What of no lend lease to Soviets?

Nov 2014
What if the US did not carry out its lend lease policy for the Soviets, or only agreed to sell the Soviets equipment at extortionary prices, like a 1000 percent markup? Would the Soviets have gone all the way to Berlin without almost zero Western allied help?
Mar 2019
What if the US did not carry out its lend lease policy for the Soviets, or only agreed to sell the Soviets equipment at extortionary prices, like a 1000 percent markup? Would the Soviets have gone all the way to Berlin without almost zero Western allied help?
Definitely. It just would have just taken longer.


Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
Might as well extend lend lease to the Nazis ,

helping the soviets was not charity , it was to avoid American deaths


Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
The vast majority of munitions consumed by the Soviet Army in WW2 was of Soviet manufacture. Lend lease made up only a small percentage. However, lend lease did provide a large majority of a few key categories of munitions, and lend lease was critically important at a few times and places. For instance, the Soviets lost most of their armored vehicles in the 1941 campaign. In the spring of 1942, most of the armored vehicles on the Moscow front were of British or American manufacture. However, in 1942, there was relatively little fighting on the Moscow front. Most of the fighting that year was in the south. So it's debatable how important those lend lease tanks were.

It can be difficult to assess the importance of lend lease on the Eastern Front. Most trucks used by the Soviet Army were American manufacture. Most radios were of western origin. Try fighting a modern war without trucks or radios. What's the point of having 10,000 T-34s if you can't keep them fueled and the crews fed? Or if you can't command and control them? The value of other lend lease supplies is less obvious. The west provided nearly all of the high octane aviation fuel used by the Soviets, but the Soviets only needed high octane fuel to operate western aircraft. Soviet planes ran on low octane fuel which is why the Soviet economy produced so little high octane fuel on its own. Most of the Soviet Air Force flew Soviet-made planes, but many of those planes were manufactured with aluminum from the west. Most tires used by the Soviets - whether truck, aircraft, or on other vehicles - were made with imported rubber thanks to lend lease. If the war could have been won using only small arms and small arms ammunition, the Soviets could have won without lend lease. The vast majority of tanks and artillery peices used by the Soviet Army were of domestic manufacture.
Oct 2013
Would the Soviets have gone all the way to Berlin without almost zero Western allied help?
Western Allies could have made it to Berlin before the Red Army.

But for that, it would have not only take no lend lease but also US having to sacrifice a lot more human lives.

Whatever they were ready to do that, that's another question.

Anyway, it seems that often one aspect of the lend lease is forgotten: basically, lend lease remains arming others to fight in one's stead. And that is far from being a WWII American invention.
Sep 2012
Note No. 1447 /May 27, 1963 from Vladimir Semichastny regarding what Zhukov said to him about lend-lease after the war.

.. Вот сейчас говорят, что союзники никогда нам не помогали… Но ведь нельзя отрицать, что американцы нам гнали столько материалов, без которых мы бы не могли формировать свои резервы и не могли бы продолжать войну… Получили 350 тысяч автомашин, да каких машин!.. У нас не было взрывчатки, пороха. Не было чем снаряжать винтовочные патроны. Американцы по-настоящему выручили нас с порохом, взрывчаткой. А сколько они нам гнали листовой стали. Разве мы могли быстро наладить производство танков, если бы не американская помощь сталью. А сейчас представляют дело так, что у нас всё это было своё в изобилии.
Rough translation:

Now they say that the allies never helped us, but it can't be denied that the Americans gave us so many goods without which we would nоt have been able to form our reserves and continue the war. We got 350 k vehicles and what vehicles they were! We did not have explosives, gunpowder. We did nоt have anything to charge our rifle cartridges with. The Americans really saved us with their gunpowder and explosives. And how much sheet steel they gave us! How could we have produced our tanks without American steel? But now they make it seem as if we had an abundance of all that.
Source: Ленд-лиз — Википедия
Last edited:


Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
beside the specialized equipment ,
lend lease provided mountain of food which the red army desperately needed

the supply line were quite small to start with , only Murmansk worked in 41 early 42
by mid 43 things got going with the Iran supply line and Vladivostok
the Studebaker and ford truck allowed Soviet operations to have longer "legs"
before all the offensive had great logistic problems once they over-reached the 50 kms advance line
it made a lot of difference in 44 , when finally the soviet doctrine of "deep operations" could be implemented
Likes: Edratman
Nov 2015
Arguments about lend-lease to Russia in WWII are useful to add a list of what was supplied to it. This is a complete list of American lend-lease to Russia. According to the British Lend-Lease, I do not have such a list.

