How did the Soviets manage to keep fricking up so bad at the offensive phase of WW2 where they had every advantage?
And how did they actually manage to win in the end with this level of incompetence?
Even with the huge material and manpower disadvantage the Germans faced for the whole war, the more I look into Russian history of incompetence the more I see that victory actually wasn't *that* far away for the Germans...
Or maybe the Nazis were just allowed to control the narrative in the West because they told the fledgeling NATO just what they wanted to hear, that Soviet Union the new big bad is super incompetent? Just like the Nazis are doing the same in Ukraine now
i think we need to genocide the 3rd world and western commies there is no other way
this is the worst shit ive read on here in a while, and with the flood of russian shill newbies since the war began that's actually saying something. Contrarianism should be punishable by lobotomy holy shit
>Just like the Nazis are doing the same in Ukraine now
Look Ivan, no amount of cope about "propaganda" is going to change the fact that Kiev is still not occupied by Russia despite it being a stone toss away from the Belarusian (Russian vassal) border.
That's why they came up with the holocaust, to pin it on the Soviets
Oh wait.
lend lease (almost entirely) came after 1941, and in hindsight that means there was no hope for german victory anyway. the only path to victory is destroying the red army in 1941 and they couldn't do it. lend lease only sped the war up considerably and allowed the soviets to advance across europe instead of maybe stalling out at 1939 borders in 1948.
khruschchev quote mentions nothing about lend lease. it talks about a one on one war and its true the soviets would've lost that.
zhukov quote was later retracted because it was misconstrued. he obviously meant that it helped immensely compared to the soviet narrative at the time that it was negligable. he did not mean to say that it "won the war".
lend lease did not win a war. it sped up a war.
for a modern example, western aid has won the war in ukraine. it halted the advance and made offensive actions possible. on the eastern front though the advance had halted already, and meager counteroffensives comparable to one like kherson had been undertaken before the immense aid arrived.
i don't know where this myth came from or why its so popular here but i feel like i have to say this. do some research yourself, read glantz. idk. go and see how much lend lease the uk got and how clueless they were before torch. and before anyone brings up food or logistics trucks.. they would find a way. maybe 10 million would starve, maybe they would employ penal caravans. whatever the answer is it doesn't matter. 1941 had passed and the germans ran out of time
if you want to talk about incompetence in ww2 you should look to the uk. one of the only real cases in modern history of a victor writing the history. insane how they squandered all of this. but they cracked the code!! i guess
>1 ruble added to your account
>ALERT Shekelstien Bank denied this transaction due to: Sanctions lol
i know its easy to look at a lot of big numbers and watch stalingrad and just base your eastern front knowledge off of that but its actually a lot more complex! like i said read glantz change your mind or don't its worth it
>i don't know where this myth came from or why its so popular here but i feel like i have to say this. do some research yourself, read glantz. idk.
Human beings are barely evolved primates engaged in high-school cafeteria-tier politics and superpower chestbeating (or rapidly-being-downgraded regional power chestbeating in the case of modern Russia). People join a camp and everything down to the candy they eat is superior to the other camp. If you're in the Russia camp, you did it all on your own. Forget Lend-Lease. Normandy? What's that? If you're in the U.S/Western camp, then it was all thanks to Uncle Sam Express.
>just fricking ignore reality bro
>they ALL contributed bro
>all sides did their part bro
no. the soviets were carried.
>came after 1941
nah, OFFICIALLY lend-lease did but allied help was pretty consistent throughout. Not to mention, the soviets WERE getting their cheeks absolutely clapped in 1941 so your argument is basically "thr soviets finally turned their shit around when lend lease arrived"
>If you're in the U.S/Western camp, then it was all thanks to Uncle Sam Express.
I'm American, and it's my belief that the British won WWII. The Battle of Britain crippled the Luftwaffe and by managing to hang onto their country they secured the platform from which the strategic bombing of Germany and the eventual invasion of Europe were possible, and by surviving they were also able to continue development of multiple war-affecting technologies like radar, encryption breaking, aircraft radio navigation, and major contributions to the atomic bomb.
>British won WWII. The Battle of Britain
All (as in 100%) of the RAF/RNs avgas used during WW2 came from the US. LL is usually brought up in relation to the USSR and sometimes China, but the UK was far more reliant on it than they were.
Oh yeah, they obviously had a lot of support, iirc they would've had serious food issues during the BoB without us too. I still think what happened there was the MVP Play of the Game though and the war genuinely may not have been winnable without it.
