Where did the ''America won WW2 for the Allies''

hollywood

>>2910299

The fact that America had taken control of the better half of the continent as a result of the war.

>>2910338

*plus Japan

>>2910329
^This, coupled with the need to legitimize and solidify the US' de facto leadership of NATO and the need to downplay the role of the Soviets so as to hinder admiration of their ideology.

Basically memes + politics.

Except Soviets would've been fucked without US supplies.

>>2910437
Nah, the Germans were running out of supplies faster than the Russians. L-L was useful but it was not critical.

>>2910299
CIA propaganda

atom bomb

>>2910460
And the Germans were only a third of the Axis.

>>2910437
Lend Lease was extremely useful, but its benefits were outweighed by the clusterfuck of German logistics.
>>2910482
True, up to 42% of the forces in the East were non-German like Hungarians, Finns, and Romanians, but these countries were in no better position than the Germans.

>>2910482
>Help us Germany, we're losing to Greece
>Help us Germany we're losing to the British
>Help us Germany we're losing to the British and the Americans
Italy didn't give very good returns on investment

File: image.jpg (318KB, 1326x1039px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 1326x1039px

I'm more interested in where the 'Soviets did it' meme comes from. Communist apologists?

>>2910512
Lol. Although to be fair, Russia should have a little arrow in Manchuria.

The Soviets did more against Germany than any other nation (after first allying with them then getting backstabbed), but won the war? Lolno.

File: Which nation contributed most to defeating Germany.png (253KB, 1271x854px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1271x854px

>>2910512
>military success is measured in the number of miles your troops travel.
ok.

>>2910546
>military success is measured by popularity
Alright.

>>2910299
IT WAS A JOINT EFFORT YOU NIGGERFAGGOT

File: IMG_1531.png (49KB, 761x608px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 761x608px

>>2910460
Sure thing commieboo.

>>2910581
poor china

Can this lend-lease causing soviet victory meme please stop
This is debated here approximately once a week, and has the same outcome every thread.
Someone posts the official US lend lease statistics per year, and it shows that 99% of american aid came after Stalingrad, and 95% came after Kursk. Therefore while the lend lease was naturally useful, the majority of which only arrived after soviet victory was near ensured, and thus only lead to the war ending 6 months earlier then otherwise.

>>2910687
Unironically, outright triggered by this image

File: 1482476175654.png (278KB, 3168x4094px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 3168x4094px

>>2910707
Those percentages are a bit of an exaggeration but whatever

>>2910687
I consider the Brits to have done more for victory in Europe than the Americans did.

>>2910707
J O I N T E F F O R T

>>2910743
Except the British unironically couldn't get shit done until the Americans joined in.

>>2910581
Humans are a renewable resource.

>>2910437
meme

>>2910777
>kept 1/4 of german forces garrisoning atlantic coast during babarossa
>crippled the german airforce in 1940
>did 90% of the work in north africa
>held up the japanese in burma
>did 90% of the work in the mediterranean

>>2910299
because it is true

>>2910799

> crippled the german airforce in 1940

The Americans would shoot down more planes in a single quarter than Germany lost on the entire Western Front before Barbarossa.

>held up the japanese in burma

That was as much the Chinese and the Jungle as much as the British.

> did 90% of the work in the Mediterranean

> We beat up the fucking Italians, Rule Britannia.

Britain's naval performance in WW2 is not that much to be proud of. They fought the Japanese twice and lose both times. Only came back after the IJN was already smashed to pieces.

>>2910777
>Cutting off German trade to anywhere outside of Europe
>Sinking the Kriegsmarine
>Sinking the Regia Marina
>Defended North Africa
>Beating the Luftwaffe and beginning the bombing of German factories and towns
>Keeping the arctic lend-lease route open
>Forcing the Germans to station significant amounts of troops in France and away from the Eastern Front
>Forcing the Germans to station significant amounts of troops in the Mediterranean and away from the Eastern Front
>Developing the SOE to encourage partisans to waste the German resources throughout Europe
And last but not least,
>Developing the most effective intelligence framework in the entire war through the double-cross system and Bletchley park

This is all before the Americans truly joined the war.

When the Americans did join the war, the Brits made similar contributions in troop strength to both France and Italy despite being much smaller.

>>2910299
WWII was won with American muscle, British brains, and Russian blood.

Serious talk. Could Russia have won on their own without land-lease?
I see people arguing that Russia would have lost without it so Americans can still take credit. But it didn't really get going until after Stalingrad, and the war was decided by then.

