>America defeated the Nazis

File: 50799ef1e5007317de7f96dba4b50e89.jpg (50KB, 557x711px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 557x711px

>>2259297
>Britain defeated the Nazis

>>2259525
>Battle of Britain
>North Africa
>Canadians in France
>ANZAC in France and Oceania
>British in Burma, Malaysia, Singapore
>RAF volunteer corps
>South Africans and Rhodesian Corps
The Commonwealth certainly did more than the fucking yanks.

>what is the act: Lend-Lease

>russia would've fallen without lend-lease
>america was winning against the nazis on 2 different fronts, plus winning the pacific theater
>america had the best tanks
>only country to field a semi-auto rifle for standard infantry use, then field another semi-auto carbine soon after
>had one of best subguns in the final stretch of the war
>had the M2
>germany's industry was shit because americans and brits bombed the ever loving shit out of it

usa #1 my guy

>>2260258
is this ironical post?

File: IMG_0393.jpg (168KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1024x1024px

>>2259297
>Soviet Union was better than Nazi Germany

>>2260267
I hope it is.

File: IMG_1435.jpg (153KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 2048x1536px

>>2260273
>Stalin and Mao were both worse than Hitler

>>2260286
Stalin certainly was

File: 1483463964827.png (7KB, 200x156px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 200x156px

>>2259297
>Hitler invaded Russia in winter

>>2260267
russia had no trucks, no fuel, and no guns

america and britain come in and suddenly they have all 3

you can't have glorious t-34 #1 best tank in world xaxaxa))))) without fuel or trucks to supply them with a new engine every time they fell out of the tank

britain was getting their shit pushed in in africa until patton came in and removed rommel from the picture

then they fought in italy and through france

the sherman is easily the most versatile tank of the war and there's a reason people have been using them for decades after the war

the only other country to actually succeed in making a functional and effective semi-auto infantry rifle was russia, with the SVT-40, and they couldn't arm every troop so most slavs had nuggets. meanwhile everyone had an M1 garand and the M1 carbine was also very common

the M3 grease gun, beretta model 38, PPS-43, and the PPSh-41 were pretty much the cream of the crop

the last two are self-explanatory

>>2260230
>British in Burma, Malaysia, Singapore
>Holding up the Malaysia Campaign and the fall of Singapore as an example of 'doing something'
Bongs are fucking delusional.

>>2260298
Said no one ever

File: winter.jpg (40KB, 395x469px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 395x469px

>>2260355
Two seconds to google, famalam.

>>2260318
>hurr durr trucks

What's with this meme that complete motorisation was a must for logistics when over 2/3rds of the wehrmacht relied on pack animals when barbarossa began?

File: 1484348291719.png (13KB, 339x318px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 339x318px

>>2260346
This. Except for winning the BoB and not being able to win against decisive victory against Rommel in africa (who was a meme and the DAK had no secure logistics) despite having naval superiority and a stable flow of supplies what did the Brits really do? Ah yes i forgot getting their teeth kicked in by the japs.

>>2259297
The actual argument is: Americas industry enabled the soviets to win and the fronts they opened massively accelerated the war. Also i would be delighted to see how the SU would have conquered Japan.

>indicators that lend and lease was crucial:

>allowed soviet industry to completely focus on wartime production
>focus on weapons production only was possible due to the shipment of logistical materials (that otherwise would have been produced domestically in a worse quality and massively reducing the production of shiny New t34s)
>shipments of ressources and machine parts allowed the quick and massive rearanging of the soviet industry according to wartime needs
>soviet logistics were dependent on lend and lease,large scale offensives wouldn't have been possible without the burgers (look at the ammount of trucks and trains delivered)
>L and l prevented widespread famine in the SU, when the Ukraine was captured 40%of soviet agricultural production was lost (and the situation wasn't ideal even in peacetime)
>40-50% of high aviation fuel needed for modern planes
>the weapons and planes most tankies try to use in their strawman arguments just were a nice little bonus

>Is it really a coincidence that the soviets began pushing back the germans when k and l really started to flow?
>Thought experiment:
The USA decide to support germany in 41. They negiotiate a ceasefire between GB and the Reich and send L and L to the germans. The same total ammount just catered to german needs. Do you really think the soviets would have won?

