Capabilities of the Western Allies to keep fighting without the USSR

A steady stream of British-made tanks continued to flow into the Red Army through the spring and summer of 1942. Canada would eventually produce 1,420 Valentines, almost exclusively for delivery to the Soviet Union. By July 1942 the Red Army had 13,500 tanks in service, with more than 16 percent of those imported, and more than half of those British.

Lend-Lease aircraft deliveries were also of significance during the Battle of Moscow. While Soviet pilots praised the maneuverability of the homegrown I-153 Chaika and I-16 Ishak fighters—still in use in significant numbers in late 1941—both types were certainly obsolete and inferior in almost all regards to the British-supplied Hurricane. The Hurricane was rugged and tried and tested, and as useful at that point as many potentially superior Soviet designs such as the LaGG-3 and MiG-3. There were apparently only 263 LaGG-3s in the Soviet inventory by the time of the Moscow counteroffensive, and it was an aircraft with numerous defects. At the end of 1941 there were greater numbers of the MiG-3, but the plane was considered difficult to fly. The Yak-1, arguably the best of the batch, and superior in most regards to the Hurricane, suffered from airframe and engine defects in early war production aircraft.

A total of 699 Lend-Lease aircraft had been delivered to Archangel by the time the Arctic convoys switched to Murmansk in December 1941. Of these, 99 Hurricanes and 39 Tomahawks were in service with the Soviet air defense forces on January 1, 1942, out of a total of 1,470 fighters. About 15 percent of the aircraft of the 6th Fighter Air Corps defending Moscow were Tomahawks or Hurricanes.

The Soviet Northern Fleet was also a major and early recipient of British Hurricanes, receiving those flown by No. 151 Wing of the RAF, which operated briefly from Soviet airfields near Murmansk. As early as October 12, 1941, the Soviet 126th Fighter Air Regiment was operating with Tomahawks bought from the United States by Britain. Tomahawks also served in defense of the Doroga Zhizni or "Road of Life" across the ice of Lake Ladoga, which provided the only supply line to the besieged city of Leningrad during the winter of 1941–42. By spring and summer of 1942 the Hurricane had clearly become the principal fighter aircraft of the Northern Fleet's air regiments; in all, 83 out of its 109 fighters were of foreign origin.

British and Commonwealth deliveries to the Soviet Union in late 1941 and early 1942 would not only assist in the Soviet defense of Moscow and subsequent counteroffensive, but also in increasing Soviet production for the next period of the war. Substantial quantities of machine tools and raw materials, such as aluminum and rubber, were supplied to help Soviet industry back on its feet: 312 metal-cutting machine tools were delivered by convoy PQ-12 alone, arriving in March 1942, along with a range of other items for Soviet factories such as machine presses and compressors.

Once again, raw figures do not tell the whole story. Although British shipments amounted to only a few percent of Soviet domestic production of machine tools, the Soviet Union could request specific items which it may not have been able to produce for itself. Additionally, many of the British tools arrived in early 1942, when Soviet tool production was still very low, resulting in a disproportionate impact. The handing over of forty imported machine tools to Aviation Factory No. 150 in July 1942, for example, was the critical factor in enabling the factory to reach projected capacity within two months.

Lend-Lease aid did not "save" the Soviet Union from defeat during the Battle of Moscow. But the speed at which Britain in particular was willing and able to provide aid to the Soviet Union, and at which the Soviet Union was able to put foreign equipment into frontline use, is still an underappreciated part of this story. During the bitter fighting of the winter of 1941–1942, British aid made a crucial difference.

Did Russia Really Go It Alone? How Lend-Lease Helped the Soviets Defeat the Germans

The British needed to protect their country, the Empire worldwide and still helped the Soviets. Certainly all this material would have been much useful in Africa and the Pacific, specially in Africa if the Germans in a out of reality scenario didn't attacked the USSR. According to the statistic of imported tanks in the Red Army above, transfering all them to Africa there would be +2000 tanks plus the ones Britain already had in Africa by mid 1942. I higly doubt about the capabilities of the Germans to bring a comparable armor force to that theater even if they wanted to focus in it.

Stalin murdered millions and the murders accelerated during WWII. It's safe to say he had plenty of enemies. All we need is for someone of importance such as Marshal Zhukov to allow his hatred of Stalin to dictate his actions.

I remember that about 4,000,000 tons of materiel were delivered by the North Atlantic convoys to the USSR but can't remember where I read that. Someone may have a more accurate figure (and source!).
We didn't always pass on the best materiel,at least as perceived by the Russians. I have copies of telegrams from our national archives from June 1943 in which the "British Military Mission Moscow" informs the War Office

"Russians furious that they are not getting new Spitfires. They consider that excuse for giving them part worn Hurricanes cannot apply to Spitfires"

The Air Ministry replied two days later. There is a somewhat exasperated tone to the telegram which concludes.

