1

Why did the Allies share Ultra intel with the Soviets about the imminent Battle of Kursk, and why did the US support the USSR through "Lend Lease".

I understand that at the time it wasn't very clear that the Soviets would be 'victorious', however given that the Allies were already considering the post-war situation, wouldn't it have been in the Allied interest if other allied nations were supported more, or the USSR was even denied intel, since then post war the allies would have gained more territory throughout mainland Europe, and at the most extreme case, would have invaded Russia to displace the Nazis? Would more resources given to the UK, Netherlands, even be helpful at all? Could the Iberian's have been bribed through economically to join the war?

closed as primarily opinion-based by Alex, SJuan76, SleepingGod, DevSolar, EvanM Jun 7 '17 at 19:38

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    Please cite all assertions. – Mark C. Wallace Jun 7 '17 at 16:00
  • 1
    The USA and USSR were allies during the war so they shared intel? – SleepingGod Jun 7 '17 at 17:27
  • 3
    There is a proverb that WWII was won by American industry, British courage, and Soviet blood. A gross oversimplification, like all similar sayings, but the Americans found it effective to spend their money to make the Soviet soldiers more effective. – o.m. Jun 7 '17 at 17:54
  • 2
    @vpekar, I said it was a gross oversimplification. Among the Allies, the Americans provided an over-average share of the industrial production, and the Soviets provided an over-average share of the casualties. Of course much of that was because the Soviet leadership was inept, and because the Americans happened to live out of bomber range. – o.m. Jun 8 '17 at 5:00
  • 1
    if i could, i would vote to unhold this question :D – ncomputers Jun 9 '17 at 2:36
6

FDR had a deep concern that Stalin would make a separate peace with Hitler. That was his motivation in pushing an unconditional surrender agreement among the Allies. For his part, Stalin demanded a second front effort from his partners in the war. Operation Torch in North Africa was the best the unprepared U.S. could muster. The Soviets continued to do the heavy lifting against the Nazis. After Stalingrad perhaps even Hitler recognized that the war was lost to him. But there was much heavy fighting before this happened. So, succinctly, FDR wanted (needed) Stalin to pay the big end of the price of victory. Meanwhile the Allies provided Stalin with material and other assistance to keep him in the battle.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.