No Lend-Lease
- Thread starter Wolf
- Start date
- Status
I also misunderstood the OP. I am not sure I can see a scenario where the US enters the war but doesn't give lots of aid to their allies. Production was the United State's strong point after all. Plus the simple "every single enemy they kill is one less we have to worry about logic" is pretty hard to ignore.
I have a somewhat related question. WI the US sold the material to Canada but was not willing to escort shipping aka the "Neutrallity Patrol" could the Kriegsmarine have sunk enough extra shipping to make a difference to Great Britain?
I have a somewhat related question. WI the US sold the material to Canada but was not willing to escort shipping aka the "Neutrallity Patrol" could the Kriegsmarine have sunk enough extra shipping to make a difference to Great Britain?
once again ^noob^
These garrisons would surely need to happen anyway as Britian is still in the fight and Tito will eventually begin to draw in even more troops.
North Africa was won by the British,the Americans only ended it WAYY quicker.
The battle of the Atlantic had been between Britian and Germany and would continue-Britain is not surrendering unless theres some coup or vote of no confidence.
The British arent going to stop their Bombing campaign just cause America arent in the fight.
And what do you mean the Soviets couldnt sustain those kinds of losses,its not like American troops fought on the Eastern front apart from maybe a few volunteers,the Soviets after 1943 continued to suffer bad casualtiesand by the end of the war still had an army of some 20,000,000.
pacifichistorian
Banned
I think, as in WW1, you'd see a U.S. bias towards the Allies, if only because there's a lot of US$ in Brit/French banks, & a lot of payment owed for goods in train. Also, Germany's got real trouble picking up goods, & IIRC, the Neutrality Act prohibited shipping anything to a belligerent in a U.S. hull.
Given U.S. entry, the Q then is, can Britain survive til 7/41? Probably. There's another Q, tho: what happens when, in the face of an oil crisis (indirectly product of the "2d happy time") & a convoy crisis in early '43, & before so many Liberty ships've arrived (presuming U.S. isn't supplying them as early, tho USG had begun their own "Liberty" program in '36 OTL), does the Admiralty/HMG give up on convoys? OTL, it was suggested, since convoy didn't seem (at the time OTL) to be working.... Or has Harris been pinkslipped in favor of Slessor & #1 priority to CC, & the U-boat as much as defeated already?
Soviet Union had a lot of tanks because they pretty much stopped producing locomotives, tractors, etc (tools essential to sustain a society in the long term). Without lend-lease (locomotives, tractors, food, etc) surviving in the long term would have been a rough path (collapse of order or greatly reduced production of military vehicles).
Deleted member 1487
Starvation was a major issue OTL, so without the food from the US and the loss of the Soviet's breadbasket the Ukraine, Stalin can feed either his workers or his soldiers. Or he can take people out of weapons production/mining/soldiers and use them to farm, but then things change at the front. Also if the US is not giving LL then the Germans have absolutely no reason to declare war. America is not going to get involved in this case and the bombing campaign just lost its greatest force. The Brits are still going to bomb, but at a reduced rate. OTL the army got the least funding so that the RAF and RN could be beefed up. Here, without American Money(!!!), resources, and production, the RAF is going to be significantly smaller and the army is going to have less resources. Then there is the whole bankrupt issue. By 1942 Britain is going to be without money to pay for the war.
Also, Germany cannot "win" in the way Hitler wants. Rather a peace of exhaustion that leaves German forces in Soviet borders is what is going to happen. I don't know where you got that 20 million number from, but that is not at all what was going on. Moral was low, discipline as a large problem, and men were starting to revolt by 1945. The Soviet soldier was a human being and he had limits. The Red Army would overthrow stalin once it became apparent that Rodina was safe from aggression, but that Stalin still wanted to fight. Bagration and a lot of Kursk and the follow up battles were impossible without American resources. I don't know why you think that the Russia was super human and could over come all obstacles, because that is not going to happen without the US entering the war and giving Russia massive resources.
