USA WW2 Lend Lease

[JOC]

Just to get some good old controversy back into the forum I propose a new topic. Did Hitler’s rather rash decision to declare war on the USA in Dec of 1941 cost him the war? I say yes because there was no way he was going to defeat the USSR, Britain and the USA simultaneously.
Shortly thereafter the USSR defeated Germany for the 1st time in the battle of Moscow with only minimum lead lease. However the USSR suffered severe defeats shortly after the Moscow victory and still teetered on the brink. Lend lease greatly strengthened the USSR’s ability to wage war. 1st and foremost they became mobile with American made 6 wheelers, along with food, radios, aircraft, jeeps, etc. Eventually as a result of the lend lease trucks they became more mobile than their German opponents. Also unlike Stalin who could focus his entire war machine against one enemy, Hitler had to fight in Africa, the Atlantic, and the air war over Germany, man the Atlantic wall and wage war against partisans. A US supplied British common wealth continued to be a major thorn in Hitler’s side. So before US troops could take part in the war against Hitler the US was insuring that the USSR did not fall and that Britain could continue to wage war and siphon off German military resources from the Eastern front.

 

[lljadw]

I have several objections ,ONE exemple : saying that Hitler's DOW on the US costed him the war,implies that without this DOW,he could/would win the war,which it is not so .

Besides: war with the US was inevitable,even without the DOW of 11 december 1941.

 

[JOC]

It is likely that the US would get involved eventually, however many - most US citizens wanted the war to stay with Japan. Hitler's DOW on the US gave the US a reason to use the larger part of its economic and military resources earlier against the greater treat Germany.
At this early point it was not at all clear weather the USSR would survive. In my opinion this was not decided until the Soviet victory at Stalingrad. Even then things seesawed a bit until the defeat at Kursk.
How well would the USSR have fared w/o lend lease and w/o the siphoning off of German resources to fight the British Common Wealth?
Even with lend lease “which was amping up in 41, early 42” the Germans recovered from the defeat at Moscow and dealt the USSR major blows at Kharkov and the Izyum salient. They then went on to advance to the Volga and nearly to the Caspian Sea. Admittedly they were logistically stretched. By the time of the Stalingrad battle lend lease was pouring in.
Most Historians agree that lend lease substantially strengthened Great Britain and the USSR in their fight with Nazi Germany.

 

[MontyB]

A large part of the uncertainly came from the underestimation of the Russians ability to fight and an over estimation of Germany's ability to conquer.

In areas Russian forces right from the start of the campaign fought extremely well and caused large numbers of German casualties and conversely 150 miles from the start point the German offensive was beginning to fail.

There is no doubt that lend lease helped the Russian war effort but it did not change the outcome of the war in any theatre.

As for Hitlers declaration of war, all bringing the US into Europe did was stop the Russians from having to drive to the English Chanel.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

One of the most essential and the most significant resource the lend-lease provided the Soviet Union with was oil, their own oil resources at that time could never provide the enormous military machine with fuel. This oil reached the Soviet Union from Iran and it was a part of the lend lease.

Food was another essential resource the lend-lease provided with when the majority of the agricultural parts of the Soviet Union was either destroyed (by the Russians as well) or occupied. The Germans could not harvest anything significant either. The people residing in the agricultural parts were either killed, wearing uniforms, or worked in the war industry which had regrouped to the Urals.

 

[JOC]

One of the most essential and the most significant resource the lend-lease provided the Soviet Union with was oil, their own oil resources at that time could never provide the enormous military machine with fuel. This oil reached the Soviet Union from Iran and it was a part of the lend lease.

Food was another essential resource the lend-lease provided with when the majority of the agricultural parts of the Soviet Union was either destroyed (by the Russians as well) or occupied. The Germans could not harvest anything significant either. The people residing in the agricultural parts were either killed, wearing uniforms, or worked in the war industry which had regrouped to the Urals.