>>2260422
>meme
>completely ignoring the massive logistical problems the wehrmacht encountered
>ignoring the differences in soviet and german logistical organization
>conveniently ignoring trains
>ignoring the deep penetrating offensives the soviets suddenly were able to conduct with proper motorization

Yeah the hurr durr we don't need no trucks counteroffensives in 41 and 42 were wildly successfull.

>hurr durr Stalingrad

Oh surprise surprise, the encirclement there worked due to german overextension (which happened partly because of shitty logistics) and unreliable allies in crucial positions. Most other counteroffensives failed horribly and freed enough german troops to even conduct Fall Blau.

>>2260248
Overplayed and largely not employed until the war was won anyway.

>>2260445
Yes, but the meme goes that with no trucks the Soviets just instantly fucking collapse, when the Germans themselves managed to launch successful, deep penetrating offensives without them, nevermind continue fighting for 5 years.

>>2260425
>Do you really think the soviets would have won?

Yes. The Soviets weren't helpless. The war was over by 1942-1943. The only thing L&L did was speed up the end it didn't actually influence the outcome. The Germans could never have won.

>>2260422
you're right, the wehrmacht did rely on horses

do you know what happened to them? they got pushed from stalingrad to berlin

I mean sure, the horses also provided food in a pinch, but that also means one less horse

and after a point, you won't have very many horses left whereas you can make 30 trucks a day in one factory alone

a horse-reliant soviet army would be a horse-o-caust, anon

millions of horses to fit the millions of slavs dead

>>2260462
>americans don't enter war
>soviets still fighting japanese in china, stretching their forces thin into a two front war which the russians have already at this point proven they can't handle
>factories are being bombed only by the british who figure bombing in broad daylight is a great idea
>no combined USAAF/RAF stomping of luftwaffe on the western front
>british are being pushed back in africa so germany can concentrate most of their forces in the eastern front

the soviets were shit at war because stalin had purged his officers that were good and left the inept ass-kissers that ended up mostly shooting their own men

the only thing they had was a good(arguably) arms industry and the T-34(an american design lol)

>>2260490
>(an american design lol)
A Christie suspension does not make it an American design.

>>2260455
Thats the strawman actually.

Most people here who seriously stand on the point that L and L was crucial (including me as a raging wehraboo) expect a drawn out war of attrition where no side is able to conduct decisive offensives. Without Lend and lease the soviets aren't able to win this war due to areas they lost and the stuff they lack without lend and lease. Their industry would lack crucial ressources and would be forced to focus on several key areas (similiar to the german one) ibstead of churning out t34s, massively reducing the available war Material. The far bigger meme actually is the myth of the indestructable SU.

>>2260462
A prime example of this meme.

>1. The germans would have done the same things with more ressources.

>2. Hurr durr the soviets started really winning in 43 when l and l really started flowing but that is in no way related to lend and lease.

>3. After Stalingrad the war was decided essentially. Nah you are talking about Kursk (where lend and lease has reached its full impact).

>4. The massive offensives of 43, 44 and 45 were only possible due to lend and lease. In 44 there were still very solide defensive lines the soviets were only able to break through thanks to lend and lease.

>>2260499
correction, based off an american design

the BT-series of tanks, however, WERE basically the christie tank

then they took the same concepts and suspension of the BT-series tanks and made the T-34

>>2260490
Germany already was concentrating most of their forces in the East, and they were their most experienced soldiers. America can have the Pacific all they want, but I'm fucking tired of hearing the US had any real impact on the Eastern Front.

>the Soviets were shit at war
They had problems, especially at the start but they had the best land army on the planet from mid 1942 onwards.
You are learning history from propaganda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I98P1AxQRUM

>>2260455
Oh and i forgot.

