Who contributed the most to the fall of the Axis: the USA or the USSR?

Does you get any minus points contribute to the rise of them?

>>853573
>Who contributed the most to the fall of the Axis: the USA or the USSR?

Italy.

>>853575
OP here.
Good point.
But no.

>>853576
lel

File: Ally or feind.png (110KB, 653x343px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 653x343px

>>853576

>>853576
> Le Italy was shit meme

Look at it from the Italian perspective. They were probably hoping for a good old fashioned war that would only last a few weeks, beat the French, grap a bit of territory and call it a day.

All of a sudden the Wehraboos go on a total chimpout and declare war on the two most powerful countries in the world, countries Italy had no beef with, and Germany+Italy combined had no chance of defeating. I don't really think you can blame them for only putting in a superficial effort after that.

File: Greco Italian war.png (293KB, 425x1544px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 425x1544px

>>853591
They didn't really do well before that either.

>>853596
> 21,000 POW
> 52,000 Sick

Wow, greasers really cannot into war at all

Seriously? This is a basic WWII fact

>>853596

>losing a war againist Greece, when Greece didn't even have tanks

Anyway, to answer the OP's question, USSR did.

>>853573
Germany

Operation Barbarossa led to the collapse of the Third Reich

>>853609
Wow those hot statistics and facts sure support your point of view, nice opinion faggotron.

>>853573

The USSR obviously. The USA did virtually nothing in WW2, they might have well not even been involved.

>>853573
All the largest battles, casualties and actual fighting in WWII took place on the Eastern Front of the war. This is statistical fact.

USSR without a doubt. It's not even up for debate.

>>853649
Nah mate, the USA is what stopped communism from spreading all across Europe. They didn't stop Hitler, but they did stop Stalin from claiming anything west of Berlin.

Don't give the Americans shit for "doing virtually nothing" when it was their very presence that saved western Europe from the Reds.

>There are still people who think WWII wasn't a team effort

Why?

>>853649
>>853609
Fuck off human wave tacticists.

The USA defeated Japan and Italy basically alone.

The US defeated German navy in the Atlantic, with Britain.

90% of the toops of D-day were American.

The USA fred France, Belgium, the Netherlands and ALL of western Germany.

Not to mention the weapons, supplies and much of logistics of post Stalingrad USSR used were all from American industry, which is to say the Russians probaly wouldn't even have ammo to fight the Germans all the way up to the Battle of Berlin.

America was going to reach Berlin first but Stalin and FDR agreed that US forces and other western allies wouldn't cross the Elbe river.

It was also the US that dropped two atomic bombs in Japan.


What did the USSR do?
Get rekt by Germany and only turn the tide when America stepped in and start funding the Red Army?
Kill millions of their own people with human wave tactics?
Go home, Vatnik, and post again in this board only when you're sore.

>>853573

Depends on how you classify "contributions."

If you mean death counts, the Soviets win without a doubt. That being said, the USA definitely contributed the most. If the United States had not entered the Western European theater, Germany would have focused its resources on Russia.

>>853665
>90% of the toops of D-day were American.

kek,

American that gets his history from Hollywood films detected.

>>853678
That part is false but I agree with the rest

>>853693

Defeating Italy alone? Freeing France and Belgium alone?

You must be joking me. It's the meanderings of an American fantasist who thinks Saving Private Ryan is a documentary.

>>853591

I think italy probably does get a bad rap for no reason other than it's good fun.

The italian people weren't exactly behind the war and none of them really wanted to fight. It took german officers to basically force them to fight. I'd say "fuck this" and throw down my weapon the first chance I'd got in a similar situation.

It was hitlers fault for even considering them a fighting ally, and to base his strategy on them holding any ground of their own under any real pressure.

>>853654
Being a meat shield does not necessarily mean the most contribution.

>>853665
>The USA defeated Japan alone
Yeah don't forget about the Canadians, British, Chinese, Russians, Philippines, and other resistances fighting them at the same time.

>90% of the toops of D-day were American.
Bullshit

>US freed western Europe.
With the help of the British, French Resistance, and other allies.

>America was going to reach Berlin first
Nope, they knew full well the Reds were going to take Berlin.

>It was also the US that dropped two atomic bombs in Japan.
True, but do remember they were civilian targets only to try and scare the USSR (In reality it only provoked an arms race.)

