Question for WW2 history buffs

>lend-lease
>implies we get paid back
kek. it was gibs and the sovs would have lost without them. 420k trucks. no trucks = no logistics. no logistics = no mobility. no offense. and that's just trucks. it was food and tin and planes and medical supplies etc, etc, etc. ussr doesn't beat the wehrmacht w/o us gibs.

afaik germany would run out of metal and fuel sooner or later unless they could get these resources elsewhere so probably not

>Some say without the foodimports in lendlease and without the Ukraine, the USSR couldnt sustain itself for long. However the germans couldnt either on the long run.

Ah yes but it was at a much more critical stage for the Soviets, though i’m sure a few million more deaths for them in some remote region wouldn’t have bothered them that much.

Germany would have won only if the Soviets had a single line of defence, along the boarder.

The Germans got some bad Intel from the British.

Yes but not utter victory, if they could get the french navy aswell they could invade England. In either scenario a Cold War is obvious

Nice narrative.

It based in fantasy.

You speak with clef in tongue.

>meme flag
>one-line writing prompt
>lack of facility with English
Germany didn't get anything from Lend-Lease, so I guess not.

From a book by Edward Stettinius, who was in charge of the lend-lease program in the United States. He writes with disarming honesty. "The first shipments of lend-lease in the winter of 1941/42 Soviet Union has achieved very late, in these critical months, the Russian, and some Russian, resisted the German aggressors on their own land and their own funds without receiving any significant assistance from the Western democracies. By the end of 1942, the agreed delivery programs to the USSR were fulfilled by the Americans and the British by 55%. In 1941-1942, the USSR received only 7% of the cargo sent from the United States during the war. The main amount of weapons and other materials was received by the Soviet Union in 1944-1945, after a radical change in the course of the war.
In General, the amount of military materials we have delivered is not too large. Let's say that we do not have detailed information about the benefits that our weapons brought to the Russians in 1943."

>Edward Stettinius
>Truman thought Stettinius was too soft on communism and had yielded too much to Moscow when he was Roosevelt's advisor at Yalta.
from the same wiki. you lose w/o the gibs, ivan

Just speaking in facts. Throughout the Wehrmacht’s advances the Soviets were constantly rushing to speed up the deployment of Armies and never lacked for tanks or artillery nor planes because they had them already.

Interesting question... the russians used a high percentage of BRITISH tanks during the battle of Moscow for example

They had a 50 / 50 shot. Most of the Soviets mobile divisions (Jeeps and what not) were supplied by the United States, and these were vital to Soviet Counter Offensives in 1943 and beyond. It also allowed the Soviets to focus industry on mass producing Tanks and Aircraft, and this production would have been delayed without lend lease. Not to mention, a shit ton of Soviet food area (Ukraine area) had fallen to the Germans, and Soviets, throughout 1943, relied heavily on American (very minor amounts of British) food relief. This sounds pretty good for the Germans, except:

At most, no Lend-Lease makes the Soviets battle ready in 1944, and it is highly unlikely that in this time Germany could've A) Taken key cities like Moscow (and yes retards, taking Moscow would be a devastating blow to Russia, this isn't the fucking Napoleon area, Moscow was a major city and railway zone, and if Stalin stayed in Moscow like Hitler did Berlin, it would've been a cripple to the Soviets) or B) avoid confrontation with the United States. At most, they would rack up more Soviet casualties and maybe take an important city (Leningrad), but nothing that would be a permanent set back for the Soviets.

Assuming the U.S never joined the Eurotheater, then the German-Soviet war would've dragged on for much longer, and ended in either an armistice (highly unlikely) or one side eventually collapsing (in this case, it would be the Germans, the occupation cost of the lands they would be in would be a set back, but not knocking Britain out and not being able to get to Soviet production zones to stop the supply of the Red Army would be their death). Without lend-lease though, it would take longer and fewer factories would be moved (hence Soviets becoming battle ready in 1944, but it wouldn't be crippling).

The best shot Germany would have is to wait out Winter and hit the Soviets with everything they had, and pray the U.S doesn't become directly involved.

You didn't refute anything with your shitpost, mutt.
Lend-lease was not the only condition for victory. More factories, machines, and workers were needed that could produce tanks, planes, and other weapons from raw materials supplied by the allies. What was needed was a multi-million-strong Red Army that could be armed and thrown into battle. It required a huge Soviet territory, which the Germans could not occupy even after the destruction of almost all the pre-war Soviet troops, and immense human resources. What was needed was a political regime that was insensitive to loss of life or military defeat, and capable of forcing its people to fight even in seemingly hopeless conditions.
Could the USSR have won without help of the allies? Yes, they could, Germans did not have large enough forces to occupy entire Soviet Union. Defeat for Russians meant genocide and "deportation" to Siberia, so there were many reasons for people to fight.
By the way, the West did not have any of this, you could just recognize victory of Hitler and you would not be poisoned in the camps. That is why you would not have won that war, after the first million dead you would have begged for mercy. How lucky you are that instead of the Johns, Ivans had to die and do all the work.

...

No.
Our problem was beeing so cruel and barbarian on the population. Instead of bringing them a better system and letting fight them with us the bolshewiks we were monsters.
There was no possibility of control. Often only 3 german officials on many thousand civilians.

Attached: Versorgung.jpg (495x690, 69.92K)

War would have lasted longer without Lend-Lease but Soviets still would have won.

German logistics were dogshit and their industrial base couldn't compete with the Soviet one in terms of output.

Good question. The answer is NO.
One could also ask - would Germany have defeated UK and overtook British world empire - if Germany just honored its non aggression pact with USSR?

No because Germany never had any real capability for a seaborne invasion, and their war with the USSR was inevitable at some point anyway.

historians disagree on this
some say that it would economically collapse without it, and some claim it would just increase the losses.
no one knows how close they were to an economical collapse, so the answer is maybe

No.

>Russians hiding behind memeflags still crying over WWII
Is anything sadder than this?