Complete List of Lend Lease to Russia including atomic materials

I should add that the Allies provided the Russians with half a million special army vehicles. Their own production in 1941-1945 was 265,6 thousand of trucks. And the Russian trucks were far from first-class Studebakers for the army needs.

Against the background of very modest Russian resources of their own, America put the Russian army on wheels in that war. And they got a huge advantage in this over the Germans, for whom the horse thrust was very important because of shortage of army trucks during the war.

The Allies put a large number of tanks (13 thousand) and aircraft (almost 19 thousand) to the Russians. Under the conditions of the tank hunger of 1942, the assistance was extremely important for the Russians in this decisive year. At the same time, half of the Russian aces flew on American P-39 Airacobras.

The Allies put the Russians a lot of gunpowder and more than 50% of the explosives the Russian produced themselvers in the war. And they supplied to Russia a huge amount of aluminum. In addition to aviation, the hulls of the engines of T-34 tanks were made of aluminum. The Allies put a huge amount of leather and leather shoes, cotton fabrics for army uniforms. And the food supplied to the Russian by lend-lease would be sufficient in calories to feed a 10-million army for three years.

At the same time, I often read in the memoirs of Russian WWII veterans and heard from them in conversations that the Red Army often was in hunger - especially when the soldiers were in the rear. In the Russian rear it was even more worse for the population than for the soldiers. As I already wrote, 9 of the 11 children of my wife's grandfather died of a hunger in a village in a Mid-Volga region after their father was recruited and sent to the front line.

My father was evacuated from Ukraine with his brother and mother in 1941 and worked at a military enterprise in Tashkent at the age of 14, and his legs swelled from hunger and looked like poles.

The Allies put to the Russians a a large number of anti-aircraft artillery and all armored personnel carriers . A high-octane lend-lease gasoline was simply indispensable for Russian aviation. The supply of copper for shell cartridges and rare metals for the smelting of high-quality steel, including armor, was invaluable. The Russians received a huge amount of field phones and telephone wires, as well as first-class radio stations. In addition, they received from the allies a lot of first-class industrial machines, forging presses and other valuable equipment for the military industry. The army received a lot of drugs.

The Russians turned the tide of the war with great difficulty in 1943. And without mighty lend-lease, my forecast for 1942-1943 for the Eastern campaign is very sad for them. They probably would have lost the war without lend-lease gunpowder, explosives, fuel for aviation, aircraft, tanks, and a huge amount of c
materials and equipment critical to the Russians in a a protracted war. Resource depletion war
Last edited:
Nov 2015
... the supply line were quite small to start with , only Murmansk worked in 41 early 42
In 1941-1942 The Red Army received 4,697 lend-lease tanks.

For comparison, at the beginning of the Battle of Stalingrad in the fall of 1942, the Russians had 400 tanks. And at the beginning of their counteroffensive at Stalingrad - 894 tanks.

In 1942 Allies provided the Russian Air Force with 1,815 Lend-Lease fighters, 775 bombers and 15 reconnaissance aircraft.
Last edited:


Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
there were 8 convoys in 1941 , 15 during the 42 sailing season
After the disaster of pQ17 in late June 42 , the convoys were stopped ,
much to Stalin ire , some convoys were send in mid September
but the sailing season was short no ships sailed in winter

the battle of Stalingrad was fought with Soviet resources ,
the number of 4697 tanks in 41 42 ( I suppose it include January 43 ) seems surprising
Britain supplied a little more than 5000 tanks for the whole war ,
during the whole of 41 , 1084 Mathildas were send but only 918 received
I'm digging for the Valentine numbers
are you sure you don't include the "universal carriers" tankette in the number

From the tank encyclopedia
Matilda II in Soviet Service - Tanks Encyclopedia

"By the end of 1941, some 182 British tanks had been committed to combat operations, of which around 80 would be lost in action. By this time, there were only 46 Lend/Lease tanks still operational on the Western Front, this consisted of 38 Valentines and only eight Matildas. Many Matildas were pulled back from frontline service due to the Matilda’s shortcomings in harsh winter weather. "

Similar History Discussions