This is why /his/ is treated as /pol/ 2.0

>>853665
>Soviets establish and empire after the war in Eastern Europe.

> The US didnt establish an empire in western europe.

File: Laughing Asuka.jpg (47KB, 256x358px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 256x358px

>>853721
>French Resistance doing anything
>Scare USSR with nukes meme
>X 2.0
Fuck off to /b/ 2.0

File: Smug Cat.jpg (53KB, 403x403px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 403x403px

>>853728
As I said /pol/ 2.0

>>853621
>>853665

You mean to tell me that Hitler wasn't completly focused on defeating the USSR?

Or that he didn't send (and ultimately lost) most of his army on the eastern front?

Or that, even after being on the defence, he still wasn't focusing on the eastern front rather than the western front?

Or that before d-day happened, Soviets and Germans weren't fighting fro 3 years, and by the time d-day happened, the Germans were already on the defence?

Having said all these, I don't say that the allies help was not significant, but that the ones contrubuting the most for the fall of Axis was the USSR.

>>853735
/sci/ is /pol/ 2.0
/news/ is /pol/ 3.0
/his/ is the bastard child of r/history and /int/

>>853665
Patton please go

File: 00000580[1].jpg (2MB, 5268x3375px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5268x3375px

>>853739
What people generally underestimate is the role of lend lease in helping USSR. While in absolute percentage it's not that much, the role of individual items was invaluable. That includes:

>Explosives
>Rare metals
>Planes and fuel for them
>APCs (all of them)
>Food supplies
and most importantly
>Logistics, both automobile and railway

Logistics is perhaps the most important part of waging war. and the amount of Allied trucks delivered alone was humongous, but I personally think the most important part was railway support since roads in USSR (especially in the worse, less densely populated parts of it, the ones that weren't occupied by Germans) were and still are absolutely terrible. Look at this railway map. Bialystok is in USSR, therefore it's 100% 1939-1941 one. Notice how civilization ends to the East of Moscow and how poorly everything is organized there, they don't even have basic North-South lines. With that in mind, people had to deliver the troops and goods somehow. Add to that Urals industrial cluster being the only truly capable one left and population density in Russian parts of Soviet Union being ridiculously small.

I very much doubt Russians could have improved their piss poor logistics system on their own, because we actually do have an example of large-scale war turning to shit for them mostly because of terrible logistics - that's WW1, so-called "shell famine". Russian Imperial Army wasn't particularly strong or well-trained but it could have served as a meat shield fine; however, it was almost impossible to actually supply it properly. In addition to that there's also indirect help in delivering finished goods in forms of freeing industrial capabilities for creation of more tanks.

In other words, being cannon fodder doesn't always mean taking the most effort. Russia lost the most people of all Entente (though I'm not well-versed in the subject, some sources online claim it's the most in the world) in WW1 too, and look what happened.

File: russia-1926[1].jpg (3MB, 3523x2513px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3523x2513px

>>853785
Here's a populations density map for 1926 too, though you can use the modern one just fine, proportions didn't change at all.

>>853704

This. The Italians didn't give a shit. In the beginning as the war was going kind of well they basically had a, "Ok cool this will be over soon" mentality.

We know what happens towards the end when it wasn't going well. Mussolini was really just a scape goat for the Italian people who finally realized they were living under a fascist regime. The majority of the population didn't give a shit until the late 30's.

Plus, Mussolini himself was one of the key reasons their military was so shit. They had plenty of time to modernize, but he'd rather look over every news article published than reorganize his officer corps.

Germany: USSR
Japan: USA

This is really the most objective answer and anything else is just nationalist dickwaving.

>>853666
>If the United States had not entered the Western European theater, Germany would have focused its resources on Russia.
>would have
What in the sweet merciful fuck are you talking about they did focus their resources on Russia!

>>853573

USSR, obviously. This really isn't up for debate. After Kursk the reds had everything the needed to win a total victory, the Allies just sped up that process by about a year or so.

>>853710
Yeah they should've just hidden behind massive bodies of water and do nothing for years at a time like those brave Americans and British, that's how you win a war!

File: MxJoYMX.jpg (30KB, 442x500px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 442x500px

>>853785

People both underestimate and overestimate the role of lend lease.

Lend lease allowed the USSR to be self sufficient and focus on prioritizing military hardware. The massive amount of trucks had a sizeable impact.