So which is it?

>>2910841
>Serious talk. Could Russia have won on their own without land-lease?
Yes, but it would have been harder obviously. Iirc a lot of the lend lease stuff was shit that the Russians didn't really produce like rail cars and boots.

File: Battle-Stalingrad-Nikita-Krushchev-Stalingrad.jpg (231KB, 1600x1073px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1600x1073px

>>2910707
I believe Khrushchev, who was the political officer in charge at Stalingrad. He said in his autobiography that there was no way they could have pulled off what they did at Stalingrad, moving so many divisions so fast, without the American trucks.

>>2910834
>against german subs in atlantic
>italian and vichy navy in mediterranean
>nips in pacific
wow guys, i wonder why they couldnt defeat the third biggest navy in the world on the literal other side of the world
considering they couldnt keep full control of the mediterranean and atlantic until 1943, its no surprise they didnt prioritise defending colonies

muh trucks

File: Soviet population.jpg (36KB, 600x414px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x414px

>>2910841

There's a couple variations to this questions.

All things the same, could the Soviets beat Germany without L/L.

Definitely, because even without L/L, the Germans weren't would not be able to force a Soviet surrender. Once the second front opened up with D Day, the Germans would have to divert a lot of resources to the Western Front, which would cause their collapse in the East. Worst comes to worst, the Germans get nuked and surrender in late 45/46.

Without LL and without D-Day. This becomes a bit more dicey, because both the Soviet Union and Germany were running out of military aged males around 45.

Pic related is Soviet demographics from 1946, males are blue, dark blue are deaths. 2/3rds of the males aged 25-45 are dead. Even the Soviets don't have truly unlimited amounts of manpower to draw from, because you can't draft everyone, there are people in war critical fields that you can not press onto the front lines on the attack. I think this might seriously start becoming a problem when they try to push into Germany. Not to mention, without LL, their progress in 44 would likely not be as good, especially since American made trucks were critical in allowing rapid movement during Bagration.

Without the Western front or any American/British efforts against the Germans, the Soviets lose. I don't think there's any doubt of that. Germany diverted a ton of resources into not only garrisoning the western front, but also into the Kreigsmarine, flak, and the Luftwaffe. Without the Western Allies chewing up the Luftwaffe, the Germans might not lose air supremacy in the East, and that would make life for the Soviets much harder. The tens of thousands of 88mm AA tubes in the Ruhr valley instead go to the eastern front, and now the Soviets are facing many many more AT guns. While the Italians, are rightfully considered a joke in the field, they can free up more German formations from garrison duty and sent to the front.

>>2910896
Well said, one of the only nonbiased and factual posts here
While the threat of a landing from the British and later americans would draw german resources away from the eastern front(1/4 of total resources is what i often read), would that really be the tipping point that would cause a soviet defeat? An organised soviet resistence would have been likely up to the urals, and i am hesitant to conclude that even with these extra resources the german logistics could continue that far

>>2910896
Thanks bro

>>2910896
>2/3rds of the males aged 25-45 are dead.
looks more like 1/3

This also busts the myth that men need to chase pussy to gain the motivation to accomplish great things like go to space. The opposite is true, with their balls empty and free from the burden of women they enter a calm serene state and naturally accomplish great things.

>>2910581
Lmao nobody even remembers China participating in the war

>>2910743
Britain kept the Germans at bay until the Acronyms got involved, if Britain had capitulated there would've been no WWII as we know it. Hitler wouldn't have had to attack the USSR and America never would've gotten involved.

It's the same as saying Africa is 'the most historically important continent' just because humanity started there.

>>2910971
China's job was to push an occupation. Same as France.
Far less glorious, I'll give you that.

>>2910977
>Hitler wouldn't have had to attack the USSR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum

>>2910896
This is a good post. But
>>2910841
Is being too open ended.

Without America there /would/ be no D-Day, maybe a rag-tag last ditch effort by Britain and her Empire to push a favorable surrender with Hitler but no America = no D-Day = no second front.

>>2910971
China held their own.

>>2910299
Soviets would not have won without allied lend lease, soviets drove american trucks, ate american and south american grain, had American and British strategic support, and in general were held up by imports. not to say it wasnt soviet men and women dying to defend their country, but they wernt doing well without help.

America won the pacific theater, Brits and Australians were on the backfoot without the US

File: Die_'großzügigste_Umsiedlungsaktion'_with_Poland_superimposed,_1939.jpg (206KB, 800x602px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 800x602px

>>2910989
>Lebensraum
The full extent of that was only realised after the declaration of war on the USSR. Originally it was just Poland, but then he expanded it into Russia as a propaganda device.

