So it's pretty much undeniable that the Soviets could have beaten the Germans entirely on their own, right?

No, because the mobile counter offensives that occurred in in 1943 after kursk were only possible because of the American and to a lesser extent British aid to the Russians. Furthermore, the Germans would have had more air and ground forces to use against the Russians if the US and UK were not in the war.

Obviously. The aims of Hitler were too stupid, had he tried a limited war for eastern territories instead of a war of annihilation against the USSR he could have won. But he was too juvenile/irrational for that.

It just would have been even bloodier for both sides. With the same end resukt. But this time no western allies for all the germans to flee too.

Like how Napoleon won once he took a burnt-down Moscow right?

If Barbarossa hadn't been delayed a few weeks, they would have taken Moscow - whether or not that would amount to anything more than a symbolic victory I cannot say

The Soviet government had already evacuated to Samara (many kilometers east) but Stalin decided to stay (with an emergency underground railline out of the city open) to see if Zhukov was successful or not. In any regards if the Germans had broken through Stalin would have left for Samara and the Germans would have more snow to march through and further extend their supply lines.

And after Samara, the Soviets were to move the capital to Yekaterinburg. And after Yekaterinburg, Omsk. And after Omsk. This capital leap frog was all outlined in Andrei Zhdanov's war diaries. The Germans would have had to keep advancing more and more, already exhausted before even reaching Moscow.

You could say "well the soviet people would have given up". This was not an option, as Hitler made it very clear it was a war of extermination and they had to fight or die.

Soviets lose the war a hundred times over without allied support. There is no debate to be had on the matter. Delete this thread and go read a book.

ok, give me a book to read that proves that point.

Unlikely since lend-lease mechanized Soviet logistics. Military logistics is an extremely underrated field of study.

>"Without U.S. Studebakers (trucks), we would have had nothing with which to pull our artillery. They largely provided our front transport. . . . Producing special steels, necessary for the most diverse needs of war, also involved certain U.S. supplies."
- Zhukov

t. triggered american

t.ankie

John Mosier

Hitler vs. Stalin: The Eastern Front, 1941-1945

ISBN-13: 978-1416573500, ISBN-10: 141657350X

Zhukov's opinions on land lease were fickle and largely dependent on who he was talking to. The man was a politician and a walking propaganda device as much as he was a general.

Nah. Desu. Hitler was full on retarded. He lost army group center before they even made it back to Germany due to his no retreat policy.

Someone should have shot in in 1941 before Stalingrad.

Better yet, before they did the invasion.

Well to be fair, Moscow wasn't the political and rail capital of Russia during Napoleon's time. St Petersburg was, but if the Germans managed to control the Moscow rail nexus they could have disrupted a lot of troop movement in the Soviet Union.

Again, like Leningrad and Stalingrad were? Stop being retarded.

The Soviets would not be able to defeat the forces of Nazi Germany during World War II alone.

They relied on the resources of the US and other allies, Zukov, Stalin, and many other Soviet members have already stated they would be fucked without the assistance of the US.

They however might be able to push the Germans out of the Soviet Union though.

>they would have taken Moscow

because taking Moscow worked well for Napoleon

>implying the Soviets would've surrendered if it was taken with their very lives on the line.

this.

there's also the factor that when the german advance got close to Moscow the city became a giant nest of degeneracy and pillage. Morale was still on the decline in 1941, many russians were gradually kicking out the soviets in the wake of the german advance and should Moscow have fallen, perhaps the germans would have had the opportunity to deply forces to either Lenningrad or Stalingrad, take those and then pound the russians in a long air war where their airplanes would continuisly have air superiority while their men advanced to Omsk.

>So it's pretty much undeniable that the Soviets could have beaten the Germans entirely on their own, right?

Wrong.

>The majority of lend-lease didn't even arrive until after the the German offensive had completely stalled

Wrong, pic realted.

lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/geust/aircraft_deliveries.htm

"American Lend-lease to the Soviet Union can be divided into the following phases:

- "pre Lend-lease" 22 June 1941 to 30 September 1941
- first protocol period from 1 October 1941 to 30 June 1942 (signed 1 October 1941)
- second protocol period from 1 July 1942 to 30 June 1943 (signed 6 October 1942)
- third protocol period from 1 July 1943 to 30 June 1944 (signed 19 October 1943)"

Operation Barbarossa began June 22, 1941.

