would still have faught on.

I actually don't think. They would have adopted to their new masters . The commie propaganda might have been rooted still, but if things got better, there might have been a lot of Russian fascists.

	15-10-2002 09:47									#22
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Ned,

quote: Lincoln, merely reciting totals tells us little or nothing.

I'm not Lincoln

quote: When did the aid get there.

Throughout the war.

quote: The critical moments were in late '41 and late '42.

Ah, that's where you're wrong. Due to the total focus of Soviet industry on things such as tanks and aircraft, that industry was unable to produce things such as railroad tracks, locomotives, sufficient trucks, etc. Every moment of the war was "critical".

quote: If the bulk of the aid got there from mid 1943-mid 1945, the aid only permitted the Soviets to roll back the Axis.

If the Germans had remained in the Ukraine (especially the Donets Basin and the great food producing areas), their agricultural and industrial output would have been greatly increased. Rolling the Germans out of occupied territory was vital.

	15-10-2002 09:48									#23
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Even if Hitler had taken Stalingrad and Moscow, the war wouldn't have ended there. The Russian people would still have faught on.

Maybe, but without the massive communications and transportation hub of Moscow (which was THE central railway hub), it would have been extraordinarily difficult to transport troops around to where they were needed.

	15-10-2002 09:48									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

David, I am very much a believer that if Germany had displayed particular brillance, they could have still forced a stalemate and caused the alies to sue for peace as late as '44. I am just not convinced that the American/British supplies were critical in insuring that this wasn't the case.

	15-10-2002 09:51									#25
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: David, it is possible that the loss of these divisions may have been critical at several points in the larger picture of the Soviet/German war. But saying they were responsible for the victory at Stalingrad was a bit of a stretch.

Without destroying 6th Army, the Soviet Union would not have had the major victory they had - if Germany had retained the 6th Army, which was the largest army in the German military, they would have had a lot of additional punching power.

With additional aircraft, 6th Army could have been resupplied for longer and to a much greater degree. With additional reserves, Manstein would have had a much greater chance of breaking to within 20 miles of Stalingrad, in which case von Paulus would have ordered 6th Army to break out.

quote: Hitler's overall plan for capturing Stalingrad was quite flawed from the get-go.

Certainly, and I'm not saying these additional forces would have let the Germans take and hold Stalingrad at that time. I'm saying they very well could have saved 6th Army.

quote: If these divisions were on the field at Stalingrad, I imagine they would have just been caught in the Stalingrad pocket and captured as well.

Nope, sorry. These divisions, if sent to the Eastern front, would have been part of Manstein's relief force, they would not have been thrown in as reinforcements to 6th Army.

	15-10-2002 09:53									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Yes but that would have been in 1942 before they would have taken Moscow. I'm certain they wouldn't be able to hold it after the other fronts opened up for the allies.

	15-10-2002 09:53									#27
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: I am just not convinced that the American/British supplies were critical in insuring that this wasn't the case.

I'm not sure how you can argue that, given the huge percentage of production Lend Lease accounted for WRT the Soviets. You have to also add to that Lend Lease Allied actions in North Africa, Italy, and France. Allied intervention - especially Lend Lease - was vital for the Soviet victory, in my opinion.

	15-10-2002 09:55									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd All the heroism in the world didn't stop the great German battles of annihilation at Kiev, Minsk, Vyazma, etc. Heroism played a part, but charging into machine gun fire will not win wars. Wars are won because of economics and logistics, and US aid provided economic superiority and vital logistical aid.

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.

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

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

	15-10-2002 09:56									#29
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Yes but that would have been in 1942 before they would have taken Moscow. I'm certain they wouldn't be able to hold it after the other fronts opened up for the allies.

I don't know. A few more German victories on the Eastern front in 1942 would have been a huge boost, and the presence of the 6th Army would have greatly reduced the pressure on Army Group South.

If Operation Torch was launched a little later, it might have made much greater success. This, though, would have probably encouraged the US into thinking the US Army was ready for an invasion of France in early 1943, which IMO would have been a disaster.

	15-10-2002 09:57									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Nope, sorry. These divisions, if sent to the Eastern front, would have been part of Manstein's relief force, they would not have been thrown in as reinforcements to 6th Army.

Possibly, German efforts to relieve the 6th Army were for the most part, quite laughable. It's unlikely that these forces could have made a major difference even if they were used for this purpose. But anything is possible.

I'll grant you, however, that if they were able to free up the 6th army, this would admittedly have been a major event. Regardless of how unlikely it might seem in hindsight.