Hell, originally Hitler was taking ethnic Germans out of the USSR to resettle in Poland, before they were even at war. If he truly wished to settle Germans in Russia, land that was supposedly going to be conquered long term, why would he remove Germans from the region only to have to settle them again?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_ins_Reich

He only got on to the whole 'muh Germans in the Urals' thing later.

>>2911022
>riginally it was just Poland, but then he expanded it into Russia as a propaganda device.
That's simply not twoo

>>2910841
Glantz says that without Lend-Lease the Soviets would have a harder time initiating offensives and encirclements, because American trucks and trains were very vital to keeping the supplies moving quickly. It would have taken perhaps 12-18 months more and at a greater cost to lives on both sides, but with a Soviet victory nonetheless.
A German victory seemed slim after 1941 either way. They had simply lost too many vehicles and used up too much oil. Only 39,000 lorries were produced in 1941, compared to the 121,529 total vehicles lost during Barbarossa. The Germans could requisition enemy vehicles, which is what they did; in fact many formations at the start of Barbarossa contained large amounts of vehicles taken after the campaign in the West, but this created even more logistical problems due to all the different spare parts needed. Over 2,000 types of vehicles were used by the Wehrmacht in 1941, and Army Group Center alone required a million different spare parts. Fuel supplies were exhausted despite the hounding of Romania to increase production - Germany's department of war economy could only allocate 48,000 tons of oil to the army in the east in early 1942, despite a monthly need of 100,000 to 120,000 tons. There's a reason the summer offensive of 1942 was only conducted along one axis unlike the front-wide assault in Barbarossa - there wasn't enough fuel. The Wehrmacht would go on to lose even more vehicles in 1942, a staggering 240,000. Even if the Germans managed to take the Caucasus oilfields, it could take years for them to be operational again, and a German advance all the way to Grozny would be woefully overextended.
Really, unless the Germans had more vehicles, oil, and training of their drivers to prepare in the conditions of Russia, I don't see much chance of winning. They had to make up for their lackluster railroads somehow, to supply an offensive that would defeat the USSR.

>>2911048
*48,000 tons of fuel, vehicles don't run on crude.

File: And+i+knew+it+was+coming+as+soon+as+_5cb530902d6472c8249f85e7eb9f2e96.jpg (10KB, 325x216px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 325x216px

>>2910743

>>2910799
>did 90% of the work in the mediterranean

considering they were the idiots who made that into a pointless theater of war they should have done 100%

>>2910743

>literally get BTFO on every continent
>surrender to more people, more often than France
>still have some insane superiority complex despite more or less endless failure

the british were a fucking meme

>>2910883
>its no surprise they didnt prioritise defending colonies

literally what they did though, we were only farting about in the Med because of Churchill's MUH EMPIRE delusion

File: Germany demographics 1939-1950.png (16KB, 977x709px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 977x709px

>>2910958
Yea I made a typo, it's 1/3rd.

But that it still levels of casualties that the US/UK has never experienced in modern history. If you go much father than that, there wouldn't be many military age men left to draft. You can give a rifle to Grandfathers and teenagers, but don't expect them to do much besides die where they stand. To conduct the kinds of offensive operations needed to win WW2, you need fit men of fighting age. The sheer act of marching grandfathers and teenagers to the front would kill or cripple many of them, and once engaged in combat, they wouldn't last long before fatigue takes it's toll.

The key to military success is an endless supply of 18 year olds who think themselves invulnerable to bullets. Germany already ran out in mid 44, the Soviets still had a couple million in reserve, but that reserve is getting very thin by late 45.

Attached picture is Germany's demographics from 1939 and 1950, overlaid so that each horizontal bar is for people born in the same year. The light blue shows how many were counted in 1939, the slightly darker blue shows how many were counted in 1950. Keep in mind that the 39 number includes Austria, the Sudetenland, and Memel.

>>2910874
Khruschev was just butthurt at stalin and wanted to downplay him. Soviets would win either way.

File: 394623.jpg (519KB, 1277x1644px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 1277x1644px

>>2910299
>Where did the ''America won WW2 for the Allies'' myth come from?
People who don't read books.