>lend lease (almost entirely) came after 1941
>soviet union invaded in 1941
why would they send lend-lease to a country that was allied with germany in 1940?
Germany had 6 months to fight USSR with very little lend lease, they were by far Germany's best 6 months of the whole eastern front, but they weren't enough. Simple.
Yore forgetting that Stalin basically committed almost all of his Far East and Siberian forces to initiate the counteroffensive around Moscow. The Soviets barely pushed the frontlines back less than 150 miles from Moscow and proceeded to lose over 1.5 million men in Rzhev trying to destroy that salient WHILE they received a lot of aid. If the US hadn't given millions of tons of aid I would guess the soviets would have taken much longer to rebuild logistical reserves to perform any kind of offensives again, and the operations in Rzhev likely would've stalled out sooner. The Russians halted the Germans without lend lease, but beating the Nazis all the way back into Germany was only possible with lend lease.
>before anyone brings up food or logistics trucks.. they would find a way.
This is the dumbest thing I've read all week.
>lend lease (almost entirely) came after 1941
There were pre lend-lease shipments that soviets have to be forever grateful to the British for.
Don't forget all their copper for any and all electric wiring. There's no soviet weapon that didn't have lend-leased components in it during ww2.
>and before anyone brings up food or logistics trucks.. they would find a way
"They'd just uhh.... Find a way, trust me bro"
It is absolutely beyond words how much of a miracle American WW2 industry was
>won the Pacific War by outproducing Japan
>won the Western Front by outproducing Germany
>won the Eastern Front by outproducing Germany AGAIN and giving it all to the Soviets
Staggering
>It is absolutely beyond words how much of a miracle American WW2 industry was
I mean they were already the the best in the world before the war, then any country that could possibly compete had their industry bombed to dust. No wonder they did so well.
I think this is why I worry about our capacity to wage a major conflict like this again especially if it is with China. While their goods and factories are kind of shit, they are more than capable to produce quality evidenced by the Norinco products that came to the States in the late 80's and early 90's. My only hope China wouldn't be able to outproduce us by them lacking the ability to import the raw materials they need.
Low quality electronics make cyberwarfare impossible, but low quality engines don't make mechanized warfare impossible
Germans fricked up on the strategic level. Whole failure of the Case Blue cemented the war. They could've at least try to dig in and hold down along Dieper-Daugava line after but without oil they were fricked anyway.
On the tactic level Soviets were no match tough.
*were no match for them
Sorry.
No worries anon I got what you meant
Victory was as simple as not attacking the allies first
if Germany had intervened on Finland's behalf in the winter war they would likely have both caught the soviets off guard literally right as a huge portion of their army was dying in Finland and prevented them being reinforced via lend-lease
Either I'm misunderstanding something here or you got your timeline mixed up. By the time of the Winter War, Germany was well past "attacking the allies first", they already conquered France
Or do you mean they never should've invaded Poland? Or at least kept the Phoney War Phoney?
>Or do you mean they never should've invaded Poland?
this one I guess, My premise is that if Hitler had kept the allies out of the war and made it all about the Soviet Union then the Allies would not have helped the Soviets and this would have allowed the Germans to win (against the Soviets)
The Soviets only attacked Finland as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Winter War was only possible after the invasion of Poland which would mean that France and the UK are already in the war.
I'm sure there are a lot of "what if" scenarios pitting pre-war Germany and the USSR against each other. I don't fancy Germany's chances in that but there's a lot of variables
Mostly I personally find it a bit silly to think about scenarios like that because it's ascribing a level of Realpolitik to Hitler that he simply did not possess. "What if we never got the Allies involved?" sounds like something fun I would try in Hearts of Iron
Yeah he'd have to invade the Soviets directly in a War of Aggression, or maybe declare he wants to protect the Polish people from them (lel)
I was thinking something more like a false flag on the new Nazi/Soviet (formerly Polish) border myself
>Nazi/Soviet (formerly Polish) border
I'm not politically versed enough to know if it was possible to still prevent an actual war happening without giving Poland back, cause the Allies were already technically in a state of war with Germany over that invasion. But I'm sure someone can judge that
I doubt giving poland back would have changed the allied attitude at all. Even if the germans would have given everything back after the fall of france I don't think it would have mattered.
The Allies attacked over Poland because Hitler already betrayed them over Czechoslovakia; he promised at Munich that the sudetenland was his goal and then ate all of it anyways.
