Had it not been for America's participation, the Allies

Yes.

>>2190438
this

not necessarily in europe, but japan would have been rampant in the east.

western europe would have been fucked without the US. didn't stand a chance. USSR would've had it's way with the whole continent.

>>2190438
>europe finally unites
I'm okay with this outcome.

>>2190484
>USSR would've had it's way with the whole continent.
Not without the lend-lease.
Without the lend lease the nazis could have defeated the soviets and force britain to a peace agreement

>>2190484
this desu, albeit USSR would have a hard time against Germany without lend lease

File: Lend Lease to USSR dates.png (278KB, 3168x4094px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 3168x4094px

>>2190541

>I have no idea what I'm talking about, the post.


Lend Lease's primary effect in the East was after the German offensive stalled and the Soviets were trying to counterattack.

They weren't in a position to force Britain to a peace agreement. Sealion was an obvious farce, and they weren't capable of starving the island out.

http://jmss.org/jmss/index.php/jmss/article/view/236/251

File: mcnulty-o.gif (2MB, 320x214px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x214px

>>2190545
>i'm a drooling retard, the post
The counter offensive you're talking about still had to deal with case blue and Stalingrad and most importantly at Kursk. It's risky to say but without the lend lease i'd say the soviets would lose at Kursk

>>2190561
>The counter offensive you're talking about still had to deal with case blue and Stalingrad and most importantly at Kursk.

You didn't read the picture, did you?

2nd half, 1943. Case blue (which, by the way, is the German offensive, the Soviet counteroffensives were Uranus and Saturn), was in 1942.

>It's risky to say but without the lend lease i'd say the soviets would lose at Kursk

Based on what? Citadel failed to achieve its objectives, and failed to advance anything near the rate you'd need to cut off the salient. Worst case, Soviets can just pull back and regroup. And they probably won't have to, even if they can't launch a counteroffensive of their own.

>>2190484
>but japan would have been rampant in the east.
The Soviets would've fucked them up though

File: 1483642688255.jpg (1MB, 1557x1285px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1557x1285px

>>2190438
Yep.

i don't think this is the worst kind of thread on /his/ but it's certainly in the same ballpark

>>2190438
Without the Soviet Union's participation, the Allies would've surely lost WWII***

>>2191220
Not if they're still struggling with the Germans. Japan unopposed by the US would have taken over the pacific and been able to opn up another front against Russia. Who if they were still struggling with Germany would have a hard time fighting the Japanese navy.

>>2191220
The Soviets themselves didn't agree with that assessment.

>Although their victory and the subsequent negotiation of the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact secured the Far East for the duration of the Soviet-German War, the Red Army always remained cautious about the possibility of another, larger Japanese incursion as late as early 1944. In December 1943, when the American military mission proposed a logistics base be set up east of Lake Baikal, the Red Army authorities were according to Coox, "shocked by the idea and literally turned white."[74] Due to this caution, the Red Army kept a large force in the Far East even during the bleakest days of the war in Europe. For example, on July 1 1942, Soviet forces in the Far East consisted of 1,446,012 troops, 11,759 artillery pieces, 2,589 tanks and self-propelled guns, and 3,178 combat aircraft.[75] Despite this, the Soviet operations chief of the Far Eastern Front, General A. K. Kazakovtsev, was not confident in his army group's ability to stop an invasion if the Japanese committed to it (at least in 1941-1942), commenting: “If the Japanese enter the war on Hitler’s side… our cause is hopeless.”[76]

>>2190561
Lol you clearly have mental issues, soviets win the most important battle of the war 41 Mosocw WITHOUT ll.

Germany didn'T stand a chance in 42 or 43 the war in the east was already lost yes they won some battles but didn't make any strategical progress.

Muuuh Kursk and Stalingrad turning point < elementary school history level.

>>2190438
This is true. If the Japanese focused on fighting the Russians instead of starting a war with the U.S., the Axis could've won.

File: 50263.jpg (13KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 320x320px

Doesn't matter to us.

>>2191238
Only an absolute retard would think the wermacht was finished in the east after Barbarossa. Operation Mars is proof that the soviets couldn't launch an effective offensive against entrenched Germans. But please, go on and explain how to soviets would have fought their way from Moscow to Berlin without American ammunition, trucks and food.

>>2190438

The same goes for Britain and Russia.

>>2190438

Not true at all. Only reason U.S. joined is to keep Russia from taking all the white women.

There was literally no reason for U.S. to join the continental fight. Could've smoked Japan in the pacific and chilled at home dealing arms- like it did all along. But, we wanted those sweet blonde german whores to pound our little boipuccis for the next couple of decades.

Russians won WW2- like it or not. U.S. had no business there.

>>2191234
If the stupid nips wouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbor and instead invaded Russia all would be fine and dandy

>>2192499
Having thousands of fellow Americans KIA in Europe and 2bombwasntenoughland was well worth the Jap and Jerry pootan.

>>2192512
They got their asses kicked in 1939 though.

That was the entire reason they decided to attack Pearl Harbor.

They'd tried and lost against the reds, they figured the roundeyes would be an easier mark.

>>2190438
Germany would have signed an armistice most likely as the Eastern offensive grounded to a halt. Britain would be in ruins, Japan would be the dominant force in Asia, and the Soviet Union would be teetering on the edge as revolution an discontent at the high casualties engulfs it in a second civil war.

You can say the US didn't win singlehandedly, or even that it wasn't the biggest player (which would be true), but you can't say it's contributions weren't crucial to the war effort

>The Red Army was literally NOTHING without foreign aid
dumb revisionists

Russia could've carried that shit by themselves, let's be honest.

>>2192548
"no"

>>2190613
you said uranus
hehe

>>2192519
Are you talking about Khalkin Gol? Where the equivalent of two light infantry divisions, including the 23rd, one of the greenest in the IJA, was beaten by a fully mechanized lavishly equipped Soviet armored corps twice its size? Where the High Command was continually trying to deescalate the situation that had been started on the initiative of a division commander? Where despite the above, the dregs of the IJA still inflicted casualties of 1:1.5 in men, 1:1.5 losses in aircraft, 1:6 losses in tanks, and over 1:10 losses in other armored vehicles on the Red Army's best?

Because that wasn't a real attempt. Besides, it didn't stop them. They were still contemplating attacking the Soviets (Kantouken) well into 1941, and kept appropriate troops in Manchuria for the task (the full Kantouken plan would call for beefing them up). It was in that year that the Strike South faction of the military got more clout by arguing that the Dutch East Indies were just too delicious a target. So they proceeded to strike south.

>>2192548
see

>>2191222