"History knows no greater display of courage than that shown by the people of Soviet Russia..."
Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of War

"We and our allies owe and acknowledge an everlasting debt of gratitude to the armies and people of the Soviet Union."
Frank Knox, Secretary of the Navy

"...the scale and grandeur of the Russian effort mark it as the greatest military achievement in all history."
Gen Douglas MacArthur, Commander Southwest Pacific

>>2911153
I agree, the greatest achievement of the United States during world war 2 is acknowledging that the Soviet Union did everything.

>>2910707
The first aid offered by the US and UK were both in loans, £10 million (16 August 1941), $1 billion (30 October 1941) an addition $1 billion (18 February 1942).

>>2911182
t. burger
dont let your inflated sense of nationalism get in the way of facts

>>2910299
>wwii was only in europe

File: Bengal_famine_1943.png (123KB, 396x359px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 396x359px

>>2910743
All the Anglos did in WW2 that was worthwhile was acting as a jump pad for d-day and this it
Dont even get me started on shitshow that was western front before America got involved

>>2910512
For me it's when I actually looked at the dates. That's when the Soviet meme got me.

The way the movies talk about it, D-Day was in the middle of the conflict and an epic battle for civilization under the humble but brilliant leadership of Eisenhower ensued, with U.S. gumption pulling through in the end. But then you notice it actually happened at the very end of the war. What the hell was going on before then?

If Germany ever had a hope of winning they would have made critical successes before mid 1944. When the initial push stalled we can now, with the help of hindsight, say that the doom had already set. When Nazi Germany actually started retreating lines back people even contemporary should have been able to tell Germany was double fucked. The USSR out gunned Germany in manpower and production on pretty much every front, meaning even a stalemate is guaranteed death by attrition alone.

I don't see how anyone can think the amazingly delayed second front critically mattered after that point, knowing those basic facts.

>>2911231
>>2910687
the real red pill was there was no way for Germany to win the war.
Once they let loose the dogs of war with poland, there is no math that ends with them winning.
maybe, maybeee in a alt timeline if they found a way to keep France and England from honoring their pact with Poland, Germany could have held on to Poland, but thats it. but in any timeline once they invaded france, there was no way to win

File: 1496629958013.jpg (119KB, 700x661px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 700x661px

>>2910299
That photo is bullshit
This is more accurate
>b-but muh D-Day!!!
most troops were empire troops, despite the attempts to Yankwash this by Hollywood
>b-but Japan!
Yes, that is true. HOWEVER, Britain did far more to harm Germany (the main threat) than America.

>>2911195
I'm not a burger, and I precisely said that the United States did nothing. I just didn't understand the quotes of the other guy.

>>2910896
>Once the second front opened up with D Day, the Germans would have to divert a lot of resources to the Western Front, which would cause their collapse in the East
they had a fuckton of resources there even before 1944.

>>2911276
Hows that movie on Dunkirk coming along?
You must be real heroes running away.

>>2911276
Japan was a threat of its own. And apart from diverting the luftwaffe and the kriegsmarine and a lot of ressources on the western front (which indeed helped the soviets), the British waited until 1944 to move their ass.
My point is : the Soviet Union (with help from Britain) did everything to crush Germany, while the United States did everything to crush Japan.

What you all are missing is America's and Roosevelt's deep suspicion of European and English colonialism and territory ambitions post war.
Which is the exact reason England's landlease were kept on such a sort lease. America might not have won the war by themselves but the fucking won the peace by setting the groundwork. And all the land they asked for was enough space to bury their dead.

The war was a stupid ponzi scheme from Germany, no one talks about it only took a year into the war for Germany to start feeling privation back home, which led to more forced labor in the collaborating countries, the only way to keep this going was with a ponzai sceme style escalation of more slave labor and expansion and yet more hard handness in the occupied countries. Which only had one end, overexertion and ruin.
Hilter was a war idiot. He fell for the same trap Napoleon did when Britannia blockaded them. Either run out of food or expand and expand, till you have to extend into Russia and run out of food anyways.

>>2911319
strategic retreat ≠ running away

>>2911231
>What the hell was going on before then?
The western front was opened at Stalin's insistence. The US wanted to land as early as 1943 but the Brits wished to secure Africa first, given the inexperience of American troops, this was probably a good decision. Still, in 1944 the US wanted a far larger operation, with Patton actually landing at Pas-de-Calais and simultaneous landings in Southern France (later Operation Dragoon), but neither were possible due to lack of landing craft. To their credit, the Allies did eventually have to sit on the Elbe for a month waiting on the Soviets. They'd have been waiting a lot longer with an earlier invasion. Whether the allies could have taken Berlin or not is an old debate, but there are accounts of journalists in American jeeps driving into Berlin's suburbs unopposed.