The locomotives weren't too crucial, but they helped. I don't have a source on me, but if I recall the soviets themselves had plenty of locomotives and were making a lot more. I don't think I'm wrong on this.

By far the most important contribution was aluminum. Millions and millions of tons of it. The percentages of metal donated to Stalin's war machine are staggering when compared to the USSR's indigenous production.

> In other words, being cannon fodder doesn't always mean taking the most effort

>>853665

> Fuck off human wave tacticists.

Come on now you should know this a meme. At least from late '41 onwards. Sure, Stalin threw a lot of men to their deaths early on to buy time, but Russian operational level strategy was pretty sound. Soviet Deep Battle doctrine and all that.

>>853824
You see, it's true that Soviets stopped being retarded with tactics in later periods of war but it's just as much true that they didn't stop using human waves in addition to that. Hell, the amazing Soviet practice of trying to capture important strategic objects in time for a nice-looking date had always been going on.

>muh human wave tactics
How long do you reckon the USA would've lasted had they been subjected to an Operation Barbarossa style attack like that, maybe 5 hours, tops? Maybe the soviets at first at least didn't fight well but at least they fought, they didn't just surrender like the god damn french or hide behind their natural barriers like the yanks and brits, they actually fucking fought, that's why they get the credit and not the many noble truck builders and aluminum smelters of the United States because those men weren't actually risking their fucking lives were they!

>>853852
dying doesn't win wars

>>853665
>The USA fred [...] the Netherlands
Partly and then came the hunger winter.
The Canadians freed the northern part. They still get flowers for that.

>>853824

Not him, but Soviet Deep Battle Doctrine is precisely why they got into so much trouble, even later in the war. Broad front attacks along a line that's usually about 2,000 km long is a fucking terrible idea. Dispersal of effort means that most of them rarely succeeded, and when they did, they often didn't have the reserves in place to have a real exploitation of success.

Stalingrad is usually hailed as the turning of the war in the east, and the siege was broken by Operation Uranus, the massive Soviet counterattack and double envelopment of the 6th army. Less famous is the other attack that the Soviets tried, up near Moscow, Operation Mars. About 80% of the size of Uranus, it did...... nothing of note, just got chewed up by the German defenses.

If the Soviets had a sane doctrine, had redirected a lot of those assets away from Mars and given them to Uranus, you could have seen an even bigger, more decisive victory, instead of piddling almost a million men's efforts for an entire campaign season away.

>>853870
Stalingrad is hailed exactly because the Soviet technique was perfect for Stalingrad. Disperal of soldiers and sniping from a vantage point was perfect among Stalingrad's ruins. It didn't work as well on the plain battlefield.

>>853892

What the hell are you talking about? Stalingrad was won on the backs of the counterattack to the north and southeast. In the open. Not among the city fighting, which isn't an operational/strategic issue in any case.

Reminder that the US basically fucking funded and supplied the USSR along with Britain, because the russians didn't stand a single fucking chance by themselves
No one seems to remember all the shermans on the eastern front, just muh T-34s

>>853982

That's probably because there were about 8 T-34s for every Red Army Sherman.
The far bigger impact of Lend-Lease was in things like communications equipment, trucks, food, clothing, "secondary" supplies, not direct weapons or weapon systems.

>>853988
Shermans were just an example
The amount of boots the americans sent the russians is preposterous
Russia would have buckled if not for the US and Britain

>>853993

Ehh, I'm not so sure about buckling. Most of the Lend-Lease started arriving, by volume, in 1943, when enough shipping had been built up to deliver it.

Never able to embark on the massive counterattacks and drive to Berlin, sure, but I have a feeling the war would degenerate into a bloody stalemate if there was no Lend-Lease, the Germans were also at the end of their logistical tether.

>>854015
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html

File: overhead.jpg (12KB, 582x386px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 582x386px

>>854038

>Most of Lend-Lease arrived after Russia was out of existential danger, therefore, Russia was unlikely to collapse without it.
>LOOK HOW MUCH STUFF THERE WAS!

>>853722
Guess how many military bases the US has in the UK and mainland Europe.

>>854046
>out of existential danger
Hardly

>>854083

By 1943? Yes. You had already had the failed push towards Moscow, a big reversal in Stalingrad, and the Germans were having enormous difficulty keeping up with the logistical needs on the Eastern Front.

Maybe they could have resumed the advance somewhere, but they were fast running out of steam.

