Importance of the Western Allies in WW2

Would the USSR have been able to defeat Nazi Germany without the Lend-Lease support and without the US and UK being at war with Germany?

I read in a thread on /k/ recently that very many of the crucial resources and materials necessary for the Soviet victory were supplied through LL to a great extent (rubber, explosives, food and trucks for example).

Also I believe the German manpower (and especially aircraft) bound to the western and southern fronts was significant, but I got called a Wehraboo in a Veeky Forums thread yesterday for saying the Western Allies were the force that turned the German-Soviet war in favor of the Soviets.

So what's your stance on the topic? Sources and citations are appreciated.

Other urls found in this thread:

sci-hub.cc/10.1080/13518049408430160
www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/lendlease.pdf
sci-hub.cc/10.1080/13518049808430330
lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/geust/aircraft_deliveries.htm
lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/index.htm
theshermantank.com/lee-and-grant-tanks/soviet-shermans-the-soviet-union-used-and-liked-the-sherman/
iremember.ru/en/memoirs/tankers/dmitriy-loza/?q=/tankers/17-dmitriy-loza.html&start=1
scribd.com/document/270450475/United-States-Army-in-World-War-II-Statistics-LendLease
history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-21/cmhPub_104-21.pdf
ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/28771/worldwariisoviet1038linz.pdf?sequence=1
books.google.com/books?id=gMNlerxYVuwC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=Soviet grain production 1943&source=bl&ots=rP50cOCcC5&sig=R7ZiPR9i9DglFhp89SKClJODdfw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiuov61wJbWAhWq6oMKHQJwCg8Q6AEIbzAO#v=onepage&q=Soviet grain production 1943&f=false
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I'll bump this thread with WW2 images, btw.

Here's a huge collection of WW2 images for anyone interested:

...

>the Western Allies

You mean America, rite?
Britain was irrelevant as SHIEEET

>Would the USSR have been able to defeat Nazi Germany without the Lend-Lease support
No, soviet deep operations depended on american supplied vehicles to be effective

Can you help me with the question?
Also the UK was extremely important in the war.

So how do you think the war would have turned out without the Western Allies?

...

...

...

Lol you are better off reading wiki than asking here. But, lend lease was very important for USSR and delivering rubber for their motorized divisions.

If you want a hypothetical "would germany still win if not for sexond front/western allies?!" You will only get speculation. My guess is ussr would eventually win, without the western help.

the materials were handy but by the time they go there in considerable amount the war was decided

german manpower was not significant in the west or the south

the USSR beat the reich one on one in 41, 42 and 43

we had this discussion all the time and its always poltards and anglos trying to downplay the role of the red army

they won ww2, hands down, the allies played a waiting game first for ussr to get involved, then to get weakened

no

I suggest everyone to read this:
sci-hub.cc/10.1080/13518049408430160
Plenty of good info on the importance of Lendlease to the USSR.

thanks, I was looking for something like this.

>german manpower was not significant in the west or the south
See the pdf posted below you:
>The Western allies also diverted
against themselves sizeable Wehrmacht ground forces (in the later war
years - up to 40 per cent).

Might as well dump a few more:
www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/lendlease.pdf (Highly recommend reading this)
sci-hub.cc/10.1080/13518049808430330

>You will only get speculation. My guess is ussr would eventually win, without the western help.
I don't think so. Imagine a Nazi Germany without the crippling bombing of the allies, now imagine that Germany turning all of France into a slave nation making war materiel as they intended.

>Would the USSR have been able to defeat Nazi Germany without the Lend-Lease support and without the US and UK being at war with Germany?

no

"The outcome of the war on the East front might well have taken another path without Lend-lease."