You're also overlooking the air war and the role it played as a much earlier "second front" diverting significant resources and manpower.

File: Cecil_Beaton_Photographs-_General_IB2789C.jpg (100KB, 771x800px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 771x800px

>>2910971
It was a strange war.

>>2910299
Industrial output.

File: German aircraft losses.jpg (83KB, 1023x727px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1023x727px

>>2911276
>HOWEVER, Britain did far more to harm Germany (the main threat) than America.
I have a hard time believing this considering the British weren't able to take any strategic initiative against Germany before the US joined besides bumming around in North Africa and weren't even able to pierce continental Europe until the US joined them.

The Royal Navy pretty much pleaded for the US to give them more ships before the US joined and then asked for the USN to help them out with the Battle of the Atlantic after they joined as as well(while the USN was fighting the IJN simultaneously in the Pacific too).

For the air war, while the British like to tote the Battle of Britain as them beating the Luftwaffe, the numbers show that the Americans practically dismantled the Luftwaffe in 1944. And for joining the war much later, the USAAF dropped way more ordnance from strategic bombers on Germany than the RAF.

>>2911443
>USAAF dropped way more ordnance from strategic bombers on Germany than the RAF.
no shit. It's easy to do that when you don't have to worry about building fuck loads of interceptors and fighters (thanks Britain)

File: Escort_fighter_ranges_WW2.jpg (177KB, 800x1096px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 800x1096px

>>2911476
>no shit. It's easy to do that when you don't have to worry about building fuck loads of interceptors and fighters (thanks Britain)
Except the fact that the US built a shit load of planes too. The real reason why they were able to drop more were because US fighters had a vastly superior range and were able to escort their bombers deep into Germany, hence why you see that German aircraft losses piled up in 1943-1944.

>>2910836
Brits had the best intelligence work of the war, the germans were the worst

>>2911231
>>2910512
Its true that Germany would had lost eventually, but the US interference did fast up it by maybe even half a decade.
Defending only one front, with heavily populated regions and with the alliance of Hungary, Romania and the Finns would had been way more easier. You also forget that the Finns and the Romanians (and Hungarians but they failed) gave up the war when the sovjets reached their borders because they knew that the Germans were totally fucked between the US and the sovjets.

>>2911261
Good post

Germany got crushed

>>2910707
Oh fuck, that makes sense. The Americans decided to send absurd amounts of LL to the soviets who were going to defeat the Germans regardless, because they wanted their authoritarian, murderous, hostile empire to pose more of a challenge afterwards and they thought berlin would be better Russian anyway. Really activates all of the almonds.

>>2910299
It's not a myth. Without American economic support the Soviet Union would have lost.

>>2910299

You need a Pteranadon in there bombing the shit out of Germanisaurus Rex and dropping a nuke on Japanasaurus Rex

>>2910512
I think David Glantz can be blamed/credited with that.

>>2910687
>Britain was literally the only ally worth a damn for the first third of the war
>Britain nothing in WWII

>>2911430
lmao are those Chinese soldiers in Stahlhelms?

>>2911569
While I'll grant that the German intelligence network was shit, I'd argue the Soviets, rather than the British, had the best spy network. Just because Stalin ignored his spies early on doesn't mean they gathered bad information.

>>2910299
Where's the Canadasaur?

>>2910299
That Italian Dino, makes my day everytime.

>>2910567
>USSR was popular in 1945s France
Got it.

>>2910347
>downplay the role of the Soviets so as to hinder admiration of their ideology.

ameritards created this role themselves

>Uncle Joe is benevolent dictator and our greatest ally! lmao

>>2911332
>What you all are missing is America's and Roosevelt's deep suspicion of European and English colonialism and territory ambitions post war.
crippled, schizophrenical loon somewhat was okay with commie expansionism
>>2911332
>but the fucking won the peace by setting the groundwork.
Yeah, glorious peace in Korea and Nam. Once again what were ameritard losses in these conflicts against their best comrades?

>>2911048

Those numbers all presuppose a US/UK blockade of oil and material into Germany though and use production numbers based on a Germany and Italy subject to heavy strategic bombing from the Western allies.

Realistically, there is no way Hitler invades the USSR and everyone stays out, but in some weird parallel world where they have access to the US oil and material market, they likely win.

File: Amerishoots.png (86KB, 314x715px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 314x715px

>>2911319
when are we getting a movie on kiska?