Lend-Lease is a meme and I'm saying this as someone who hates the USSR and communism like nothing else. By the time the most significant shipments started arriving, the Moscow and Stalingrad battles were already over and Russians were geared up to push west.

Soviet/Russian historians tend to say it was completely irrelevant while American historians tend to say it was what decided to war, the truth is somewhere in the middle in that while it saved a lot of Russian lives and shortened the war, it wasn't the cause of Russian victory.

>>854087
Oh so the arctic convoys started and only send goods in 1943 did they?
Shitloads of goods were being sent to russia by 1941, through the convoys, without it, russia would have crumpled, it's people would have starved and many of their soldiers wouldn't even have boots to wear into battle

File: anime.jpg (11KB, 260x260px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 260x260px

>>853721
>hurr da nooks waz only scare tactics!
I want this meme to die

>>853710
But destroying 80 % of the enemies army.then burning down its capital means a lot you faggot :)

>>854106
only 17,75 % of american lend lease was in 1941-1942
82,25 % of american lend lease came in 1943-1945
(going by value of goods per erlandson, marcus in american logistics in world war 2, national defense university, 1997)

>>854127
And what about Britain?

>>854097
>By the time the most significant shipments started arriving, the Moscow and Stalingrad battles were already over
yes, most certainly
>and Russians were geared up to push west.
i really don't think so, remember that an army on the advance will inevitably need more supplies and sturdier logistics, both of which were the most significant aspects of lend lease (as opposed to weapon systems for example)
they wouldn't have lost the war, the germans would lose sooner or later, but to say that the soviets would have been geared up to push west is a stretch i think
also this highlights a funny thing about people going on about the soviets and lend lease
like 99 % of internet wehraboos going on about it fail to realize that its most significant effect was not in somehow saving the soviet union or stopping the germans, but allowing the soviets to go on the counterattack, so to speak, very quickly

>>854106

No, but the Arctic route was the smallest of the 3 major routes. The Persian corridor didn't open until late 1942, and the Vladivostok run was a pittance until it became clear that the Japanese weren't going to be sinking anything that went on it.

I'm not saying that 0 percent of Lend-Lease arrived until 1943, but the amounts that were coming in in 1941 and 1942 were tiny next to what was coming in in 1943 and 1944.

The impact of Lend Lease was primarily in the Soviet ability to counterattack, not hold on that first year.

>>854151
They may have been tiny in comparison, but that's still millions upon millions worth of equipment, supplies and food
And the russians really needed food

Without it russia would have starved

>>854097
>while American historians tend to say it was what decided to war,

Is there any serious academic American historian that says that? It's more of a meme for American shitposters on the internet.

>>854210
according to hunger and war: food provisioning in the soviet union during world war 2, indiana university press, 2015, lend lease food supplies only started to make any "significant contribution" at the end of 1942

>>853665
How was D Day not human wave tactics?

>>853892
>Not among the city fighting, which isn't an operational/strategic issue in any case.

Not that guy, but this part is obviously wrong. Not sure where you are getting this from.

>>854626

I assume you're responding to my post here>>853961

And it's not wrong at all.

Stalingrad was won with the Soviet counterattack, not because the troops in the city defeated the 6th Army.

And furthermore, dispersal patterns of infantry in urban fighting is not related to Soviet Deep Battle doctrine, which states that offensives, strategic level offensives, should be conducted in multiple locations at the same time to overwhelm an enemy's ability to respond.

File: 1356552442634.gif (35KB, 750x733px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 750x733px

>>853573
The USSR by a very large margin if we go by the amount of german casualties

>>854616
There's a larger argument to this.
"human wave tactics" taken literally means just that. Taken figuratively, it is more along the lines of "send bodies at the enemy until they are beaten". It assumes a superiority of manpower can overcome a lack of planning or strategic ability.
human wave tactics does not necessarily imply the use of artillery or preemptive bombardment, for example. Napoleonic tactics were not human wave tactics because there were cannon and cavalry to support them. Trench warfare was not human wave tactics so long as artillery proceeded an assault. D Day was not human wave tactics because of the naval bombardment and paratrooper drops that took place before the beach landing.