"In addition to the aircraft deliveries American Lend-lease deliveries to Russia included also more than 400.000 trucks, over 12.000 tanks and other combat vehicles, 32.000 motorcycles, 13.000 locomotives and railway cars, 8.000 anti-aircraft cannons and machine-guns, 135.000 submachine guns, 300.000 tons of explosives, 40.000 field radios, some 400 radar systems, 400.000 metal cutting machi�ne tools, several million tons of foodstuff, steel, other metals, oil and gasoline, chemicals etc. A price tag was naturally attached to all deliveries, with following typical fighter prices:

P-40 Kittyhawk - 44.900 dollars, P-39 Airacobra - 50.700 dollars and P-47 Thunderbolt - 83.000 dollars."

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

lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/index.htm

>tfw lend lease is at the bottom of a page full of interviews and photos of soviet heroes
>tfw not even a thumbnail image of a studebaker truck, just a link

Daily reminder that one of the USSR's top aces flew a lendlease aircraft and was convincing other pilots that the P-39 Airacobras were superior to Soviet planes, I'll try and find the quote, if I can.

there was an interview i watched where a tank veteran mentioned the shermans were far better than the t34 because it didn't explode when it caught fire.

he commented more shermans would've saved the infantry who were often 1-4 meters behind the tanks.

maybe this?

theshermantank.com/lee-and-grant-tanks/soviet-shermans-the-soviet-union-used-and-liked-the-sherman/

( The interview: iremember.ru/en/memoirs/tankers/dmitriy-loza/?q=/tankers/17-dmitriy-loza.html&start=1 )

>Soviets called M4s "emchas"
>mfw me and my mates used to call the M4 Rifle "Emka" when we'd play CS 1.6
Some things never change

that interview only shows that a few units were equiped with shermans and that it was no better or worse than T-34s

the main issue with these was it was simply different and red army crew was trained to operate the T-34/IS/SU vehicles

>First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that respect the English helped us minimally.

I like this paper already :3

Lend Lease didn't really, really kick into high gear until 1943; it was present before then, but not in the "United States pumping shit into the USSR like it's a deviantart fetish inflation comic" capacity.

The Wehrmacht had already lost big twice before that, in Barbarossa and Stalingrad; two losses they couldn't really bounce back from while still maintaining performance. Kursk was their last chance to take the initiative back and maintain it but they picked the worst fucking target in the history of offensives to attack.

Kursk was smack in the middle of 1943, and after it the Germans were sent back sprawling. That time, and later, is when Lend Lease starts playing a major part.

Barbarossa and Stalingrad weren't really affected by Lend Lease aid. However, Operation Bagration, also known as "Oops I accidentally Army Group Center",the most catastrophic loss of the war, was majorly affected by the use of tons of lend lease motorized and mechanized equipment.

In short, Russia would have likely still won...eventually. Their relatively fast springback wouldn't have happened without Lend Lease though, and the war would not have gone the same way it did to say the least.

Also don't discount the effects of the strategic bombing campaign, especially the destruction of the Romanian oil fields.

It doesn't really matter how many troops they had in the west and south, because the limit on troops in the East was logistics.

Not late in the war it wasn't. With both Heer forces shrinking and the lines of communication retracting closer towards Germany, raw manpower was meaning more and transportation costs were meaning less.

> Would the USSR have been able to defeat Nazi Germany without the Lend-Lease support and without the US and UK being at war with Germany?

No.

Lend-Lease kept the Soviets in the war, otherwise they would have been forced to sign a cease fire agreement with the Germans in late 1942.

Amateurs think tactics, experts think logistics.

Best post ITT

Fair enough, but at that point in the war, Germany is already facing huge disadvantages it probably can't overcome.

This thread is getting old now.

And people who do research actually look at WHEN shit was sent as opposed to just how much. They also don't just look at raw numbers sent, they look at overall economies to try to determine how much that actually means.

www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/lendlease.pdf

But a lot of those disadvantages were precisely because of the impact the Western Allies had in things like

>Diversion of war production into things that don't help on the eastern front
>Blockading of oversease imports and exports
>Allowing for quick re-gearing of the Soviet war economy as they shift from a defensive posture to an offensive posture by lending them materials they need in the meantime
>Providing political backup that also insists on total victory or bust.