>and the only reason Germany made so much ground in the first place was because Hitler had caught Stalin completely off guard.

Correct!

Stalin even told commanders not to retaliate for the first week of operation barbarossa because he thought it was just a few rogue companies attacking the soviet union on their own. This along with the red army's leadership being gutted and awful logistics (the soviets had more tanks than supply trucks) really made kraut victory seem inevitable.

The only thing undeniable are the thousands of detailed accounts describing the hopelessness and chaos within the Red Army for . They truly believed the Soviet Union was finished and that Stalingrad would only be held for a few days. The few reinforcements that were able to reinforce the city arrived via, american trucks, carrying american food so ivan didn't starve to death, and america radios that allowed ivan to call in artillery strikes from ground + air spotters.

This also applied to moscow, the caucuses, the entire red army was supplied critical supplies by america until the end of the war.

>I don't know what the word "Majority" means because I'm fucking retarded.

1/3rd of the trucks used by soviet logistics and motorized divisions was provided by lend lease

let that sink in

133333

Hitler never should have bothered with the non-aggression pact, he should have gone straight through poland into the USSR

OP BTFO

>1/3rd of the trucks
60+% of trucks used during the course of the war by soviet union were made in america.
Partially because they flat out stopped production of their own trucks.

It's not a particularly relevant number though, Soviets would be able to produce trucks if they needed to even if it cut into tank production and their absence most likely would prolong the war by another few years and millions of people.

Meanwhile American food supplies were easily the most significant part of lend lease that could not in any way replaced.
You can't grow food in Siberia and you can't feed the army with snow.

>Meanwhile American food supplies were easily the most significant part of lend lease that could not in any way replaced.
As someone who thinks that LL was hugely important, that's not really true. It's not like the Germans got past the Volga at any point, which was a rather large agricultural belt. Granted, manning that belt requires a lot of labor that has to be diverted either from active service or from manufacturing, but it's not like they couldn't produce food if they had to make that a priority.

The big ticket items really were transportation equipment and good old fashioned ammunition.

Probably, but it would have taken a lot longer and maybe even become something of a stalemate. The soviets advanced through Europe on American made trucks.

>We lent the USSR 83 dollars in 1941
kek

It's clear you can only comprehend percentages so I'll put it in a way you can understand without resorting to writing it in crayon.

Even if it was 1% of lend lease arriving in 1941-1942 it was still a deciding factor that determined the fate of the eastern front.

America literally sent THAT MUCH SHIT.

If you actually read sources provided

lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/geust/aircraft_deliveries.htm

You'll realize how silly you were in resorting to name calling. You should go back to /pol/ if you prefer the later.

You made a blatantly inaccurate statement, denying that the majority of Lend-Lease arrived before the German offensive stalled. The numbers clearly indicate that the vast majority of Lend-Lease arrived starting the second half of 1943. You are wrong. Deal with it.

>Even if it was 1% of lend lease arriving in 1941-1942 it was still a deciding factor that determined the fate of the eastern front.
[citation seriously needed] It is also irrelevant to the claim made earlier, but let's go into it a bit.

But let's talk about planes, since your link talks about it.. Here is a site with the total aircraft deliveries of LL to the USSR. ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/, since your link talks about it.
13,208 American planes over the course of the war. Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that the number of planes correlates exactly with the fraction of the overall LL spending on aeronautical stuff. It won't exactly, but in absence of some sort of serious disagreement, it seems a good place to start for.

1941, 0, 1942, 318,969 (thousands). That represents about 21% of the 1,472,812, and 21% of 13,208 is 2,860.47. For the first 18 months, that's roughly what the Americans sent the Soviets way in terms of airplanes. Meanwhile, the Soviets themselves, assuming aircraft in 1941 was built more or less evenly throughout the year, made about 33,304.5

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_aircraft_production

You're really going to tell me that an extra 7% of stuff was decisive to hold on in the early phases of the war in the east? That it was "critical" and "decided the fate of the eastern front"?

lend-lease wasnt that important, it lowered losses, but it wasnt the major factor
t. The Soviet-German War 1941-1945: Myths and Realities by Glantz