This is very true. Lend lease freed the USSR from much of it's requirement to feed itself and it's Red Army. This allowed the USSR to use it's resources "often women" to focus more on war waging industries such as the making tanks and guns.
It is interesting about the oil, as Germany came close to taking the main Caucus oil fields. However they fell short, due in part to some poor planning as forces were sent to the Stalingrad meat grinder. A battle that served the Soviets well.

As for the Soviet victory being "a matter of time" I disagree. The Germans controlled ~ 40 % of the population of the USSR and much of the main agricultural, Industrial regions of the USSR as well. Had they taken European Russia so to speak the war would essentially have been over.
Although Germany faced logistical and manpower issues the Soviets teetered on the brink of collapse until the Stalingrad victory. Perhaps the main thing that pushed the Soviets peoples so hard to fight was that the Germans intended that they should perish. I do believe the forces drained to fight the allies and the lend lease that poured in did tip the balance in the USSR's favor.

 

[MontyB]

As for the Soviet victory being "a matter of time" I disagree. The Germans controlled ~ 40 % of the population of the USSR and much of the main agricultural, Industrial regions of the USSR as well. Had they taken European Russia so to speak the war would essentially have been over.
Although Germany faced logistical and manpower issues the Soviets teetered on the brink of collapse until the Stalingrad victory. Perhaps the main thing that pushed the Soviets peoples so hard to fight was that the Germans intended that they should perish. I do believe the forces drained to fight the allies and the lend lease that poured in did tip the balance in the USSR's favor.

Then you are over looking the fact that the Germans were overstretched, losing strength and at or beyond the capacity of its logistics while the Russians we still gaining strength and falling back on its logistics bases.

I would suggest that at no stage in the war did the Germans actually have the capability to conquer Russia (its only hope was an early capitulation based on demoralising the Soviets) and certainly after November 1941 it had no way to avoid defeat.

One thing on oil and its availability to the Russians was that they had begun to develop the fields in Western Siberia by the start of WW2 and by the time of Case Blue were producing about 40% of the Caucasian oil fields so Russia would not have been deprived of oil at any stage.
from the book...

The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power by Daniel Yergin

All the nine drilling offices, oil-expedition and oil-construction trusts as well as various other enterprises with their staffs were transferred to an area near Kuybishev, (Russia Federation in Tartarstan near the Ural Mountains north of Kazakhstan). This city soon came to be known as "the Second Baku".


Despite the severe frost the drillers started searching for oil and thanks to day and night working, the Bakuis in the region of Povolzhye increased the fuel extraction in "Kinelneft" trust that first year by 66% and by 42% in entire region of Kuybishev. As a result, five new oil and gas fields were discovered and huge oil refinery construction projects were undertaken, including the first pipe line between Kuybishev and Buturslan was built that same year.
​

 

[lljadw]

Already before the decision to undertake Fall Blau, the German economic experts had warned that it was uncertain that the SU would collaps if it lost the Caucasian oil .

The SU arrived in Berlin while it produced only 60 % of its pré war oil .

While before the war,oil was more important for the SU than for the other European countries, during the war it switched to coal and wood .

 

[lljadw]

One of the most essential and the most significant resource the lend-lease provided the Soviet Union with was oil, their own oil resources at that time could never provide the enormous military machine with fuel. This oil reached the Soviet Union from Iran and it was a part of the lend lease.

Food was another essential resource the lend-lease provided with when the majority of the agricultural parts of the Soviet Union was either destroyed (by the Russians as well) or occupied. The Germans could not harvest anything significant either. The people residing in the agricultural parts were either killed, wearing uniforms, or worked in the war industry which had regrouped to the Urals.

1)This is not correct : the LL oil was only a few procent of the Soviet oil production during the war ,which was some 100 million ton.Besides only a small part of it was used for the military (13 %)

2) This also is not correct : the inhabitants of the SU succeeded to feed themselves:source : The Bread of Affliction P 238

 

[JOC]

At the D-Day 60th Anniversary ceremonies in Caen last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin described American lend-lease to the then-Soviet Union as the first stage of a "second front." This was a remarkable admission.