Take the WAllies away, and none of that happens.

Great post

The only thing I want to add is that Moscow served a far greater transportation and communications hub for the USSR than it did during Napoleon's time.

There is a chance that taking moscow would have crippled the ability to bring in men and material from the east in the short term.

However, by that point the german military really is operating at their max capacity. It would have made an interesting thought experiment and alt history but the sheer scale of resources of Russia would have overwhelmed the Germans.

>Lend Lease didn't really, really kick into high gear until 1943; it was present before then, but not in the "United States pumping shit into the USSR like it's a deviantart fetish inflation comic" capacity.

We still have no idea the true extent of lend lease to the USSR between 1941-1942. American records record what supplies were made and paid a lot less attention to where it was going. Soviet records downplayed the significance of the received supplies.

Some things I found about lend-lease from interviews.

>summer 1941, soviet train engineer talks about his experience moving supplies to moscow with his brand new train.
>mentions how he wasn't allowed to know the factory it came from
>mentions how his maintenance crew told him the train's parts were unlike anything they had ever seen

>summer 1942, wehrmacht infantry captain mentions how they captured an entire convoy of supply trucks full of fuel, food, ammunition south-west of mamayev kurgan.
>the panzers now had enough fuel to reach stalingrad

>september 1942, wehrmacht radio operator sergeant mentions the trucks and trains found at the train station east of mamayev kurgan.
>a few of the trucks still had supplies, the rest were stripped bare, fuel drained

>september 1942, soviet artillery sergeant mentions his breakfast consisting of fish soup and spam.
>talks about the first good news he's heard in a long time, a large shipment of radios arrived and were being distributed what forces remained in stalingrad
>finally, even our forward observers can have their own personal radios

tldr lend-lease was vital to victory.

sources: Enemy at the Gates - William Craig,
Island of Fire: The Battle for the Barrikady Gun Factory in Stalingrad, by Jason Mark,

i'll start digging out the video interviews of veterans.

>In short, Russia would have likely still won...

They barely won WITH lend-lease supplies. Despite what pop-history tells us, the red army was on the verge of collapse after kiev.

Yes, unless Franco joined the axis.

>I read in a thread on /k/ recently that very many of the crucial resources and materials necessary for the Soviet victory were supplied through LL to a great extent (rubber, explosives, food and trucks for example).

Most of the LL came to the SU after KURSK.

Let this following fact sink in:

The SU absolutely destroyed german forces in front of moscow in winter 41

without LL
without a 2nd front

After this point there was no hope for germany to win the war, without LL it would have taken logner and with more casualties but after winter41 the SU did grow stronger by every day.

>There is a chance that taking moscow would have crippled the ability to bring in men and material from the east in the short term.

The war would've been over.

>However, by that point the german military really is operating at their max capacity.

The soviets were operating at barely alive capacity after Moscow. For how over stretched the Wehrmacht was, the Soviets couldn't do anything about it but prepare for the next attack.

>without LL it would have taken logner

people like you make Khrushchev role in his grave.

>And people who do research actually look at WHEN shit was sent as opposed to just how much.

Which doesn’t change the fact that Lend-Lease kept the Soviets in the war.

Even with that Lend-Lease aid, the Soviets suffered hugely disproportionate casualties against the Germans and without it, the Soviets wouldn’t have been able to carry out the offensives and would have conceded German control of most of European Russia and signed a cease fire.

>We still have no idea the true extent of lend lease to the USSR between 1941-1942. American records record what supplies were made and paid a lot less attention to where it was going. Soviet records downplayed the significance of the received supplies.
That is complete bullshit. scribd.com/document/270450475/United-States-Army-in-World-War-II-Statistics-LendLease
>For how over stretched the Wehrmacht was, the Soviets couldn't do anything about it but prepare for the next attack.
And, you know, mount a successful counteroffensive around Moscow, and launch a huge number of failed offensives between November and April '42, and still be in a position to not have to worry about attacks near the capitol in spite of throwing about a million men away on those later failed counterattacks.