German horse reliant logistics was shit but the german army was highly competent thus they were somehow able to Deal with it. I very highly doubts that the Red Army could have utilized a similiar situation as effective.

>>2260273
Depends what better means. Soviets won, Nazis lost. Naturally some people side with the winners.

>>2260513
but you can't deny that the americans had a huge impact on germany when they fought

the germans had to put forces in italy because they basically kept losing it to the americans and brits

the germans had to put a lot of their soldiers and tanks in france to combat the allied invasion

all those panthers and tigers and stugs could've been on the eastern front giving the russians an even harder time

the primary reason the russians lost is because the germans were shit at priorities, especially with hitler pushing the retarded superheavy tanks and people like porsche up and making a ton of his shitty tigers and forcing the germans to figure out what the fuck to do with them

>>2260425
>The USA decide to support germany in 41. They negiotiate a ceasefire between GB and the Reich and send L and L to the germans. The same total ammount just catered to german needs. Do you really think the soviets would have won?
This is hardly a reasonable counterfactual, because it supposes several different elements rearranged to completely change the global system. You can prove just about anything this way.

Let us suppose for example, that the Soviets, British and French decide to support Japan in 1945. The Soviets launch an invasion of the Republic of China instead of Manchuria, and the British and French offer naval support for Japan, instead of the United States. Do you really think the Americans would have won, much less won in 1945, or even the 1940s?

Ergo, the British and Soviets played a decisive role allowing the Americans winning the war in the pacific!

>>2260230
>muh commandos
Meanwhile the US singlehandedly has to save Australia

File: British delusion.png (66KB, 621x339px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 621x339px

>>2260230
Lmao deluded bong

>>2259297
But it did in all honesty.LEnd lease saved the USSR and Britain
>>2260230
>Britain
>Surviving without lend lease

>America defeats the Nazis
>Elects a Nazi 70 years later
It's like poetry

>>2261969
People can learn from their mistakes, you know?

>>2260298
>>2260513
>I'm fucking tired of hearing historical facts that contradict my Soviet nuthugging

Stalin and Krushchev both admitted that the Soviets would have lost the war in Europe without the USA. Stalin said so publicly, and Krushchev admitted as much in his memoirs while also saying that Stalin's words were based on the actual situation. Turns out that the Allies neutralizing most of the air force anf navy and some 40% of the army while also lending massive material support to the USSR actually was pretty decisive. I'd call you a delusional tankie regurgitating 70 year old propaganda, but even the literal leaders of the USSR 70 years ago weren't this delusional.

This whole situation kinda reminds me of WW1. At the time and in the years immediately after, the British, French, and Germans were all in agreement that the American intervention (much smaller than it was in WW2) was decisive. Then suddenly, when those events were safely out of the average person's memory, nationalists came and said "we did this alone". While trying to ignore both the facts and statistics and what the people of the time actually thought.

Tankies in general seem to get pretty mad when you point out stuff like Stalin's speeches, Kruschev's memoirs, or the commander of the Far Eastern Front saying they'd lose that region if the Japanese decided to attack instead of focusing on the US.

>there are neo-nazis
>even though the Nazis lost
Why follow an ideology that failed? And it failed both on its own merits and also due to the leaders who backed it, which are a part of its own merits.

>>2262078
>Stalin and Krushchev both admitted that the Soviets would have lost the war in Europe without the USA. Stalin said so publicly, and Krushchev admitted as much in his memoirs while also saying that Stalin's words were based on the actual situation.
So we should accept Kruschev and Stalin's assements uncritically?

>>2261063
Lol fuck off, we held them off when they invaded our territory in New Guinea, with a fucking civilian volunteer militia.

i dont think we were exactly in the place to press an assault on japan or anything

>>2259297
>>/his/ defeated Markiplier

>>2262539
Latching onto someone else's ideological framework is a lot easier than fashioning your own.