How accurate is it to say that Lend Lease programme was the most important reason Russia’s victory in the Second World War?

It can be argued that the main reason for Russia’s victory in the second war was due to the Lend lease programme as it provided Russia with mass amounts of equipment, food and transportation which therefore gave the soldiers energy and motivation to carry on in the gruelling war. However there are other significant factors which were crucial elements in Russia’s victory including the 5 year plan where Stalin tried to industrialise and also prepare Russia for war and Germany’s mistakes that helped Russia, above all doubts, win the war.
Undoubtedly, lend lease was a crucial element towards Russia’s victory in the Second World War. A main example of this is the importance ‘SPAM’ had in the survival of the soldiers. By 1943, approximately 17 percent of the calorie intake was supplied by the Americans and by the end of the war it is estimated that 12 million soldiers received about 200 grams of US food every day. Without this essential intake, not only would the soldiers not have enough energy to fight efficiently, but also many would not be able to survive on the small balance that Russia provided. As much as lend lease is overlooked in Russia’s victory, the fact that over 1900 out of the 2000 trains used by the Russians were provided by Americans presents the mass amount that they supplied for Russia. Trains are essential in war, firstly for transport of weapons and soldiers, yet also they are important for communication around Russia. Without these critical elements, Russia would not have been as successful in the way they dealt with each part of the war efficiently e.g when Germany invaded they moved workshops 1500km away to carry on their heavy industry work. Therefore a significant part of Russia’s victory was indeed the Lend lease programme as Russia were unlikely to have excelled in these areas and wouldn’t have been as advantageous in the years after 1941, helping them to win the war above all odds.
It is obvious however that Germany’s tactical mistakes also played a convincing role in the victory of Russia as if it wasn’t for the timing that Germany tried to invade and the sheer cockiness of their leader, Russia might have not been as lucky and then might have not been as successful in the war. Whilst Hitler thought he had every reason to feel confident against Russia after Germany’s hugely successful win in 1941 which was when they invaded leaving Russia vulnerable and unprepared, he then became over ambitious and his ability to guide the war effectively proved to be inadequate, leading to the downfall of Germany. As much as this can be put aside by stating instead of luck it was actually the skills and determination of the Russian soldiers that lead them to defeat to Germans, as operation Barbarossa was launched later than German strategists anticipated, the German army was unable to reach Mosco before the first snows of the winter. Consequently, Russia had the upper hand as they knew had to deal with these harsh conditions yet Germany found themselves unprepared and unable to fight effectively. Not only this but Hitler’s over confidence lead him to make a disastrous move in sending his troops to Stalingrad and Ukraine before conquering Leningrad or Moscow. Subsequently, he over stretched his army which left them unsuccessful to conquer Russia’s capital. Therefore, luck plays a powerful role in Russia’s win due to German tactical mistakes as without Germany prolonging the war giving time for Russia to prepare their armed forces, they may not have been able to defeat the Germans.
It can also be argued that Stalins 5 year plan prepared Russia humongously as their economic progress proved favourably against the Nazis. A significant reason for this is that the five year plans focused greatly on heavy industry and also war economy which prepared Russia massively for the war. It can be argued that if the five year plans didn’t occur, Russia’s industry would have been so far behind that they wouldn’t have stood a chance in surviving against the strong forces of Germany so therefore this played a critical role in the victory of Russia. Germany’s economy lacked direction which hampered the effective preparation of war yet the five year plans ensured that Russia’s targets stayed focused so that they had every chance of surviving, and winning the war. Russia spent 5 billion dollars on his military which represented only 20 percent of its national income whilst Germany spent 6 billion which was 44 percent of its national income. This proved the huge impact that the 5 year plans had on Russia, improving it economically. Before it, Russia was the most economically backward country in the world as it focused most of its time on agriculture rather than industry. The huge contrast between Russias economy, industry and war economy between 1928-1941 is momentous and shows that without this rapid change Russia have been in a much worse position against the Nazis and would have been very unprepared facing them.
Overall, as much as Germanys tactical mistakes and Lend lease played a symbolic role in the victory of Russia, if it wasn’t for the huge increase in industrialisation and their economy due to the five year plans, Russia would not have stood a chance against anyone, let alone Germany. Before the plans, Russia was economically backward, unstable, and would have been very unprepared for any war to take place. As much as the lend lease helped in getting mass amounts of food ensuring the energy and survival of the soldiers and provided the railways for easy transportations of military, the actual equipment and industry provided was of little significance to the Russians. Germany’s tactical mistakes also played a big role in the success of Russia however even with their mistakes, if it wasn’t for the five year plan Germany would have most likely still been able to defeat Russia. Subsequently, the most significant part in the victory of Russia was the five year plan.