Also, Germany cannot "win" in the way Hitler wants. Rather a peace of exhaustion that leaves German forces in Soviet borders is what is going to happen. I don't know where you got that 20 million number from, but that is not at all what was going on. Moral was low, discipline as a large problem, and men were starting to revolt by 1945. The Soviet soldier was a human being and he had limits. The Red Army would overthrow stalin once it became apparent that Rodina was safe from aggression, but that Stalin still wanted to fight. Bagration and a lot of Kursk and the follow up battles were impossible without American resources. I don't know why you think that the Russia was super human and could over come all obstacles, because that is not going to happen without the US entering the war and giving Russia massive resources.
Yeah the Russians would just call on the good folks at Hogwarts to ship their supplies to the front
Agreed.
bernard patton
Banned
Why do people keep saying Britain was bankrupt? That is seriously devaluing the meaning of the word. Germany in 1920 was bankrupt. Zimbabwe today is bankrupt. Britain in WW2 was not bankrupt.
Deleted member 1487
Not was, rather would be. Sustaining a world war is not cheap. No, they would not be bankrupt in the sense Zimbabwe is, but they would have so few reserves that to continue the war would financially cripple the nation long after the end of the uncertain result of the war.
In 1940 Britain did not have enough foreign exchange to pay for the imports it needed. Knowing this, the government made the decision to keep ordering more war material. If that had carried on then the country would have been unable to meet its obligations. The government had placed all its eggs in the basket of Lend Lease, American loans or dragging the USA into the war. "Victory at all Costs" as Winston Churchill described it.
If things had gone differently then actual Zimbabwe style bankruptcy would not have occurred. What would have happened is that at some point the strategy of buying more than could actually be paid for would have ground to a halt as the sellers realised that they weren't going to get paid.
That is the first time I've heard of that being a significant factor. You could have picked '41-42 for it, but the Soviets in '44 are motivated and WINNING. This is counter to everything I'd ever read anywhere.
That would be good, except Ukraine and Belarus are still Soviet territory and a large part of the Army comes from there. Can't have peace until the Germans are out of there.
I think they were possible at a later date, but they would be much bloodier. So instead of killing/capturing 4-5 Germans for every Soviet soldier lost in Bagration, we'd have a more reasonable ratio of say 2:1 or even 1:1, a year later, when the logistic preparations are complete.
Regardless of any other factors, Germany is being bled dry and cannot hold up to concentrated attacks along the entire length of the front. If they don't retreat and consolidate but insist on sitting on Soviet territory, it will similar to OTL but slower. The Soviets still have more reserves and can push further, except a less-successful Bagration and such will leave them with no strength to conquer central Europe.
slslslslslslslslsl
Where do you come up with the idea that the Russian soldier was “bleeding dry the germane”.
The German infantry was the best trained and that was true even at the end of the war.
And without the US entering the war there wont be a second front, that means more German troops fighting in Russia.
Why do you think Stalin was begging for the Allies to open the second front?
If he could conquer the whole Europe why didn’t he do it?
Where do you come up with the idea that the Russian soldier was “bleeding dry the germane”.
The German infantry was the best trained and that was true even at the end of the war.
And without the US entering the war there wont be a second front, that means more German troops fighting in Russia.
Why do you think Stalin was begging for the Allies to open the second front?
If he could conquer the whole Europe why didn’t he do it?
bernard patton
Banned
Russia was bleeding Germany dry. At the end of the war they were both seriously out of manpower. And If the USA didn't enter the war there still would of been a second front, just in Italy instead of France. As for Stalin asking for a second front, that was in '42 and '43, when things really looked bad for the Soviet Union.
sl
A second front opened by whom?
Without lend-lease the British have to make choices, either bomb or fight on the ground, they can’t do both, not without US support.