>>2910977
>>2910989
On one hand, peace with Britain would have given the Germans time to consolidate their gains and reorganize their military. On the other hand, the whole Winter War debacle encouraged Germany to attack the USSR as soon as possible. World War II was a train that was already well underway by then; Britain's premature exit would have deterred American involvement to some degree, but it's likely that the British would have gotten back in somehow, probably after Pearl Harbour.

>>2912192
Germany trained and equipped the GMD in the 1920's and 1930's due to similar political alignments and because money. They left after signing the Tripartite Pact with Japan. Intermittently, the GMD also drew support from the Soviet Union during the brief period of cooperation with the communists, as well as shortly after the Germans left; USSR then left the GMD to fend for itself after it was invaded by Germany. From thereon, the United States stepped in.

File: 1471430380414.jpg (51KB, 800x535px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 800x535px

>>2912549
Well of course, if they had access to the US market and had the money they could buy all the oil, rubber, and Studebakers they needed, instead of using French trucks like these.

>>2912335
Well, considering that a large proportion of the French resistance was communist, yes, they probably were popular.

>muh eastern front
literally babbys first 'what you didnt lern in highskool'

>>2910971
Because they got shitstomped by the nips, and we're basically fighting a guerilla war for survival. The only reason people remember France in the war was because of how much faster France got shitstomped.

>>2911261
If Italy hadn't fucked up in greece and delayed barbarossa, Russia would have been effectively finished by 1941.

>>2913121
>attacking during the muddy season

>>2913121
Are you retarded? First off, you can't accelerate Barbarossa all that much, unless you want to start your grand offensive in the mud from the spring rains. There's a reason why Case Blue in 1942 started at around the same time of year. Secondly, the delays were more due to poor ability of Germany to build up supplies in Poland, not because Italy dicked around in Greece.

And even if the offensive does start earlier, and in good weather, your overextension is going to happen as a function of distance just the same. In fact, it might even be worse if the Soviet counteroffensive against such overextended units is begun in better and not worse weather.

Read this.http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-21/cmhPub_104-21.pdf

>>2910707
Where are you getting those statistics? The Soviet victory at Stalingrad was highly dependent on the Soviet air force, which would have been otherwise nonexistent were it not for lend lease.

>>2910338

No one cares about those dirty Polish and various other eastern Euros.

>>2913165
>>2913165>>2910733

Not him, but for the statistics themselves, check here

>The Soviet victory at Stalingrad was highly dependent on the Soviet air force, which would have been otherwise nonexistent were it not for lend lease.
That is just bullshit.

Overall Lend-Lease to the USSR in terms of airplanes was about 18,000 airframes, which much less than the number of domestically produced Soviet aircraft.

https://ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_aircraft_production

Lend Lease's biggest impact was in terms of support vehicles (trucks) and ammunition.

>>2910516

Yeah I was about to say. That Manchuria.

Technically the Soviets BTFO more Jap soldiers in 3 weeks than the Americans did the entire war. America did kill more civilians though through bombing so I guess there is that.

File: 15385338_471049363018845_5663910561831303575_o.jpg (149KB, 1663x1268px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1663x1268px

Yeah. Germans failed to take Moscow and Leningrad in 1941 and that was way before the American lend lease. If they beat the Soviets then, then we'd all be speaking German now. Not that would be a bad thing.

>>2913159
They delayed build up because they had to bail out italy. And the early weather in 1941 was good enough for them to start earlier.

>>2913165
If you're talking about the airlift, there were nowhere near enough Ju-52s to airdrop supplies. Even if the entire Soviet air force was grounded, the 6th Army would still struggle to stay supplied.

>>2912964
Not that much, there was a real fear of the "communist threat" since before the war.
Even more in Alsace where a people had to engage in german's army.

>>2913194
That's not quite right. Japanese forces in Manchuria were a bit over 700,000. (And another 200,000 troops from their puppet regimes, if you even count them; those dumbasses made the Chinese troops look competent in comparison)

Meanwhile, on the American's side of things, the Phillipines had about 525,000 troops, Okinawa about 100,000, Marianas and Palaus about 71,000, and about 20,000 on Iwo Jima and the Gilbert islands each. (All numbers from wiki) That's 736,000 right there, and I can't find numbers for the Solomon islands deployment, but since Wiki gives their losses at 86,000, it must have been pretty substantial.

That's also ignoring the entirety of the IJN, which was the world's third biggest navy of the day and the U.S. did the lion's share of eradicating.