"In supplying aircraft to our own units no distinction is made between those that are new and those that are reconditioned and we cannot modify this system in favour of the Russians.
Reconditioned aircraft have as full a service life as new aircraft.
Out of 150 Spitfires shipped to Russia 90 were new and the remaining 60 reconditioned"

That told them!

I have to say that these Spitfires,taking a different route via Iran look very far from new!



Cheers
Steve

davebender said:

Stalin murdered millions and the murders accelerated during WWII. It's safe to say he had plenty of enemies. All we need is for someone of importance such as Marshal Zhukov to allow his hatred of Stalin to dictate his actions.

Click to expand...

Fine, remove Stalin from power, then what to do next? The Germans would only accept peace if they have all the rich regions of the country, because they need them to fight the West. And in fact, they have already captured most of them. If Stalin was removed from power, I can only see further cooperation with the Western Allies, because it would be economical suicide for Russia try to survive without it's rich regions. I can see this government promptly accepting the Anglo-American proposal to station air force units in Russia by 1943, and if such coup'déat get rid of Communism, I can see even further cooperation.

davebender said:

Stalin murdered millions and the murders accelerated during WWII. It's safe to say he had plenty of enemies. All we need is for someone of importance such as Marshal Zhukov to allow his hatred of Stalin to dictate his actions.

Click to expand...

They had their chance to get rid of Stalin in the period following the German invasion and missed it. There was no organised opposition and those who might have had reason to act seemed paralysed. The reasons for that are a different topic altogether! I'm not sure anyone really knows what was going on in the Politburo at that time.
Getting rid of Stalin would not have removed the Soviet system.
Cheers
Steve

stona said:

There was no organised opposition

Click to expand...

This sounds like a paradox.

Jenisch said:

This sounds like a paradox.

Click to expand...

Very good Jenisch

My point is that dissenting voices are muted in a state as viciously repressive as the Stalinist USSR. The Red Army had been well and truly purged and was hardly likely to form the basis of any opposition. The slightest hint of disloyalty would have resulted in heads,and lots of them,rolling. Every unit had its political officers.
Whilst Stalin himself prevaricated after the German invasion,famously retiring to his dacha,members of the Politburo,the only people who could have acted against him,themselves seem to have entered a sort of indecisive stupor.
Cheers
Steve

stona said:

The Red Army had been well and truly purged and was hardly likely to form the basis of any opposition

Click to expand...

Well, they didn't formed even for the Germans an organized position initially. However they certainly started to bleed them dry at an enormous cost.

BTW Stona, the famous retirement of Stalin for his dacha don't has something to do with the Kwantung Army forming up in Manchuria?

Anyway, Roosevelt's hard line against the Japanese is another demonstration of the mutual help the Allies had. Roosevelt not only had it's and British interests in the Pacific and China to defend, but also was logically very interested in avoid a Japanese attack in the USSR, which had Japan taken the European colonies in the Pacific, would probably rapidely unfold. WWII was a really global conflict were all was interconnected.

Jenisch said:

Roosevelt not only had it's and British interests in the Pacific and China to defend,

Click to expand...

Roosevelt only had British interests in mind whilst they coincided with his own US interests. Towards the end of the war senior US officers referred to South East Asia Command,SEAC,as "Save England's Asian Colonies",something they had no intention of doing. A bit uncharitable but fair enough.
The various allies under Mountbatten in SEAC actually had very different priorities. The Mountbatten archives at Broadlands has some revealing letters demonstrating just how hard Mountbatten worked to keep everyone working towards common,acceptable,objectives.
Cheers
Steve

I expressed myself incorrectly Stona. What I wanted to mean is that Japanese agression in the Pacific would reduce the British and American capabilities against Hitler, while Japanese agression in the USSR would put even more pressure on it. Both were undesirable.

With the Japanese even let them take the colonies would not work. They would take the colonies and attack the USSR after, as we can see here:

On 6 March 1943, Ōshima delivered Ribbentrop the following official statement from the Japanese government:


"The Japanese Government absolutely recognize the danger which threatens from Russia and completely understand the desire of their German ally that Japan on her part will also enter the war against Russia. However, it is not possible for the Japanese Government, considering the present war situation, to enter into the war. They are rather of the conviction that it would be in the common interest not to start the war against Russia now. On the other hand, the Japanese Government would never disregard the Russian question".[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshi_Ōshima

I see nowhere in that reply any hint of a promise to attack Russia later. It's just standard diplomatic jargon for "we know you'd like our help, but we can do nothing. And we know Russia will be a problem in the future."

By March of 43, both Germany and Japan was on the slippery slope to defeat, and anyone with accurate, current, information in those countries knew it.