Another way of looking at it is this:
if the objective of an assault is to deplete the defender's supply of ammunition so successive assaults may overcome them, it's human wave tactics. The infantry making the assault will of course always be told their objective is to take the position, but their greater purpose may just be to deplete munitions.
Most single-wave offensives are not human wave tactics, because human wave tactics assume the first wave will fail, and so a second and third wave will be prepared to go in. D Day also fails this measurement, because if the beach landing or paratroopers failed, there were no reinforcements for them. The attack would have been over.
>but there were reinforcements in the fleet
who numbered less than the first wave and largely filled the roll of auxiliaries or support troops to protect the auxiliaries.
There was no second wave equal to the first.

File: OneBurialMan.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

USSR.

>>854643
Why is Bulgaria eastern theater but Yugoslavia western?

>>854643
It always blows my mind as to how bloody 1945 was even though the fighting ended in May. I can't imagine a worse fate than being a German soldier in the final days, you either die in a war you know your country has already lost or you get sent to a POW work camp for 10 years.

I love how these threads always end up as USSR vs USA shit flinging and no one ever mentions Britain.

>>853662
Because the team broke up to become rivals after winning the final round.
Kinda like boy bands.

File: 1427149872086.png (244KB, 490x467px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 490x467px

>>855228
>no one ever mentions Britain
Maybe because the UK did jackshit untill the americans arrived
>inb4 meme battles
just look at >>854643, WWII was fought on the eastern front.

>>853573
i would say the axis did a pretty good job fucking up their war efforts for them selves

>>853988
Well, if you have 8 t34s for every Sherman and over a million t34s you end up with a fucking ton of Shermans.

>>855286
The UK survived, giving the americans a base of operations in europe... also, north africa is a lot more than nothing...

>>855349
Of course, but saying that those efforts even come close to those of the USSR is just stupid.

File: has not changed.png (215KB, 373x389px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 373x389px

>>855228
I wonder why.

>>853665
>muh human waves
Fuck off faggot. Have you even read the fucking Wikipedia article on the eastern front, much less an academic study on the actual war? Go get hollywood's cock out of your ass and actually learn something

>>853666
>would have focused their resources on Russia
Motherfucker they were at war with the soviets for more than 3 full years before the us even stepped on Normandy. They were totally on the defensive ever since Kursk and D-day only slightly shortened their expiration date

File: 1408742011451.png (87KB, 203x191px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 203x191px

>>853666
>literally every single part of those last two sentences

>>855349
>we didn't die so we're relevant
a machine gun position is firing on a man in cover. One of his comrades is nearby, in a position the machine gunner is not firing on.
The man under fire turns to the other and says, "I'll distract him, you take him out."
The first man runs from cover while the second lines up a shot. The first man takes a bullet in the leg while the second man takes the machine gunner out.

This is a mostly-accurate summary of English and American co-operation to defeat Germany in France.

>>855331

You don't have 8 T-34s for every Sherman. You have (roughly, this is a guess, I'm not up on the precise details) 8 T-34s for every Sherman the Americans gave the Soviets.

>>855406

Not him, but come 1943, they're already focusing about a third of the Heer on various areas to ward off the Western Allies: Most of them aren't even combat zones, just scattering troops in places like Norway, Greece, southern France, etc, stop stop the western Allies from maybe invading there. By 1944, that proportion rises.

>>855488
>ignores point on the basis of "it's a rough estimate"

So why did you claim that in the first place?

>>853573
The Axis. Japan did its best/worst, but Italy actually was terrible at everything but conquering some Africans (giving a record of 1 for 2 there) and the Germans couldn't sneeze without herr Fuhrer's approval. When your own people try to kill you, or succeed, you're gonna have a bad time.

>>853722
That's because they weren't grabage people.

>>853740
/his/ is and has always been lefty/pol/.

>>853665
>What did the USSR do?

Murdered a lot of Finns.

>>853803
Has Italy ever given a shit about being a single nation?

>>855124
You could always get murdered on the way to the work camp.

>>856760
At least one person in history claimed that he was an Italian.

>>856724

What point? You're conflating the total numbers of Shermans with the numbers sent to the Eastern Front, a tiny fraction of the total built.

I just checked wiki, and at least according to that, the Russians got 4,102 Shermans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease_Sherman_tanks#USSR

A pretty decent amount, but that means that it's more like 12 T-34s on the Eastern Front for every Sherman, not 8, which more than adequately answers the original anon's question >>853982


of why people don't remember the Shermans on the Eastern Front, just the T-34; it's because the latter was the ubiquitous tank, not the lent Shermans.