>Soviet-German War 1941-1945: Myths and Realities
this should be required reading for anyone who has even a passing interest in the war

>lend-lease wasnt that important, it lowered losses, but it wasnt the major factor

"Another controversial Allied contribution to the war effort was the Lend-Lease
program of aid to the Soviet Union. Although Soviet accounts have routinely belittled the
significance of Lend-Lease in sustaining the Soviet war effort, the overall importance of
this assistance cannot be understated. Lend-Lease aid did not arrive in sufficient
quantities to make the difference between defeat and victory in 1941-42; that achievement
must be attributed solely to the Soviet people and to the iron nerve of Stalin, Zhukov,
Shaposhnikov, Vasilevsky, and their subordinates. As the war continued, however, the
United States and Great Britain provided many of the implements of war and strategic
raw materials necessary for Soviet victory "

If you actually read The Soviet-German War 1941-1945: Myths and Realities by Glantz you'd realize how fucking retarded you are.

>You made a blatantly inaccurate statement

No I didn't, you're just ignoring the argument entirely. You didn't read shit, you actually belong on /pol/.

The military source I provided (an official russian source) refers to the equipment provided that made the crucial difference (transport, materials, food) and providing a link to a source that shows the armored vehicles provided i.e. shit that isn't classified as armored vehicles.

>denying that the majority of Lend-Lease arrived before the German offensive stalled.
>The numbers clearly indicate that the vast majority of Lend-Lease arrived starting the second half of 1943.

>"Regardless of Soviet cold-war attempts to forget (or at least diminish)" "the total impact of the Lend-Lease shipment for the Soviet war effort and entire national economy can only be characterized as both dramatic and of decisive importance."
>"The outcome of the war on the East front might well have taken another path without Lend-lease."

lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/geust/aircraft_deliveries.htm

I also find it funny how this piece is at the very bottom of the historical index archive. Get over it, you had help. None of which diminishes the terrible price the soviets paid on the eastern front, for all of our freedoms :(

>You are wrong. Deal with it.

Nah, I'm actually right.

>83$ in 1941

Did Stalin need gas money or something?

Oh great another "The Soviets had some help so therefore they deserve 0 credit for any contribution to the war" thread.

This has been circlejerked so much that there's no cum left to blow

>No I didn't, you're just ignoring the argument entirely. You didn't read shit, you actually belong on /pol/.
Yes, you did. You claimed, in this post that a claim that the majority of lend-lease hadn't arrived until the German advance stalled by citing to absolute numbers and not when the LL arrived.

>The military source I provided (an official russian source) refers to the equipment provided that made the crucial difference (transport, materials, food) and providing a link to a source that shows the armored vehicles provided i.e. shit that isn't classified as armored vehicles.
Which is STILL irrelevant, because
A) It didn't say a damn thing about when any of it arrived
B)Provides no basis of comparison for how much the Soviets were producing on their own
C) Has no sources, nor is it an "official Russian source"beyond a claim to be reposting something from Red Stars 4.

>denying that the majority of Lend-Lease arrived before the German offensive stalled.
>The numbers clearly indicate that the vast majority of Lend-Lease arrived starting the second half of 1943.
Yes, you retard, that's the point.The German offensive had stalled by the second half of 1943, and the Soviets had made significant recoveries in their own counterattacks by that point.

1/2
That's thousands, and in contemporary money to boot. That's enough to buy some pretty major equipment.

>I also find it funny how this piece is at the very bottom of the historical index archive. Get over it, you had help. None of which diminishes the terrible price the soviets paid on the eastern front, for all of our freedoms :(
You are a complete retard. You haven't even addressed my argument, and I don't think you even understand it. I am not saying that Lend-Lease was unimportant. I've even posted elsewhere in this thread saying it was. What I'm saying, (and READ this part), is that it's primary importance was late in the war, not early in the war. Most of it arrived late in the war, not early. It got the Soviets away from a defensive footing and onto an offensive one.

>Nah, I'm actually right.
Ok, explain how most of Lend-Lease arrived before the German offensives stalled by the end of 1942. I don't want to see any indications of overall volume, that is irrelevant to the question at hand. I want to see a listing of WHEN stuff arrived and when it was distributed, compared against the tide of German advances.