Anyway, it would be likely the Japanese would join with Hitler if they conquered the Pacific colonies with the Americans remaining passive. Chiang would be suffocated without Indochina to be supplied, and the Japanese would have rich resources and tremendous firepower to employ against him. There's little of what the Japanese would probably do after this. To go further: take the Lend-Lease off the Soviets and make it face more 4 million men and thousands of planes from a Japanese invasion in the Far East, together with the IJN hunting Soviet merchant vessels worldwide. Let's see if the Japanese would have "much less strategic importance" like the guy I was discussing says. Even the so called "secondary" fronts could decisively alter the balance of a global conflic if you disparage them.

tyrodtom said:

I see nowhere in that reply any hint of a promise to attack Russia later. It's just standard diplomatic jargon for "we know you'd like our help, but we can do nothing. And we know Russia will be a problem in the future."

By March of 43, both Germany and Japan was on the slippery slope to defeat, and anyone with accurate, current, information in those countries knew it.

Click to expand...

I agree.
Having said that Germany's declaration of war on the USA makes for interesting reading. Both the actual declaration and Hitler's racist and anti semetic rant in the Reichstag on the same day make interesting reading. I suspect that the Germans did expect Japan to declare war on the USSR to honour the tri-partite agreement of 1940 which features prominently in Germany (and Italy's) declarations of war on the USA,however unrealistic that might seem today.

Examples from the Reichstag speech.

"At one time, Europe was confined to the Greek isles, which had been reached by Nordic tribes, and where the flame first burned that slowly but steadily enlightened humanity. And when these Greeks fought against the invasion of the Persian conquerors, they did not just defend their own small homeland, which was Greece, but [also] that concept that is now Europe. And then [the spirit of] Europe shifted from Hellas to Rome. Roman thought and Roman statecraft combined with Greek spirit and Greek culture. An empire was created, the importance and creative power of which has never been matched, much less surpassed, even to this day. And when the Roman legions defended Italy in three terrible wars against the attack of Carthage from Africa, and finally battled to victory, in this case as well Rome fought not just for herself, but [also] for the Greco-Roman world that then encompassed Europe.

The next invasion against the home soil of this new culture of humanity came from the wide expanses of the East. A horrific storm of cultureless hordes from the center of Asia poured deep into the heart of the European continent, burning, ravaging and murdering as a true scourge of God. On the Catalaunian fields , Roman and Germanic men fought together for the first time [in 451] in a decisive battle of tremendous importance for a culture that had begun with the Greeks, passed on to the Romans, and then encompassed the Germanic peoples."

Complete racist gibberish!

On Roosevelt and the Jews.

"The circle of Jews around Roosevelt encouraged him in this. With Old Testament vindictiveness they regarded the United States as the instrument that they and he could use to prepare a second Purim [slaughter of enemies] against the nations of Europe, which were increasingly anti-Jewish. So it was that the Jews, in all of their satanic baseness, gathered around this man, and he relied on them."

"That he calls me a gangster is particularly meaningless, since this term did not originate in Europe, where such characters are uncommon, but in America. And aside from that, I simply cannot feel insulted by Mr. Roosevelt because I regard him, like his predecessor Woodrow Wilson, as mentally unsound [geisteskrank]."

There's nothing to be said about this sort of nonsense. It would be like an evolutionary scientist arguing with a creationist,a complete waste of time.

Cheers
Steve

I wanted to mean that Japan would take the European colonies, not attack the USA and likely attack the USSR if wasn't for Roosevelt's hard line.

So in your estimate, there would have been no Pacific war if the US had just let the Japanese take all they wanted, where ever, they wanted it.
At some point this would have interfered with the survival of australia and New Zealand, and something would have to be done.

One thing history teaches us is it's usually better to stop aggression in it's early stages, than wait until it's reached a lot of it's goals, and then take it on.

Yes,and US interests in the Pacific were always going to be compromised by Japan's putative and growing East Asian Empire. The Japanese were obviously well aware of this.
Australia has all the resources which Japan does not. Never mind New Zealand (with apologies to any reading Kiwis ) what about India?
Cheers
Steve

tyrodtom said:

So in your estimate, there would have been no Pacific war if the US had just let the Japanese take all they wanted, where ever, they wanted it.
At some point this would have interfered with the survival of australia and New Zealand, and something would have to be done.

One thing history teaches us is it's usually better to stop aggression in it's early stages, than wait until it's reached a lot of it's goals, and then take it on.

Click to expand...

Certainly. I was making Stona's point: "The assistance was from West to East for a substantial period,not the other way around,another point often overlooked." The West containing Japan was another example of it's "assistance" to the Soviets. Factors such as this that turn claims the Soviet Union was above the other Allies in WWII BS.