File: 1457122175565.png (2MB, 1200x1704px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1200x1704px

I have some infographics on this to drop.
1/5

File: 1457122972055.png (1MB, 1200x1704px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x1704px

>>856817

File: 1457123106770.png (2MB, 1200x1704px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1200x1704px

>>856822

File: 1457123282110.png (1MB, 1200x1704px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x1704px

>>856823

File: 1457124154533.png (1MB, 1200x1704px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x1704px

>>856825
5/5
hope it helps the discussion

>>856814
>I am
No I'm not, my original point (and one of two posts I've made before this one) was that even with those numbers, the amount of t34's built would still result in a large amount of Shermans, is the only point I was trying to make.
As for the rest of your post, it's not really needed, you're either confusing me with someone else or are reading too much into my statements.

>>856996
And I see that you think I meant total built, I thought it was obvious I meant total Shermans used by the red army, apologies.

>>853661
A United Soviet Europe would have been based desu

>>853665
>Fuck off human wave tacticists.
Fucking retarded meme

>>853666
>Germany would have focused its resources on Russia.
Nigger literally over 70% of all Germany's war effort was focused on russia

>>853665
>>>/k/

>>857078
I think westernshits deserve some communism if they want it so much.

>>853576
You. I like you.

>>853573
USSR
USA should have given all the equipment that they were going to use on the western front to the russians and focused entirely on air support and the war in the pacific. In that way they would have embarrassed themselves much less.

>>853573

Argentina

>>854616
Because it was a western army that threw men into emplaced mg nests.

>>853864
It kinda fucking does if the other side is doing the dying.

>>853665

faggot

File: image.jpg (15KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 225x225px

>>858266
By far the most compelling argument against this gentleman's claims. I applaud you.

File: World-War-II-military-deaths-in-Europe-by-theater-year.png (291KB, 1024x937px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1024x937px

>>853573
USSR, by a factor of about 6:1

File: 1455592273766.jpg (10KB, 225x250px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 225x250px

>>853665
>Le human waves!
Will this meme ever die?

>>853823
It's called tactics. American and British lives are far more valuable than your typical Russian, so we don't just throw wave after wave of disposable men at the enemy.

>>853573
>Who contributed the most to the fall of the Axis
Hitler
The NSDAP government elite
The Junker-Military Aristocrats
Italy
Japan

>>853591
It was more about the Italians having shit gear, but Mussolini sending them into bad situation thinking that they would win because "muh Roman spirit".

>>859455
probably not
because that would require people to realize that roughly three million of soviets died as prisoners of war
which then brings the ~5.4 million axis combat dead in the east aren't that far off from the 5.7-7.5 soviet combat dead and you can't wank over muh K/D and commit human wave memery

>>853573
Both, neither could have done it without the other.

>>862106
I still think the Soviets could. Germany failed in its objectives in Barbarossa, and lost at Stalingrad. They wouldn't recover from those. Incidentally those were achieved without any significant (or indeed any at all in the case of the early fights like Moscow etc.) American help. And time would be on the Soviets side.

>>859455
When Russians start valuing human lives. So never.

>>862136
Why do people feel the need to reduce an entire nation/country/power/people to a monolithic, retarded caricature?

>>862161
Sometimes stereotypes aren't wrong.

>>853721

America WAS going to reach Berlin first but didn't Eisenhower tell Patton to go a different direction to allow the Red Army to arrive first?

>>862186
So Russians don't value lives. That's what you are saying. Several million human beings don't value being alive. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound.

>>862207
They may like being alive, but in the grand scheme of things Russians don't really give a shit since they don't value individual's opinion either.
If Russian state is powerful, Ivan is happy, no matter how shitty life is. If people die for that, Ivan thinks it's necessary and that's how the world works. If Ivan himself has to go, it's a dumb mistake because he dindu nuffin. If someone close to Ivan dies, it's those evil boyars bullshitting the czar. Czar is a good boy, he's just given the wrong information.

For instance, remember that Russian plane that exploded over Sinai? They forgot about it in two weeks tops.

>>862161
>Why do people feel the need to reduce an entire nation/country/power/people to a monolithic, retarded caricature?

Germanic inferiority complex.

>>862055
When will you stop using lowered casualties numbers issued by Russian propaganda?