>Which doesn’t change the fact that Lend-Lease kept the Soviets in the war.
Yes it does you idiot. By the time Lend-Lease started arriving in bulk, the Soviets had already seized the initiative.

>
Even with that Lend-Lease aid, the Soviets suffered hugely disproportionate casualties against the Germans and without it, the Soviets wouldn’t have been able to carry out the offensives and would have conceded German control of most of European Russia and signed a cease fire.
Read this. www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/lendlease.pdf
Then source your claims, and in fact provide context. When you point out that there's 1.5 million dollars worth of aircraft sent between March 41 and April 43, how much, in that same dollar value, did the Soviets produce on their own? Surely that's an important fact to have on hand when determining the importance of Lend-Lease.

>muh german ancestry

>Would the USSR have been able to defeat Nazi Germany without the Lend-Lease support and without the US and UK being at war with Germany?
Yes
t. David Glantz

David Glantz is pro lend-lease though

Complete and total axis victory of course

He said it wasnt necessary for victory, just for saving the lives.

Nah

Germany had there devisions in r&r when the Africa campaign started those units couldn't come back to full strength due to this splitting the German army into two groups

Russia could not win against the full force of the German army simple as if you think otherwise you might be retarded

>Russia could not win against the full force of the German army simple as if you think otherwise you might be retarded
citation needed
there was literally no way how could Hitler defeat the USSR without allying with the West or creating actualy legitime ROA

This tbqh

>there was literally no way how could Hitler defeat the USSR without allying with the West or creating actualy legitime ROA
Wrong.

If Hitler hadn't gotten bogged down in helping Mussolini with his invasion of Greece, Barbarossa would have never been delayed and the milder climate would have given the German logistics the needed push they lacked to capture Moscow. It is the single most defining event of the war.

shan't be replying to a retard that can't comprehend the state the Russian military was in

>German army was trashed
>but the Russian army wasn't
>REDDIT SPACING
>TANKIE POSTING

YOU HAVE TO GO BACK

The Russian army had far greater man and materiel reserves than the German Army had, and had far shorter lines of resupply. That they were less affected by losses is indisputable.

>thinks line breaks between subjects is "reddit"
>telling other people to go back

Nice meme

>being this atmospherically illiterate
Winter was the only thing that allowed the Krauts to get that far, because Rasputistsa froze.

>thinks that if germany had invaded in may '41 and taken moscow before the winter they would have somehow won the war

>despite simply never having enough troops to cover the vast front, or enough logistical capacity to supply any number of troops even if they had captured moscow

>implying an early assault would not just move the frontline slightly deeper into russia, actually worseing the logistical problems and spreading the german lines thinner leading to their envelopment and destruction anyway

jej

p.s they would have still won wthout some lendlease radios and trucks. What actual lendlease weapon was used in significant numbers?

The result would have been a Russian victory regardless but the importance of the Western Allies comes in preventing the spread of communism to western Europe. No doubt the Russians would have rolled to Paris unless the west landed on d-day and in Italy. Moreover the Axis would have been able to procure oil if not for the west in north Africa meaning that events like the incursion in the caucuses would have played out differently and perhaps the Axis would have taken Moscow.
The main importance is definitely the Allies liberation of the west setting up an almost poetic beginning of the cold war with Europe literally split in two by the USA and the USSR almost as if it is a chess set.

Rasputitsa happened in Autumn 1941 right when they had reached Moscow, when the German logistics were at the most overstretched, dumbass. If the Germans had invaded earlier, their logistics would have fared better because the winter would have frozen the roads solid.

Rasputitsa wouldn't have been such a problem at the beginning of the campaign when supply lines were shorter and the roads (such as those in Eastern Poland) in better conditions.

