Historically didn't the German offensive run of out gas short of Moscow, because of the mud, winter and Kiev? Maybe the Soviets would still have done the same in the autumn and winter of 1941 even without Lend Lease, so the Germans still could not get to Moscow because of the Russian Winter and Rasputitisa even without American help? But with out Lend Lease the Soviets do not have the mobility and the material provided to them, so their counter offensive post 1941 runs out of steam somewhere in the middle of Ukraine and near Vitebsk?the Dnieper ? which year ??
the German advanced to the Volga ! they were defending on the Dnieper line in late 1943
What makes you think so? That the Soviets will not be bled white somewhere around Kiev? I think no lend lease implies almost complete US neutrality. And couple of posters here were saying that the US staying neutral would mean everybody from Sligo to Perm speaking in German.The U.S. lend lease program didn't really start to take effect until late 1942 in my opinion. What was important was the amount of trucks and aviation fuel from the U.S. The supply of aircraft engines and radio sets from the British was just as important. I know lend lease supplied so much more that proved useful but that came much later. As the to OP I'll bypass the Dnieper debate as Operation Barbarossa had stalled and failed before any Lend Lease arrived. The Soviets would've still taken Berlin just maybe a couple of years later.
You know, it's actually fascinating how not one, but two non-factualities can be put into only nine words:Say the US stays neutral, so no lend lease,
In a scenario where the Germans go for Moscow earlier, it's possible that the Soviets would be willing to divert some (but probably not too many) troops from Kiev in order to better defend Moscow. After all, holding onto Kiev would be worthless if Moscow is going to fall--though whether Stalin would actually be able to realize this in time is an open question.The whole "Kiev saved Moscow" hypothesis is connected to the idea that the Russian winter saved Moscow and thus, had the Germans not diverted their forces to Kiev, they would have arrived at Moscow before winter and win. While the winter certainly hampered the Germans, it was not THE factor. German losses were mounting, their effectiveness had decreased significantly (Military History Visualized claims that the effectiveness of the infantry was 65% and that of the tanks 35%). The attack on Kiev made perfect sense. Had the Germans pushed towards Moscow before taking care of the Kiev situation, they would have 600,000 Soviet troops threatening their right flank. Also, had the Germans launched their thrust towards Moscow in September, the Soviet counterattacks near Smolensk which took place in August and September might not have happened and thus the Soviets would have been arguably stronger given that they wouldn't have launched such costly yet unsuccessful attacks.
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|Was China's One Child Policy a blunder in hindsight?||Asian History|
|what was the reflections of the countries for the"CYPRUS PEACE OPERATION" ?||Military History|
|Was a unified Central Asian state ever a realistic possibility after 1850?||Speculative History|
|Was a Franco-Soviet war a possibility in the 1940s ?||European History|