Because again, and I quote, you, in your wrongness, claimed in response to

>The majority of lend-lease didn't even arrive until after the the German offensive had completely stalled

>Wrong, pic realted. and posted this picture.i.4cdn.org/his/1495293536052.jpg which does not say a SINGLE FUCKING THING about when anything arrived.

2/2

Thats literally what i said you autist.

How would have the armies of the Soviet Union been fed? Ukraine was certainly ravaged, and food would have had to come from somewhere. All those front line soldiers would have certainly had to be used for supply and logistical support if it weren't for American JEEPs and half-tracks.
oh boy...

This is on next page (106)
"Without Lend-Lease food, clothing, and raw materials (especially metals), the
Soviet economy would have been even more heavily burdened by the war effort. Perhaps
most directly, without Lend-Lease trucks, rail engines, and railroad cars, every Soviet
offensive would have stalled at an earlier stage, outrunning its logistical tail in a matter of
days. In turn, this would have allowed the German commanders to escape at least some
encirclements, while forcing the Red Army to prepare and conduct many more deliberate
penetration attacks in order to advance the same distance. Left to their own devices,
Stalin and his commanders might have taken 12 to 18 months longer to finish off the
Wehrmacht; the ultimate result would probably have been the same, except that Soviet
soldiers could have waded at France’s Atlantic beaches. Thus, while the Red Army shed
the bulk of Allied blood, it would have shed more blood for longer without Allied
assistance."

>No I didn't, you're just ignoring the argument entirely. You didn't read shit, you actually belong on /pol/.
The goal posts belong on the field, user, not outside the stadium.

>>it's pretty much undeniable
Read this thread and ask yourself this question again. Of course it's deniable.

>So it's pretty much undeniable that the Soviets could have beaten the Germans entirely on their own, right?
Nope.
Not without lend lease.

German industry would also not be under pressure from allied bombing, and they could focus their entire army on the Eastern Front.

TANKIES BTFO

Why must American pigs take glory for every single thing done in ww2. You lost an insignificant amount of people.

Because Americans don't focus on how many of their own troops they get killed, they focus on how much damage they do to the enemy and how little out costs them.

Reminder than lend-lease wasn't free an was paid for in gold during the war.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Edinburgh_(16)

In no other circumstances would anyone exchange gold for grain and canned food.

From what I read the Red Army could only sustain the fight by recruiting from the liberated territories, otherwise the Germans would have bled them white.

Without Lend-Lease, the Soviets would have suffered far more severe casualties due to lack of equipment, been unable to mount effective offensives due to lack of transportation, and had had an overall far reduced industrial output, which feeds into the first again.

People think that the Germans lost the war when they didn't win in 1941, but that's conditional on the rest of the war playing out exactly as it did. It's absolutely possible that the Eastern Front would have degenerated into a bloody stalemate with the Russians simply lacking the manpower and equipment to continue a symmetrical war, and the Germans being unable to advance further due to problems with partisans and supply lines, if there had been no Lend-Lease.
Neither side could force the other to make peace, and it's questionable whether the Soviets would be willing to settle, since the Germans would be slowly bled in the East, while the Eternal Anglo laid waste to Germany's cities and infrastructure. It's anyone's guess how that war would have ended, but certainly not with Russian soldiers marching through Paris.

Americans did nothing compared to others in WW2, even China had more influence in war.

Without lend lease they wouldn't be mounting as many offensives and bleeding themselves on german defenses. They just wouldn't have the logistic for aggressive actions in 1942-43.

>So it's pretty much undeniable that the Soviets could have beaten the Germans entirely on their own, right?

As evidenced by this thread, no.

For one, because Lend-Lease existed.

Two, the Luftwaffe was effectively crippled during its operations on the Western Front and could therefore contribute very little to the fight with the Soviets. Additionally, Allied bombing greatly hurt the Germans' industrial effort.

Thirdly, the threat of an invasion in Europe meant that the Germans kept (or had to keep) an enormous amount of troops guarding shithole beaches, well into the latter days of the war.