>>2913222
>They delayed build up because they had to bail out italy
If you want to disagree with me, fine. But you might not want to disagree with Van Creveld, who comes to the opposite conclusion in Supplying War.

>And the early weather in 1941 was good enough for them to start earlier.
Can you show me a weather chart to this effect?

>>2913223
Not him, but it would have been hard to do the Uranus and Saturn counterattacks at all without significant air presence.

>>2913235

desu the IJN was shit. Most ships were terribly designed and sunk after minimal damage. Also their pilots were terrible compounded by the fact they scarified most of them in suicide attacks which most did not even make it to the target.

Its amazing that they even got Pearl Harbor right.

Its like acting like you won a fight but really you just kicked an aggressive autistic kid in the nuts and declared yourself winner of the internet toughman contest.

>>2910299
Because Germany would have won in the east if America and Britain weren't in the war. This gets turned into "the US won WW2 on its own" because of >>2910329
and also post war propaganda.

File: 15540965_471049399685508_8501107749336603591_o.jpg (95KB, 1200x915px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1200x915px

>>2913372

Nah. You give the Germans too much credit.

Hitler was too retarded to make a German victory in the east a reality.

Even if they occupied Moscow, he would have still fucked it up.

>>2913368
And the IJA was shit too. What exactly is your point?

File: 1460150680221.jpg (34KB, 286x400px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 286x400px

>>2913395

You got me there. My saving grace is that the Nat Chinese were even worse.

>>2910299
Can I remind everyone that from June 1940 to June 1941, Britain was fighting the Reich alone.

>>2913469

Also Hitler and Goerings stupidity.

They could have beat the Brits easily if they had not changed their tactics from attacking radar and airfields and decided to bomb civilians just because Winston dropped a few on them.

>>2913518
t. idiot.

Say they do maul FG11. Say that the Brits even have to pull back those fighters to bases in the Midlands. What then?

>>2913522

Own the fucking channel and land fucking troops that's what would happen.

>>2913528
With river barges?

>>2913531

Look. I said Hitler was retarded. He could have planned better in that regard.

I mean if had been up to me I would have stopped after the annexation of Czechoslovakia.

>>2913528
>Own the fucking channel and land fucking troops that's what would happen.
See, you're an idiot.
https://www.philmasters.org.uk/SF/Sealion.htm

In no particular order, you have crap sealift, you have no experience with amphibious operations, the British still in fact have planes and can attack ONCE you start landing, and you can't exactly stop a night strike by the Home Fleet, which can base itself out of your reach.

File: 1496459462652.png (248KB, 418x457px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 418x457px

>>2913528

What makes you think the Kreigsmarine had the capability to pull off an amphibious landing? How do you get soldiers to Britain without being intercepted by the Royal Navy? And then you have the whole problem of keeping your soldiers supplied once they're fighting in Britain.

>>2910841
>the war was decided at Stalingrad

That's an odd way to spell Kursk

>>2910874
sure the 12 trucks they got in 42 made them win the war

lets face it guys the war in the east was lost right in front of moscow in winter 41 when the heeresgruppe Mitte almost got anihilated by the soviet counterattack

>>2913698
>12 trucks
2/3 of all trucks employed by the Soviets were of American origin.

>>2913711
yeah in 44-45

ll kicked in in late 43 fucktard the war in the east was already lost at that point.

look WHEN they delivered the shit not only how much

Germany literally didn't have any chance once they got fucked in Stalingrad.

>>2913788
why stalingrad ? They got rekd in 41 and after this point it got worse every day.

>>2913788

They never had a chance to begin with. Russia is literally 50x bigger than Germany.

Because America did save Europe anon. Just not from the Nazis. They saved Europe from the Communists. But not all of Europe unfortunately, it took several decades for the scourge of communism to leave the east. That's the real reason America was eager to get involved in Europe, because if we had waited any longer then the commies would have been the ones to take Italy and liberate France and then the world would look very different today.

So we raced to Berlin and made sure at least half of Europe remained democratic and free.

File: 6c4bc8ea7cfb93414b77c981a1796e9cbbc23c19c57774a437fc3c3a44f4e439.jpg (42KB, 300x295px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 300x295px

>>2910743

File: poll-france-nations-contribution-nazis-defeat-1.jpg (153KB, 1272x861px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1272x861px

>>2910329
This.
US media propaganda 24-hours per day without end, it literally never stops.