>Victory was as simple as not attacking the allies first
France and Britain declared war on Germany. Not the other way round.
some things don't change
Oh man you're gonna have a blast reading about the battle of Berlin then(i reccomend Beevor's book on the subject)
Basically the entire battle was a clusterfrick of truly epic proportion, with commanders of huge bodies of men having zero communication with each other and everyone constantly trying to undermine everyone else, even going so fat as to order artillery and airstrikes on friendly units just to make rival commanders look bad.
And the conduct of the troops following behind was nothing short of monstrous, I'll be the first tone to say that the germans shouldn't have been treated with kiddy gloves but the sheer amount of rape is near incomprehensible
>And the conduct of the troops following behind was nothing short of monstrous
You've clearly never read about the Albigensian Crusade then...
It's okay, God will recognize his own
If I remember right the Russian soldiers raided a maternity ward and raped all of the women in pre-labor, active labor, and new mothers as well as some of the newborns
>le average russian wednesday
>2nd SHOCK army
>How did the Soviets manage to keep fricking up so bad
They're stupid af.
>And how did they actually manage to win
They were too stupid to know they'd lost. Read up on the Punic wars, that was how the Romans won as well.
>Be Rome, First Punic War
>Build fleet
>Lose fleet in a storm
>Build another fleet
>Lose fleet in battle
>Build another fleet
>Lose fleet in battle
>Build another
>Lose fleet in battle
>Build another
>Win battle
>Win war
>Be Rome, 2nd Punic War
>Raise army
>Lose army in battle
>Raise army
>Lose army in battle
>Raise army
>Lose army in battle
>Raise army
>Lose army in battle
>Raise army
>Run away from battle
>.... (years pass)
>Enemy starves
>Win war
cope more, nassim taleb. Scipio went and conquered Iberia out from under Hannibal's nose, intervened in a Numidian power dispute and took Carthage's major ally under Rome's influence, threatened the city of Carthage itself and beat Hannibal in a decisive battle.
Still everyone knows about Hanibal, and only history nerds have ever heard of Scipio.
Wait hannibal fought against the Roman's too? Man that's crazy, I only know about him from the silence of the lambs. Thought he'd be younger.
Nobody tell anon about the elephants!!
>we've finally beaten the Romans!
>now we'll expect an envoy to discuss peace, which lands we'll be annexing and tax rates on roman territory
>we look forward to working with our new subjects......wait
>they raised another army didn't they
>FVCK
If the Romans were good at one thing it was not giving up.
Not giving up, or just not doing what the norm was at the time.
>well guess we're a client kingdom now
>the war is over
>but the second we don't like the deal we're getting or the second we can raise a new army we'll be revolting asap
Vs
>build an entire navy
>it sinks
>well we already built one soooo
>build another and sail it to war
>How did the Soviets manage to keep fricking up so bad at the offensive phase of WW2 where they had every advantage?
Their doctrine was pretty awful because it was (and still is) inflexible. Large scale plans are made and then try to follow them to the letter regardless of the situation at the front.
Kursk is a pretty clear cut example where poor communication and refusal to adapt to the circumstances led to Army Group South pulling off a miracle and withdrawing just to continue fighting throughout Ukraine when by all accounts (and initial Soviet planning) should've resulted in the encirclement and destruction of the army group.
Russian command was always pretty rigid, but Zhukov really fricked up Soviet doctrine by cementing all the worst qualities of it and punishing lower level officers that showed initiative. This is why you need the equivalent of an O-3 to alter fire missions.
A big reason why Germany failed came down to the fact that they completely ill prepared to invade the Soviet Union. They lacked enough trains and trucks to sustain the increasingly long drives deeper and deeper into Soviet territory. The western front keep siphoning off badly needed material. The bombing campaign for example stripped away badly needed fighters from the eastern front. Barbarossa was lost before it even began.
>be experienced and capable commander
>get purged
>be trained and educated commander
>get purged
>be politically orthodox but ambitious commander
>get purged
>be brown-nosing Party loyalist whose only acumen is in smiling blankly, nodding, and enthusiastically agreeing
>also get purged
They had to build an entire experienced officer corps from scratch the hard way: trial by fire.
Stalin had most of the officer corps purged. A lot of handbooks were also burned so the Red Army was functioning on guesswork and propaganda.
Thankfully, they had land and manpower so Russia could stall long enough to get it's shit sorted out.