The German soldier was better trained and lead than its Russian counterpart, that is a fact, plus you forget the fact that USSR is not fighting Germany alone but a German dominated coalition (Finland, Hung aria, Slovakia, Rumania, Italy, Spanish volunteers and without lend-lease and operation Torch you might even see a participation of Vichy France).
A second front opened by whom?
Without lend-lease the British have to make choices, either bomb or fight on the ground, they can’t do both, not without US support.
The German soldier was better trained and lead than its Russian counterpart, that is a fact, plus you forget the fact that USSR is not fighting Germany alone but a German dominated coalition (Finland, Hung aria, Slovakia, Rumania, Italy, Spanish volunteers and without lend-lease and operation Torch you might even see a participation of Vichy France).
er
To think that the British and the Russian would have defeated the Germans alone without US is so naïve.
Check the statistics for ww2.
Number of divisions available for these countries over the course of the war
France
86
105
0
0
5
7
14
14
Germany
78
189
235
261
327
347
319
375
Great Britain
9
34
35
38
39
37
31
31
Italy
6
73
64
89
86
2
9
10
Poland
43
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
Romania
11
28
33
31
33
32
24
24
USSR
194
200
220
250
350
400
488
491
USA
8
24
39
76
95
94
94
94
German Occupational Forces, 1939-1940
Balkans
21 million
403,000
200,000
1:105
Belgium
8 million
30,400
100,000
1:80
Denmark
3.6 million
22,700
40,000
1:90
France
40 million
550,700
500,000
1:80
Holland
8.5 million
34,200
100,000
1:85
Norway
2.8 million
324,000
150,000
1:19
Location Of German Divisions In June Of Each Year
USSR
34
171
179
157
France, Belgium & Holland
38
27
42
56
Norway & Finland
13
16
16
16
Balkans
7
8
17
20
Italy
0
0
0
22
Denmark
1
1
2
3
North Africa
2
3
0
0
Percentage Of All Allied Bombs Dropped
1940
.8%
1941
2%
1942
3%
1943
12.8%
1944
57.9%
1945
23.5%
Total Number Of Weapons During World War 2
Aircraft
542,000
283,000
52%
Vehicles
5.1 million
2.47 million
48%
To think that the British and the Russian would have defeated the Germans alone without US is so naïve.
Check the statistics for ww2.
Number of divisions available for these countries over the course of the war
Country
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
End of War
86
105
0
0
5
7
14
14
Germany
78
189
235
261
327
347
319
375
Great Britain
9
34
35
38
39
37
31
31
Italy
6
73
64
89
86
2
9
10
Poland
43
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
Romania
11
28
33
31
33
32
24
24
USSR
194
200
220
250
350
400
488
491
USA
8
24
39
76
95
94
94
94
German Occupational Forces, 1939-1940
Country
Population
Area In Sq. Mi.
German Forces
German Ratio To Population
21 million
403,000
200,000
1:105
Belgium
8 million
30,400
100,000
1:80
Denmark
3.6 million
22,700
40,000
1:90
France
40 million
550,700
500,000
1:80
Holland
8.5 million
34,200
100,000
1:85
Norway
2.8 million
324,000
150,000
1:19
Location Of German Divisions In June Of Each Year
Country
1941
1942
1943
1944
34
171
179
157
France, Belgium & Holland
38
27
42
56
Norway & Finland
13
16
16
16
Balkans
7
8
17
20
Italy
0
0
0
22
Denmark
1
1
2
3
North Africa
2
3
0
0
Percentage Of All Allied Bombs Dropped
Year
%
.8%
1941
2%
1942
3%
1943
12.8%
1944
57.9%
1945
23.5%
Total Number Of Weapons During World War 2
Weapon Type
World
USA
US %
542,000
283,000
52%
Vehicles
5.1 million
2.47 million
48%
CanadianGoose
Banned
My bad. I had to remember that people love play stupid when they don't have anything else to say, and make my arguments pretty clear for an intellectually challenged baby in order to avoid misunderstanding. Radios are critical in a meaning that they can't be replaced with anything else. You don't have one in a fighter plane, your air force's effectiveness goes down in flames. Even more important, if you don't have industry to produce ones, you are stuck. However, this isn't the case with trucks and food. You can scale back tank production to make trucks (in ballpark of 1o trucks per tank not produced) and keep some peasants working on the land instead of mobilizing them (better yet, you can use POWs to slave in kolkhozes; IOTL POWs were mainly used to rebuild infrastructure damaged by war, which sped up post-war recovery). So, through combination of cash purchases of critical materials and reduced effectiveness (nobody says that Bagration could be the same and within same TL without Studers and Spam), you can keep USSR fighting even without LL.Ah yes because Russians do not need to eat.
