Did the Soviets win WW2 due to US Support? The Impact of Lend-Lease

[MechAg94]

I came across these videos earlier.  He shares some facts about the quantities and timing of lend-lease supplies to the Soviets in WWII.  Interesting information I hadn't seen before.  I knew Lend-Lease had a big impact, but never saw a close look at it.  They are only 10 or 12 minutes long.

Did the Soviets win WW2 due to US Support? The Impact of Lend-Lease
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25ACv_4Sj7Q

Why determining the Impact of Lend-Lease is so complicated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ9PiDvI4pY


This one is a 2 hour extended interview.  Interesting if you have the time and like the subject. 
D.M. Giangreco on the Invasion of Japan, Lend Lease & much more
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4uDfg38gyk

[MechAg94]

This is somewhat related.  I saw this recently.  Interesting look at the Battle of Midway highlighting the timing of the various events and how that helped set up the US victory.

The Battle of Midway 1942: Told from the Japanese Perspective
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd8_vO5zrjo

[K Frame]

Not had a chance to watch the videos yet, but my take is, and has been for a long time, that no, the US Lend-Lease Program didn't rescue the Soviets from defeat.

Lend-Lease did, however, make it possible for the Soviets to stop the Nazis sooner.

In August 1941 the Soviets began the wholesale evacuation of vital industrial infrastructure deep into the interior of the Soviet Union, kicking into full gear a program of moving critical assets and personnel East that started as early as 1940.

Many of those plants were back in production by mid-1942, well before significant quantities of Lend-Lease materials reached the Soviets. At the same time the Soviets were making incredible strides in building new production infrastructure from scratch. Lend-Lease did supply them with some vital components, such as tool steel and precision machinery, but perhaps the most significant deliveries to the Soviets weren't weapons, but food. The Nazi invasion overran much of the Soviet's grain producing areas. US pre-packaged rations could be supplied directly to the troops quickly and take pressure off transportation, allowing it to be used for other purposes.

The Soviets and later the Russians have always significantly downplayed the effects of Lend-Lease, while the west has always viewed it as having saved the Soviet Union from defeat and occupation.

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

[MechAg94]

That debate was mentioned and was a big part of the 2nd video.  What was talked about was the timing of many of the early Lend-Lease support which provided critical supplies and materials that allowed the Soviets to get through that low production period and jump start their relocated industry more quickly.  It wasn't necessarily all weapons and finished munitions, but fuel (especially aviation fuel), aluminum (raw materials), food, radios, etc.  The second video covered that a bit.

There were a couple quotes mentioned that were on point: 
"We cannot measure the distance of the Soviet economy from the point of collapse in 1942, but it seems beyond doubt that collapse was near.  Without Lend-Lease it would have been nearer."

"Without it [Lend-Lease], everyone would have had a worse war.  The western Allies would have had to kill and be killed in greater numbers.  The Russians would have done less killing and more being killed."

[K Frame]

I think both quotes are fairly good, but not entirely accurate.

I don't think the Soviet economy was anywhere near the point of collapse. The Japanese economy, even during the last months of WW II, never collapsed, and Japan was in a LOT worse shape economically at that time than the Soviets ever were.

The Soviets also had the land mass advantage. The father East the Germans pushed, the longer their supply lines became. The farther East the Soviets retreated, the shorter their supply lines became.

I think that the aviation fuel is something of a chimera. The US did supply copious amounts of av-gas... but only because they had to. American aircraft that came in under Lend-Lease required high octane av-gas. The Soviets couldn't produce high octane av-gas at the time, but they didn't need to, either, as their aircraft engines were designed to work around the lower octane gas supplied by Soviet refineries.

One area that was both very important and something of a double edged sword was the supply of steam locomotives. The US sent, IIRC, nearly 2,000 locomotives to the Soviet Union during the war... but the locomotives were built to standard US 4'-9" gauge, and the Soviets used a 5' gauge. The Soviets ended up doing some pretty amazing things to adapt their rail system to be able to handle both gauges.

[MechAg94]

I think without the outside support, the Soviet logistics change quite a bit.  I think other videos I have seen on why the Germans invaded Russia indicate they did not think the Soviet economy or production capacity was large enough or strong enough to beat them.  Had they had zero outside support, the Soviets certainly would have had a much tougher time.  The Germans would have penetrated further.  The Russians would have had a harder time pushing the Germans out.  It would likely have extended the war in the East quite a bit even if the final outcome didn't change. 

[K Frame]

The true reason why Germany invaded Russia is a combination of Hitler absolutely loathing Communism and anything smacking it and the delusion that the Soviet Union was teetering on the brink of collapse politically and socially.

Hitler was correct that there were deep divides in the USSR politically and socially, and he could have exploited those. In many areas the Germans were welcomed as liberators. Had they harnessed that, instead of treating the inhabitants as they did, it would have been a lot tougher for the Soviets.

But the German army's treatment of the local populations handed Stalin the perfect opportunity to unite the Soviet Union.

[MillCreek]

Supporting the Soviets with Lend-Lease was smart on our part: it freed up more Soviet troops and industrial production for the Nazi meatgrinder, thus reducing Allied casualties on the Western front.

[K Frame]

Without a doubt it was the correct strategy in the short term, even if it became problematic in the long run.

[WLJ]

Without a doubt it was the correct strategy in the short term, even if it became problematic in the long run.

If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.
Winston Churchill