The USSR won. They defeated Germany in detail, ending in seizing Berlin and planting their flag on top the Reichstag. I keep asking anons to clarify this strange discrepancy and the only I response I get, if any, is “Lend-Lease”.
>They defeated Germany in detail
a defeat in detail means to destroy a larger force with a smaller force by engaging them one element at a time before they can concentrate their forces
this happened to the soviets multiple times in barbarossa and case blue
but the germans tended to be defeated in large setpiece battles where the soviets could bring their large mechanized forces into play and destroy german forces in a single go
>I keep asking anons to clarify this strange discrepancy and the only I response I get, if any, is “Lend-Lease”.
the large sweeping manevers of the soviets in 1944 were largely made possible due to lend-lease providing them with equipment that they were usually short on
the most obvious one being trucks, 1-in-3 soviet trucks were manufactured abroad
which is a staggering proportion of foreign made trucks to have, seeing as how the germans were complaining about being overly-reliant on looted trucks, which made up 10% of their truck fleet
in addition, lend-lease trucks were just flat out better than soviet trucks, the mainstay of the soviet truck fleet, the GAZ-MM, was listed as a reserve vehicle late in the war meaning that their lend-lease trucks were so effective that it effectively replaced several times their number in soviet trucks
less talked about ones are the shipment of raw explosives, soviets were critically short on HE filler due to their chemical industry getting tanked in the opening of barbarossa and despite having a lot of guns didnt nearly have enough shells for all of them, so the lend-leased explosives alleviated a critical shortfall, especially considering the soviets were prone to massing their guns for giant barrages
>Lend-Lease!!!
Okay. So why did Barbarossa fail?
the importance of lend-lease was literally explained
it filled some rather important holes in the soviet production pipeline
….why did Barbarossa fail? Are you telling me the tiny amount of aid which arrived in 1941 made the difference? I’m going to need an explanation.
>….why did Barbarossa fail? Are you telling me the tiny amount of aid which arrived in 1941 made the difference?
why do you keep bringing up barbarossa and 1941, when the original poster up there specifically mentions a flag on berlin, implying they mean the whole course of the war up until 1945
>I’m going to need an explanation.
trucks operate up to 200km from a railhead before they carry more fuel than cargo, horses only operate 50km
so the trucks would allow soviets to cover 4x as much ground on the attack before they need to recuperate, a massive boost
soviet chemical industry was badly mangled which was a millstone around their neck up until the end of the war considering their artillery relied on mass to overwhelm targets, the amount of HE delivered to the USSR was non-trivial since it enabled the core of their doctrine
Sigh. I asked about the discrepancy between Soviets being utterly incompetent and winning the war; I mentioned that the only response I get, if any, is "Lend-Lease".
You respond with "Lend-Lease"
In order to examine the notion that Lend-Lease was responsible the Soviets winning the war, I asked about the beginning of the war, Barbarossa, ie how did the Soviets win vs a fresh Germany with almost no Lend-Lease sent during that timeframe.
You said "Lend-Lease", apparently unaware that Barbarossa lasted 6 months.
To cover for your embarrassing error, you deflected back to "we were talking about Berlin frick Barbarossa".
You’ve effectively ceded that the Lend-Lease argument is dead, so the discussion is over. Unless you can show how Lend-Lease made the difference in 1941 and early 1942.
If you're not verys good at doing something but have endless ressources you will eventually win over someone who is decent but operating on a shoestring budget.
And make no mistake, the Germans were barely decent at an operational level. Most of the time, there were some exceptions.
>To cover for your embarrassing error, you deflected back to "we were talking about Berlin frick Barbarossa".
>mentions events that take place at the end of the war
>insist on talking about the early war exclusively
For starters, without Lend-Lease, in 1943 Stalin had roughly enough fuel to power either his tanks or the tractors needed to prevent a famine... but not both. There also would have been a massive shortage of explosives and propellant, as evidenced by the big shift early in the war to mortars over artillery (mortars use less steel and propellant). The US supplied a massive amount of not just explosives and propellant, but also large volumes of the precursor chemicals used to make them in Russian chemical plants.
If Russia is reduced to WWI capabilities in 1943, how well do things go?
Lend Lease didn't supply that much fuel to the USSR relative to their production except in high octane gasoline which was about 2/3rds of the Soviet total during the war.
>If Russia is reduced to WWI capabilities in 1943, how well do things go?
The Red Army was basically a WW1 army after August 1941, and remained so until the Manchurian Operation.