Remember Marshal Georgi Zhukov was not allowed to say publicly what he said privately — that without American lend-lease, Russia's triumph over the Wehrmacht would have been impossible.

The USSR was supplied with ~ 70,000 trucks alone via lend lease. Not to mention valuable food and rations, medical supplies, oil, and much more.

We sincerely honor the memory of the killed British and American seamen who despite the dangerous situation at sea. despite the fact that they faced death every mile of the way, supplied us with some of the materials under the Lend-Lease agreement. -G.K. Zhukov

 

[lljadw]

How could Zhukow know ? He was not the Soviet chief of staff and had only a limited role in WWII.

Andutin was wrong : there was already a virtual second on 21 june 1944,before the start of Barbarossa .

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

How could Zhukow know ? He was not the Soviet chief of staff and had only a limited role in WWII.

Andutin was wrong : there was already a virtual second on 21 june 1944,before the start of Barbarossa .

Are you saying Zhukov was insignificant during the war? He might know it because he was a professional high ranked officer.

 

[MontyB]

This argument always amuses me as Russians always underestimate the value of Lend Lease and the West overestimate its value so I will follow David Glantz path and say LL came too late to change the outcome of the war but it did shorten the war.
To back this up:
The Soviet-German war 41-45: Myths and realities - A Survey essay by David M. Glantz page 106

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Isn't shorten the war good enough? The Lend-Lease made the life easier for the Russians and many more of them survived the war.

 

[JOC]

This argument always amuses me as Russians always underestimate the value of Lend Lease and the West overestimate its value so I will follow David Glantz path and say LL came too late to change the outcome of the war but it did shorten the war.
To back this up:
The Soviet-German war 41-45: Myths and realities - A Survey essay by David M. Glantz page 106

The source by Glantz correctly states that Lend Lease did not start to really amp up until 42. Recall that the after the Soviet victory at Moscow things rapidly turned sour for the USSR with major defeats at Kharkov and the Izyum salient. It was exactly at this stage that lend lease stated to arrive mid late 42 at a time in which the USSR was by no means out of harms way. Not until the blow at Stalingrad could they look at the war with Germany with a degree of grim optimism in 43. By 43 lend lease was pouring in.

 

[MontyB]

If the war was lost for the Germans by the end of 1941 then what happened after 1941 is somewhat irrelevant to the argument as Lend Lease can not have been the reason the Russians defeated the Germans if Germany was already going to be defeated by the time Lend Lease arrived.

As has been pointed out, there is no doubt LL sped up the end of the war but it did not tip the balance of the war.

 

[JOC]

My point at is that I don't necessary agree that the war was lost in 41, but after Stalingrad in 43. I will agree that this is a point of debate for which a concrete answer may not exist. Historians can go either way as to when the Germans lost the war in the east. Some will claim it didn't occur until after the defeat at Kursk, some after the defeat at Moscow and some after the battle of Stalingrad. There exist pro and cons for each viewpoint.

 

[MontyB]

I was one that argued the turning point of the war was Stalingrad and German General Erhard Raus that claimed he could have won it at Kursk but I am now convinced I was wrong and so was Raus as it was a war Germany could never have won from the second it invaded the Soviet Union as it simply did not have the industrial nor logistical capability to do so.

It is very easy to look at the achievements of the German military up until Kursk and say they were still in with a chance when in reality it was a chook with its head cut off, sure it kept running forward but it was dead and didn't know it.

 

[lljadw]

Already before the start of the Soviet winter offensive, Todt told Hitler that from an economic POV the war was lost and that he had to look for a diplomatic solution .

 

[lljadw]

Are you saying Zhukov was insignificant during the war? He might know it because he was a professional high ranked officer.

Strawman :I did not say that he was insignificant,he was a high ranked officer (his importance has been much exaggerated),but that does not mean that he had informations about the Soviet war production,besides there were a lot of Soviet high ranked officers .