Delaying the invasion meant rasputitsa caught the Germans at the most critical moment of their offensive.

"Both sides now struggled in the autumn mud. On October 6 [1941] the first snow had fallen, unusually early. It soon melted, turning the whole landscape into its habitual trackless state – the rasputitsa, literally the ‘time without roads’. ... It is commonplace to attribute the German failure to take Moscow to the sudden change in the weather. While it is certainly true that German progress slowed, it had already been slowing because of the fanatical resistance of Soviet forces and the problem of moving supplies over the long distances through occupied territory. The mud slowed the Soviet build-up also, and hampered the rapid deployment of men and machines."
Overy, Richard (1997). Russia's War. London: Penguin. pp. 113–114. ISBN 1-57500-051-2.

I never said "before the winter", everything you wrote after that is a strawman. Rasputitsa occurs during autumn or spring, not during winter.

Also, declassified archives show Stalin came very close to suing for peace by 1941, if the Germans had captured Moscow the psychological impact on Soviet morale would have been terrible.

In practical terms, the Germans would have also taken one of the major transportation hubs in the Soviet Union, crippling Russian logistics particularly the ability to ferry troops from the Far East.

A more rapid campaign would have also crippled the Soviet program of evacuation of industry to the Urals, crippling Russian industrial capacity and ability to continue the war.

>Rasputitsa wouldn't have been such a problem
Are you autistic? Do you have a single idea what is it like for an army to go through the 75cm of mud?

Which is of course why they started their 1942 summer offensive at around the same time. How are you blaming Italy for Case Blue?

Over in reality, it's because the SPRING Rasputitsa means that the advance is going to be tough if you attacker sooner than the end of June.

>If the Germans had invaded earlier, their logistics would have fared better because the winter would have frozen the roads solid.
If they invaded earlier, winter happens later on in the campaign timeline.

>Rasputitsa wouldn't have been such a problem at the beginning of the campaign when supply lines were shorter and the roads (such as those in Eastern Poland) in better conditions.
If you attack during Rasputitsa season, you're unlikely to get those mass encirclements on breakthroughs, which require rapid armored movement to execute, and the Soviets never get into the desperate position they were in in the first place.

Furthermore, I entreat you to check out this. history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-21/cmhPub_104-21.pdf They were running into considerable logistical problems almost from day one, even in good weather.

Considering Germany completely failed to annihilate the Soviets in 1941, yes probably the USSR would eventually come out on top

Better to face rasputitsa at the beginning of the campaign, in Spring 1941, Western Russia, where the roads were in better conditions and supply lines were shorter, than to face rasputitsa by late Autumn 1941, in Central Russia, with supply lines overextended and the road network destroyed by prolongued warfare and Soviet scorched earth policies.

What is so hard to understand, exactly?
Delaying the campaign meant reaching Moscow in Autumn rather than Summer.

>Better to face rasputitsa at the beginning of the campaign
Its better to not face it at all and attack over iced over plains you simple cunt

Not him, but the part where you think you can get those mass encirclements and annihilations in oceans of mud that limit the ability to move quickly.

Meanwhile, the Soviets start mobilizing the same way they did historically, only now you aren't gobbling up entire Fronts at a time. So now when those reserves are being thrown into the front lines, instead of being flanked and swallowed up in turn because there's no fixed lines anywhere, they actually can set up, dig in, and fight effectively.

Rasputitsa happens in Autumn and Spring, you are going to face it one way or another.

Original plan:
Invade in mid Spring 1941
Mid advance in early Summer 1941
Reach Moscow in late Summer / Early autumn 1941, before rasputitsa

Actual plan:
Invaded in early Summer 1941
Mid campaign in early Autumn 1941
Reached Moscow in late Autumn 1941 and got bogged down in the middle of the rasputitsa season

>the part where you think you can get those mass encirclements and annihilations in oceans of mud that limit the ability to move quickly.
This is a good point and we can agree to disagree here but the best roads were on the Western half of Russia / Eastern Poland. It wouldn't have been such a problem IMHO.