250,000 motor vehicles for a 12,000,000 strong army is about the ratio the Brits had in 1918. Their artillery was worse as well.
up until the end of the war, the soviets were the least mechanized army per capita in europe
and only because italy caesed to exist as a combatant after 1943
despite increasing production several times during the war and accepting at least 200k studebakers, their army was simply growing faster than their trucks were growing
though they tried their best to make the most of the motorization they had by concentrating their studebaker trucks into their motor rifles and mechanized units to give their strongest forces the most mobility and leaving their brokeass GAZ-MMs for less important units
Germans stretched out their logistic lines, insured heavy casualties, arguments between the field commanders and those in Berlin, and pissed off the native population leading to partisans and sabotage.
Having to fill in a massive battle line with allies who suffered even worse supply problems, and lacked motivation was the cherry on top.
barbarosa reached almost exactly as far as predicted by the OKH's logisticians..They got as far as their supplies could get them.
The Soviet counteroffensives were possible due to lend-lease tanks, planes, trucks, engines, explosives, fuel and everything you care to name that a military needs to advance.
>the tiny amount of aid which arrived in 1941
You mean hundreds of thousands of tons of supplies and a tenth of the Soviet Air Force?
The German logistical train couldn't deliver sufficient supplies fast enough to keep the German army in fighting shape, allowing the Red Army to stabilize the front despite their extreme losses. Subsequent German attempts to defeat the Soviet Union in 1942 and 1943 failed for similar reasons: at Stalingrad they were unable to engage in mechanized warfare due to tank, fuel, and parts shortages and at Kursk they fought until they ran out of bullets and then retreated.
There are also things like practically all teh boots teh Red Army wore, all teh food teh Red Army ate (or all teh food the rest of teh Soviet Union ate for a year), all the locomotives, train cars, actual rails to replace worn out ones, all teh aviation fuel, all teh aluminum to make all teh aero and tank engines, literally thousands of planes and tanks, an entire oil refinery, oil drillling equipment, machine tools and heavy machinery like cranes (which were still in operation in the 90s), and so on and so forth.
pic vaguely related. When Stalin, Khrushchev and Zhukov agree on the importnace of Lend-Lease materiel, it was probably an important part of the Soviet victory.
The other part is the Hitler fired all his competent generals and only kept those who would agree with everything he said, even when tehy knew it was idiocy.
>all the locomotives, train cars, actual rails to replace worn out ones
this is probably the one questionable thing about lend-lease
while 2000 rail cars made up 97% of all soviet production during the war, it paled in comparison to the 500,000 rail stock they had existing from before the war
they probably sent it because shipping space is valuable, and a rail car they only sorta need is better than nothing at all
but if they could have replaced those rail cars with extra trucks or extra half-tracks, they would have
How much of that was in German hands`Do we even have a vague idea of how much they captured?
Anyway, the important part here is centralization and focus. The USSR could shift their production of heavy machinery to just one thing: Tanks. They did not need to build cranes, tractors, locomotives, diggers, etc.
Instead they had two gigantic factory complexes taht built tanks by tens of thousands. All the machinery they needed beyond this came by boat from Uncle Sam.
And no, tehy didn't just put in something. Everysthing that was sent was sent on explicit order from teh Soviets. They handed over lists to teh State Department, literally like writing letters to Santa Claus.
And Roosevelt rubberstamped everything, the Soviets even got to decide what was to be sent where, when and how.
2000 locomotives. Not cars.
>Hitler fired all his competent generals
midwit meme, literally never happened. also your book quote isn't talking about only lend lease
who the frick cares about the logisticians? certainly not the germans. the actual plan was to knock out the red army and mop up at the turn of the year and it didn't happen and after that victory became impossible.
the winter counteroffensives are irrelevant and arguably drained the soviets more than it helped them that year anyway.
yes anon what happens at the start impacts what happens at the end. good job!
>yes anon what happens at the start impacts what happens at the end. good job!
>but let me insist on focusing solely on that instead of the entire course of the war
>your book quote isn't talking about only lend lease
No, that is just what Zhukov said directly, see the 2nd post in this very thread.
>who the frick cares about the logisticians? certainly not the germans
Their actually trained and thinking officers did, but then got overruled by Hitler or officers who listened only to Hitler, starting in the winter of 1941.
>the actual plan was to knock out the red army and mop up at the turn of the year and it didn't happen
This is omething lots of people get wrong.