This all takes very little away from the Soviet effort during WW2 - they effectively ground most of the Wehrmacht into dust. But neither the Soviets nor the Western Allies can claim that they would've handled the whole thing by themselves.

they lost 25 million fighting with the lend-lease

so yes, withouth the lend-lease they would have won any way, they just loose 50 million

no big deal for stalin or zukov, its all a chess game after all, 10 million here 10 million there

T. Yao ming

>problems with partisans

Partisans rely on native civilian populations for support. Remove those civilians, remove partisans. It's not as if the Nazis had real qualms about it either.

>So it's pretty much undeniable that the Soviets could have beaten the Germans entirely on their own, right?

Imagine what the Germans could have done to the Soviets if that was the only front they had to focus on.

t. Lebron Ackerman

...

really hope this is bait. the only participation china had were dying by the millions to the japanese and giving them chink pussy along the way.

>Nederlands
Wat

Yeah, which is why they did so well against Yugoslav and Belorussian partisans, driving down their numbers every year. Oh wait, no, that's not what happened at all.

...

>but it's not like they couldn't produce food if they had to make that a priority.

That was the entire point of lend lease though. It allowed the Soviets to focus production on war machines and supplemented their need for material. The US sent millions of tons of aluminum instead of planes, because the Soviets were actually producing planes (mostly) instead of trucks, clothing, and food.

The Soviets would have won, but it would have taken longer and more people would have died. How much longer and how many more people is debatable-- not a good debate either.

Yes, but what I believe that user was arguing was that the food aspect of Lend-Lease, as opposed to other parts of it, was of paramount importance because the Soviets didn't have a lot of ability to shift production into food, which is untrue. Thus, while LL as a whole is important, I rated vehicles and ammunition as above food in importance.

What's there to wat about?
We got stomped by both the Germans and the Japs - the Krauts wrecked our armies during Fall Gelb and the Nips shattered our fleet in the Dutch East Indies.

Double fucked.

>if the Germans managed to control the Moscow rail nexus they could have disrupted a lot of troop movement in the Soviet Union.
Generous conjecture at best. The Soviets would round up every vehicle capable of moving faster than a human being, stuffed every available warm body into a vehicle, and sent it off. Sure their troop movements would become desynchronized as fuck, but it wasn't really traditional warfare between well-equipped soldiery that saw Nazis wasting time and materiel that contributed to their failed invasion of the USSR.

How true is the stormfag belief that loads of Eastern Europeans rose up against Bolshevism and fought alongside Germany?
I wonder if without the ruthless policy towards Slavs, Germany could've incited nationalist tensions to help break the USSR, especially with Ukraine and the Caucasus

There were a lot of ukranians who welcomed the wehrmacht in at first until they started hanging people from lamp posts

>Hurr Soviets did all the work
>it's not like only have of the Germans fought on the eastern front or something
>lend-lease is a meme xDDDDD
Hitler would've kicked Stalins ass if he'd gone full force on the Soviets

>The Soviets would round up every vehicle capable of moving faster than a human being, stuffed every available warm body into a vehicle, and sent it off.
Unfortunately, without lend-lease this number would be so small its not even worth mentioning.

On what roads though? Russia didn't have a strong road system like the Autobahn. Hell, even the US didn't have a national road system until the 1950s. The Germans were having trouble in their invasion because most roads were hardly more than dirt tracks that became mud during the rainy seasons.
If the Germans controlled the Russian rail system, the poor Russian logistics would have had the last nail in the coffin.

>Hitler would've kicked Stalins ass if he'd gone full force on the Soviets
Big if.
Britain, France and America would never accept a German hegemony over Europe.

The vast majority of German forces were stationed on the Soviet front. Read a book sometime.

I did and there are literally no good arguments made

I spit on your ancestors and take a shit on your children. I drink your milkshake and slap your hoe in the ass as he passes by, he likes it.

Incorrect. There were whole fronts during the early-mid periods if the GPW that relied almost exclusively on foreign LL for their divisional equipment.

For example, the BlackSea/Caspain Front, which prevented the Germans from seizing Tiblisi and Daku in 42-43, relied exclusively on imported (via Turkey)Valentines, Matildas, Lees and Stuarts for its armored formations.

The front would have been largely devoid of armored assets without this outside support, not to mention much needed motorized, air and artillary equipment.

The Baltic states definitely saw the Germans as liberators. There were quite a few Balts serving in the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front.