> > Which doesn’t change the fact that Lend-Lease kept the Soviets in the war.
> By the time Lend-Lease started arriving in bulk, the Soviets had already seized the initiative.

The Soviets were only able to counter attack because the Germans had gotten about as far as they could, they were already holding too much territory, had out run their supply lines and their troops and equipment were worn out but the Soviet counter attacks could only be _sustained_ because ever more Lend-Lease aid was flooding into the country.

In a timeline with no Lend-Lease, the Soviets would have shot their wad by mid-1942 and would have been left in a stalemate with the Germans, which favors the Germans in the long run, as they could adapt to the situation while the Soviets would have been hard pressed just to maintain a defense.

By late ’42 Stalin would have been looking at a revolution if he tried to continue taking the fight to the Germans, forcing him to accept a cease fire.

One only has to look at the horrendous losses the Soviets suffered _with_ Lend-Lease to see that there was no way in hell they could have defeated the Germans without it.

>but the Soviet counter attacks could only be _sustained_ because ever more Lend-Lease aid was flooding into the country.
Yeah, like Uranus.

>In a timeline with no Lend-Lease, the Soviets would have shot their wad by mid-1942 and would have been left in a stalemate with the Germans, which favors the Germans in the long run, as they could adapt to the situation while the Soviets would have been hard pressed just to maintain a defense.
Wrong, full stop. In a timeline with no lend-lease, the Soviets make a bunch of different operational decisions, like "let's not attack all across the front that stretches for almost 2,000 kilometers all at once", and do not "shoot their wad" like that. Nor does a long war favor the germans, as their war economy was badly creaking by 1943, and would go on to get worse with increased Allied air attacks.

>By late ’42 Stalin would have been looking at a revolution if he tried to continue taking the fight to the Germans, forcing him to accept a cease fire.
[citation seriously needed]


>One only has to look at the horrendous losses the Soviets suffered _with_ Lend-Lease to see that there was no way in hell they could have defeated the Germans without it.
Considering that roughly 40% of all Soviet military losses were sustained in the first 6 weeks of the war, you have a long way to make your case.

>Without the delivery of Western equipment, Soviet industry not only could not have increased the output of weaponry and combat equipment, but itself could not have put right the output of weapons and equipment, for which the special types of rolled steel and ferro-alloys provided by the US were used. As a whole, one can reach the conclusion that, without the Western supplies, the Soviet Union not only could not have won the Great Patriotic War, but even could not have resisted German aggression, since it was not able to produce sufficient quantities of weapons and combat equipment and provide them with fuel and ammunition. The Soviet leadership well understood this dependence in the beginning of war. For example, the special envoy of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry H. Hopkins, reported in a message of 31 July 1941, that Stalin thought it impossible for Great Britain and the USSR to stand against the material strength of Germany, which disposed of the resources of occupied Europe, without the assistance of the US. In October 1940 Roosevelt, while announcing his decision to permit military departments to give those countries which could defend American national interests arms and equipment excessive to the needs of the American armed forces, and also strategic materials and industrial equipment, permitted the inclusion of Russia in that number of countries. Without such a relationship with the President, prewar Soviet orders placed by the USSR in the US for equipment critical for the production of weaponry and combat equipment would hardly have been possible.
why did the thread even continue after this

Because you have other, equally academic and well sourced essays providing alternate conclusions, a la

Thats right, the russians dont need any tinned spam from america, because they can always eat their boots

Or, you know, they could eat the considerable quantities of grain and fish that they were producing domestically, maybe even diverting some of that stuff they were using to make explosives to make more fertilizer.

But of course, nuance is bad and learning is wrong. We're here to be another /int/, aren't we?