By any metric you care to use, the Red Army that existed in June of '41 was knocked out .
The Soviets did have the space and time and strategic thinking to use those to actually mobilize to a in-fricking-believable degree.
It is certainly correct that winter '41 and most of spring and summer of '42 were a continous desaster for the Soviets because they did not use their time to actually prepare, but focused on action before being ready. Tehy learned that lesson, and actions in '43 clearly show that they rigorously prepared their offensives to have a aufficient logistics backbone before ever moving forwards.
But: This is why teh answer to your question is 'lend-lease' The SOviets were only able to any and all of this due to lend-lease. This starts in winter '41 with British tanks and planes in the Battle of Moscow (this was not a curcial turning point or any such bullshit, the Germans were running out of ammo and food anyway, but it is still noteworthy)
Also, do not underestimate the sheer masses of men andmateriel the Soviets threw at t he Germans.It's an overused trope, but it is still essentially true.
>By any metric you care to use, the Red Army that existed in June of '41 was knocked out .
>The Soviets did have the space and time and strategic thinking to use those to actually mobilize to a in-fricking-believable degree.
the entire premise of the war from the german perspective was in fantasyland. this is my whole point, there was a short time where, if everything went right, they could've destroyed the original army and any ability to reconstitute itself in the millions.
that time had passed by the time lend lease arrived in impactful numbers. therefore, germany was doomed lend lease or not. this is a different soviet victory, though. one of survival, not massive european conquest.
i don't contest the fact that the offensive capability was possible only through lend lease. really my problem is more with the idea that germany could've done enough early enough to collapse the soviets. this just isn't realistically possible.
>Also, do not underestimate the sheer masses of men andmateriel the Soviets threw at t he Germans.It's an overused trope, but it is still essentially true.
in this world it would be more true. there would be 10 more rzhevs, human wave instead of deep battle and so on.
>reconstitute itself
With what?
And Germans were fighting Soviets only. And that fight happened in vacuum as no other party gave any aid to either beligerent.
The USSR could take the loses, and come back for more. The Germans could not.
Once the Germans lost the imitative and got put on the defensive, it was all over for them. Without the help of their allies, the Russians would have taken until 1948-49 to win the war, but a win is a win.
The Soviet strategy for the last two years of the war was to send the bulk of their forces to overwhelm parts of the German line that were undermanned. The Germans would get pushed back and then their flanks would have to either fall back or else get cut off.
Based Genius Hitler made this easy for them by sending most of Germany's manpower to protect the Baltics in the north and Hungary/Romania in the south, which was the absolute best case scenario for the Soviets, as they were able to march right through to Berlin without having to deal with the Wehrmacht's best troops, who were wasting their time in Budapest and Estonia.
It doesn’t matter. By August 1944 the Germans were retreating in every theater, were having hundreds of tons of bombs dropped on their factories and cities every day, the Luftwaffe was kaput, and German industry was tapped out.
Purely tactical victories as in this case and many others in the East, France, and Italy made no difference. No victory they could conceivably win would undo the damage done- demographically and economically. German victory was impossible in WW2.
>170,000 casualties
>Among a force of 136,000
>Over 16 days
I am doubtful whatever source is used is accurate and reliable
It's called having reinforcements.
>NOOOO YOU CAN'T LOOK INTO SOURCES
Ignoring the fact that it's only 16 days and the initial force suffered 125% casualties different sources are used for the initial numbers and the total casualties, with the latter being a random fricking Estonian book. But no lets not investigate sources because it fuels your moronic politicization of history.
In many cases it is because they simply know Germany was losing and wanted to lay claim to as much ground as possible resulting in reckless rushes at times from over ambitious generals.
All these years and people still don't get Lend-Lease. It was a bribe. Stalin wasn't interested in fighting Germany, he had other plans. The allies had to bribe him to prevent him from signing a peace treaty with the Germans. From december 1941 to september 1943 the German and Soviet embassies in Bulgaria were in constant communication with each other and were very close to signing a peace treaty.
How long would the Soviets have taken to get to Berlin without lend lease? They would have stopped the German advancement by around the same time, but would they have gotten to Germany by 1945 still?
No. The Soviets would have had to win the war by waiting for the Germans to starve themselves out. A Red Army without Lend Lease is incapable of offensive operations, meaning all they could do is dig trenches and force the Germans to bleed until they give up and go home
That was what the Allies wanted in the first place.
Having the Soviets and Germans bleed themselves out in a WW1 style conflict.