>>862267
what lower casualties from russian propaganda? the 8.8-10 figures are widely accepted everywhere

>>862207
>and
They didn't of the most part. Or should I say bolsheviks didn't. Their goal was to bring the revolution as far as they could no matter how many nations get decimated in the process. Just read about the hunger that happened on Ukraine and shut the fuck up

>>862272
Except there is no evidence to back it up
Old numbers we got before were also accepted even thou it was complete bullshit.

>>857167
>embarrass themselves
What?

>>853665
wow nice argument there fagotron you sure convinced me with those hot opinions


don't you think, that if the USSR didnt exist, the western allies would have a harder time fighting germany, than the USSR would have a harder time fighting germany if the western allies didn't exist?

>>862292
field reports, official reports, statistical analysis and research by historians is no evidence? intriguing

>>853649
I'm british, and as much as I'd like to say we didn't need the US we would never of had the numbers to establish a foot hold in Normandy or Italy for that matter, and from there, take back all German held territory. Nice one yank(thumbs up). Not taking anything away from the russ. They got slapped in the beginning and brought it back for the boys in the end.

>>862699
the idea of no us military involvement always intrigued me with these alt history scenarios
like half of d-day troops were brit/CW and they were a sizeable force in the west throughout the war
do you really think britain couldnt do it? at a smaller scale and much slower obviously

>>853649
Oh yeah and you all wouldn't of got anywhere without our intel services.
Op. Mincemeat
Op. Bodyguard

>>>>862706
Good point. Yes, it would've been slower and smaller scale. Would've added a few more years and few hundred thousand to the overall casualty rate but, we're british, so yeah we could've done it I suppose. The Russians however, at the rate they were churning through German resistance I think they would've reached Normandy before, if not way before we could've landed our lads. Would've been a whole different world. Interesting.

>>853573
USSR
Is this even a question?

>>853573

USSR won the war in Europe

USA won the war in the Pacific

/thread

>>862698
What reports? Have you seen any of them?

File: brits face when.jpg (274KB, 1033x836px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1033x836px

>>853609
Wrong
>>853721
idiot
>>853815
wrong
>>853822 >>855048
>>855422
Idiots
>>857167
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA
wrong

>>862748
Wrong
>>862885
Wrong


American-Soviet lend lease is literally the only reason Germany lost
http://ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/

http://rbth.com/business/2015/05/08/allies_gave_soviets_130_billion_under_lend-lease_45879.html

Russia, Britain and Europe would have been completely destroyed if not for American lend lease.

File: TRY AND STOP US.jpg (52KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 550x550px

>>863518
Aircraft-14,795
Tanks-7,056
Jeeps-51,503
Trucks-375,883
Motorcycles-35,170
Tractors-8,071
Guns-8,218
Machineguns-131,633
Explosives-345,735 tons
Building equipment valued-$10,910,000
Railroad freight cars-11,155
Locomotives-1,981
Cargo ships-90
Submarine hunters-105
Torpedo boats-197
Ship engines-7,784
Food supplies-4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment-$1,078,965,000
Noniron metals-802,000 tons
Petroleum products-2,670,000 tons
Chemicals-842,000 tons
Cotton-106,893,000 tons
Leather-49,860 tons
Tires-3,786,000
Army boots-15,417,000 pairs

Given from American during lend lease.
> inb4 nearly 400,000 trucks, 15,000 aircraft, 4.5 million tons of food didn't make a difference in logistics or fighting
go mcfucking kill yourself


tl;dr America save Europe

>>863523
>>863518
>I am quite literally too stupid to even look at the sources already posted in the thread.
Less than 1/5 of American Lend-Lease arrived before 1943. Moscow was defended and Stalingrad won, more or less on the Soviets own.

>>854127
You can argue that the Soviets wouldn't have been able to drive the Germans back to Berlin without it, but if you want to claim that Russia would have been "completely destroyed" without Lend-Lease, you're either ignorant or have a double digit IQ, and I'm guessing the latter.

>>863572
> You can argue that the Soviets wouldn't have been able to drive the Germans back to Berlin without it

Then they would've gotten their ass kicked

>>863572
And how exactly do you think the Soviets transported supplies for their rapid advances in 44/45? Oh yeah....

>400,000 trucks

File: 1458390023520.png (229KB, 441x484px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 441x484px

>>863523
>railroad freight cars
>11 155