Wernt they still fighting over the ukraine in 1944? Im not suggesting the soviets cant do food production, but the famines of the 1930s suggest they are not very good at it

>considerable
They were only producing 26.7 million tons of grain in 1942 compared to 95.6 million in 1940.

The Ukraine was not the only agricultural area in the USSR. For instance, along the Volga also had considerable agriculture. Furthermore, I would direct you to this.


ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/28771/worldwariisoviet1038linz.pdf?sequence=1 (page 4)
Overran territories produced roughly as much of the overall food portion as the population portion that was now the responsibility of the Germans to feed.

Soviet agricultural production declines because of the decreased mechanization and increased raw labor requirements. If they are not importing food, they could NOT strip those vehicles away from the farms and put them to work for their original purpose, instead of what they historically did by lowering their agricultural production and using the extra vehicles for military purposes.

books.google.com/books?id=gMNlerxYVuwC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=Soviet grain production 1943&source=bl&ots=rP50cOCcC5&sig=R7ZiPR9i9DglFhp89SKClJODdfw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiuov61wJbWAhWq6oMKHQJwCg8Q6AEIbzAO#v=onepage&q=Soviet grain production 1943&f=false

To suggest that the Soviets could not have redirected production (at the expense, of course, of overall front effectiveness) is simply wrong.

>mfw I shared both of those

>Soviet agricultural production declines because of the decreased mechanization and increased raw labor requirements.
>To suggest that the Soviets could not have redirected production (at the expense, of course, of overall front effectiveness) is simply wrong.

Why do your two statements seem to contradict themselves?

Because you don't read very carefully?

The Soviets embarked on a course of action. That does not mean that they could not have embarked on other courses of action, especially if the strategic picture changed.

Here's a parallel example. From March to June of 1944, British strategic bombing on German cities declined in terms of tons of bombs dropped from their late 43-February of 1942 levels. The reason for this was diversion of heavy bombers to targets in France, especially transportation nodes, to support the upcoming Normandy landings.

If we enter an alternate history where Normandy isn't planned until later, or not at all, to assert that British bombing efforts over Germany would decline at around the same time would be stupid.

So they educe frontline manpower to feed themselves and the strategic picture changes

Thats what everyone has been saying, without US support the war get a whole lot harder to win.

My apologies. I was under the assumption that 's comments, which prompted my reply and the subsequent replies, asserted that the Soviets could not grow more food than they were historically doing, and that absent Lend-Lease, widespread starvation would have set in, dooming them; and that they did not have the option to sacrifice other outputs to increase food production.

>if the Germans had captured Moscow the psychological impact on morale would have been terrible.
Yeah that is what Napoleon believed in 1812. That he took the city and nothing happened.

>Amateurs think tactics, experts think logistics.
Amateurs love to say this and think it makes them experts.

This. The saying should be "amateurs think tactics are the only deciding factor in war, while pseuds think logistics are instead".
Both are essential.

France and Britain would have had it covered if Belgium wasn't such a wuss.

>That is complete bullshit. scribd.com/document/270450475/United-States-Army-in-World-War-II-Statistics-LendLease

Did you even read what you linked? It shows the dollar values, 1941-1945. It doesn't even show the amount of supplies in dollars sent per year.

>the Soviets suffered hugely disproportionate casualties against the Germans
Every time i hear this i think maybe we should have killed all german pows after war to even the score for 2kk dead soviet pows. And 20kk german civilians. But we did not and now anyone can "hurdur soviets fought poorly lol".

>Would the USSR have been able to defeat Nazi Germany without the Lend-Lease support and without the US and UK being at war with Germany?

Obviously, D-day was a joke, some beaches were even empty and the allies still had a hard time fighting starving armed civilians and the reserves, Lend lease was another joke that is forced by burgers because they wanna be the center of the world and say that they did everything alone, plus they lost the Berlin rush, and that's another great achievement for the allies.

Yes it does. Pages 9-10, 14, 17, and 23-26 all mention dates the dates of what was sent. Pages 26-37 break down actual items.