File: 1436805266951.png (792KB, 1301x673px) Image search: [Google]

792KB, 1301x673px

>>2914076
Now that my country is in NATO, all the media tow the NATO line almost like a mirror image of what commie news reporting and censorship was described to be.

If it werent for the internet you wouldn't even know that Saudi Arabia has Invaded Yemen.

>>2910896
good post anon

>>2913382
Not really no. Germany was more then capable of getting at least favorable peace terms from the soviets, all that needs to happen is for the soviets to not have foreign aid (which means no mobile counter offensives in 1943) while facing larger numbers of german land and air forces then they did historically because germany wouldn't have had to worry about other fronts.

>>2910299
The Cold War.

Americans didn't want to acknowledge Soviet accomplishments. Due to the Iron Curtain, the Americans largely couldn't have learned, even if they had wanted to.

Okay. Its 1938. Stalin is in the middle of his massive purge of the armed forces and government. Germany invades Poland, with the whole Wermacht, using a smaller force and Italian troops to guard the western border. He continues through to the Soviet Union. The whole soviet government is in disarry. Hitler promises Ukraine, Belorussia, and the Baltic SSRs independence if they fight against Stalin. The critical step for hitler would be Georgia's oil fields. If he can capture those, similarly to the way he invaded Norway, the eastern front would have been totally different.

>>2914269
Irrelevent, since without invading Britain they cannot avoid two fronts. There is no realistic scenario in which the Nazis avoid a two-front war

Germany industry was so inefficient and logistics system was so shit there was no way they could have won, even though they theorectically had greater industrial capability than the USSR. History also shows they didn't seem to have the capability/will to improve in those areas, so even if the entire Wehrmacht as committed to the USSR, it could not have won.

LL only sped up the end of the war. LL didn't decide the war.

>>2914587
Statistics agaist statistics, maybe. But if Hitler had actualy worked to destabilize the European SSRs, it would have been totally different. For most them, especially the baltics and Ukraine, all they needed was an excuse. Nobody here has mentioned how much of a shitstorm the USSR internally at the time of the invasion of Poland.

>>2910460
Lend lease was extremely crucial. The us gave 400,000 vehicles to the ussr and around 75% of the locomotives were us made. Without the us help the user couldn't have built up its industry to crush the fascist invaders.

Probably comes from them slamming their dong all over the Pacific theatre more or less single-handedly and being the only real driving force behind the final major victory of the war.

>>2912791
>he thinks im american
try again

>>2910299
america

>>2910512
I mean, wasnt 70% of german fatalaties caused by ussr soldiers?

>>2915384
If you believe OKW's statistics about the Heer. However, that ignores a lot of other things, like how the Americans destroyed the bulk of the Luftwaffe, or the enormous number of prisoners taken by the Western Allies, to which the Soviets didn't have a match (The UK alone took more PoWs than the Russians, nevermind the French and the Americans)

>>2915384
more like 80-85

>>2915019
no it waan't since they had their most important victory without ll

face it when ll kicked in they already won the war in the east on their own

>>2915405
they had already taken nearly 6 million dead and missing in 1941 and 1942, if they didn't have lend lease trucks, fuel, trains, and other supplies to do muh deep battle they would have taken even more the following years and bleed out

>>2915405

The Heer was still a formidable fighting force after Stalingrad, capable of making strategic level attacks. In 1943 the Red Army still suffered heavy defeats in Kharkov, and their land gains outside of Saturn were limited once the Germans had time to re-consolidate their lines.

Kursk broke the ability of the Heer to make strategic attacks, after that, the Germans lost the initiative and could only react to Soviet attacks.

Bagration destroyed the ability of the Germans to conduct maneuver warfare. The trained reserve of veterans that can be shifted to react to Soviet attacks no longer existed.

After that, it was just Germans getting out-maneuvered and encircled over and over.

File: Cold War.png (51KB, 1425x625px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1425x625px

>tfw you unironically realize all of America's Invasions and interventions post Cold war is literally them punishing The USSR's allies.
No seriously. Look at all the Orange countries today. Iraq has been fucked by America, Libya has been fucked over by America, Afghanistan has been fucked over by America, Syria is currently is been fucked over by America, and North Korea will soon be fucked over by America.

>>2915481
Battle of Moscow was before LL dummy

>>2915840
All of this 150 times anon. Many of those countries also used a different monetary system that wasnt a part of the WTO/World bank and the like.

I really think that the United states would not be on top of the world as they are if they had a land war. The only reason the USA had such a strong after war economy was that the rest of the world was in ruins or not civilized.