> Would the USSR have won against Germany if the US was not involved? It's impossible to say for sure, but in my opinion, probably not. 1/3 of the trucks in th

> Would the USSR have won against Germany if the US was not involved? It's impossible to say for sure, but in my opinion, probably not. 1/3 of the trucks in the Red Army were built in America and supplied via lend lease, as were 1/3 of the aircraft in the Soviet Air Force. The trucks, in particular, were of significantly higher quality than native Soviet trucks. The US only provided something like 10% of the fuel used by the USSR during the war, but the fuel it did provide was of significantly higher quality. The USSR had no native production of high octane aviation fuel. All of the high quality fuel was provided by the US. Most (90%) of the tanks and guns were built in the USSR, but much of the tanks that were built were built from US raw materials. The USSR was especially poor in aluminum. Many people (myself included) are of the opinion that wars are primarily won by logistics-- by having the right people in the right place at the right time with the right stuff. If lend-lease didn't supply the USSR, they wouldn't have had the trucks for rapid mobility, they wouldn't have had the aircraft to contest the Luftwaffe, they wouldn't have had the logistic capability for an offensive war. Could they have forced a WWI Western front style stalemate? Maybe. Hard to say. > And what if the US joined the Axis powers in the war? The Axis+US definitely win. Guaranteed. Germany fights a one front war against the USSR, the USSR fights a two front war against Germany in the West and the US in the East. Lots of people have speculated that if the USSR was not able to relocate the forces guarding the East against Japan that the USSR loses the Battle of Moscow. If those Eastern divisions were required to stay in the East to fight against the US, and were additionally diverting resources that would otherwise be used to replace losses against Germany, Germany would probably have taken Moscow. US naval power by the end of '43 is enough that Britain probably loses command of the sea. Instead of Britain blockading Germany, the US is probably blockading the UK. The blockade would be much more serious for the UK than it was for Germany. A major part of why Germany lost was that it didn't have enough fuel to fight a mobilized war. Even if the US did literally nothing other than divert lend-lease from providing material to the Allies to providing fuel and trucks to Germany instead, Germany probably wins the war without a single US boot on the ground. (getting that fuel from the US to Germany would require fighting through the aforementioned British blockade)