And if nothing else they can start eating the peasants as a sacrifice to the Peacock Angel.
As I said, I'm tempted to consider it a sign of surrender. Once one starts playing stupid, doesn't it mean that one has nothing to say?
This is debatable, really. IOTL Stalin was trading Soviet lives for territorial gains, as it always was "who gets there 1st" type of situation. Without Americans in war, he can be sure that Great Britain isn't going to be a competitor for him. So, Red Army's progress could be reduced to a crawl, if it would help to save Soviet manpower. There would be no competition in this world, just Russo-German rematch with Britons cheering from the sidelines. So, it could be Berlin in, say, 1947 or, more likely, Hitler going up in flames and "armistice signed at 11th hour of 11th day of 11th month" in 1945-1946. Which would be bad for the world, as IOTL events lead to democratic Germany and "11th hour armistice" is likely to make another weak Weimar with freikorps running around.
One thing all my sources (both written and stories told to me by ones who lived there) are agree on is that 1943 was the lowest point of starvation and American food supply improved situation considerably in 1944. Even GULAG prisoners were occasionally fed good wheat bread instead of customary rye "brick". So yes, food was important. You don't get all those jokes about Spam being "Western Front" for nothing.
CanadianGoose, there were more than a few questions as to why the US kept using Spam on supposed allies rather than the foe...
CanadianGoose
Banned
Oh yes, LL to Nazi would be real bad. Even trade would be bad (although not as much, Germany did not have loads of currency to pay Americans with, plus there is "small" issue of delivery, I don't see large-scale Germano-American trade after GB DoWed Hitler as possible).CanadianGoose, there were more than a few questions as to why the US kept using Spam on supposed allies rather than the foe...
Deleted member 1487
In OTL things were considerably different, with the race to Berlin as the airwar was the 2nd front. Without the Americans (no LL give Hitler no reason to declare war on the US) the airwar just got significantly weaker. The Brits won't be able to run at full steam without LL anyway and are likely to be out in 1942. So this means that the vast amounts of resources that were being used in the West are coming East. 90% of the Luftwaffe and 500,000 men tied up in AA duty, as well as all the equipment that now is going to be produced for the Army instead of air defense. Oh and the blockade is over, so all the resources that were denied to the Germans are now available for purchase.
Without LL the Soviets just got considerably weaker and the German vastly stronger. Read "wages of destruction" and you will realize that Axis industry was hamstrung by lack of various "exotic" resources that will enable them to produce much more material and more effective weapons. I realize that the Germans are simply unable to win against double the manpower, but a 2nd Brest-Litovsk with Germany's full attention in the East is absolutely possible. Germany had more industrial resources at its desposal that the Soviets with LL. That industry would here be operating at full capacity, so be prepared for a massive casualty list on the Russian side as German units get fully equipped while the Soviets now are the one's experiencing shortages and starvation behind the lines.
This will mean the Nazis stay in power, which is terrible for Germany and Europe, so don't expect to see a new SS freikorps running around. It will be a Nazi state until Hitler dies and then the structure falls down. It was centered on him, so when he dies, the Nazis are likely to go down with it, as the Werhmacht no longer has loyalty sworn to any other figure and is unlikely to. Expect a Weimar to make a return, but it is going to be more stable, as the economic situation is improved.
- Status