>Brits will defend this

It was the Soviet Union tbqh. The US did rather little in Europe, preferring to focus its efforts on the Pacific.

>>68248616
Depends what you mean by "contributed the most". Militarily speaking it was clear that the Soviet Union did all the heavy lifting, but America had already picked its side before actively joining the war. Without Lend-Lease the war would've certainly ended in Germany's favor.

>>68249633

>meme-lease

The war would have not turned out any differently without it.

Look.

Britain got 3x land-lease help that the soviet union got.

3 fucking times more.

Why didn't Britain march on Germany then and take over Berlin alone ?

Land-lease only in 1941 accounted for more than 1% of the soviet production.

And that was only because the soviets were busy moving factories across the urals.

Face it Germany lost the war, the moment Russia didn't capitulate in the first month.

The moment that they started moving across the Urals, germany lost.

The only relevant thing Land-lease helped was supplining the soviets with locomotives, since they had a lack of them to transport materials and soldiers across the urals.

And manufacturing them would mean less tanks.

Soviets would still win the war, but it would take them extra 6 months.

USA did end WW II by dropping two nukes on Japan, but Germany was all soviet doing.

Nobody else matter enough that even if they were completely out of the war, it wouldn't change the result.

Especially Britain.

>>68248572
Fuck Anglos absolute scum of a race

>>68252857
Hey Muhammad

>>68248572
We were more relevant than the USA

>W-We put on pretty pink aprons and made weapons for the men

Ta' love

>>68248572
Your Hollywood movies succeded in spreading propaganda about your contribution in WW2. You truly are the real winners after all.

>>68252839
>Why didn't Britain march on Germany then and take over Berlin alone ?
manpower

>>68248572
>Popular opinion is more valuable than facts.

>>68252890
I'm irish

>>68252972

b-b-but Britain has 10x more resources and wealth than SU.

Combined with it's colonies it had the most manpower in the world.

India alone provided that.

So they had cheap manpower and a ton of more resources.

India only achieved independence after WW II.

More than 1 million indians were a part of WW I.

So why didn't Britain win alone ?

It had 3x the US help plus even itself had more money than soviet union

It is obvious that Britain should have won alone.


Lend-lease was the key to soviet victory right ?

>>68253123
logistics

>>68253123
You could also argue that we should have held the western front but our upper military officiers were among the worst we had in all our history. I dont think the Brits were willing to just throw men at the problem until it resolves itself like the Russian did.

>>68248572
If you widen the scope from defeating Germany to defeating the Axis powers America contributed the most

without America in the pacific theatre Japan would be an empire today and they committed just as many war crimes as Nazi Germany, if not more

>>68253357
See how you keep jumping around ?

My only point here was that meme-lease was irrelevant as fuck.

And attributing soviet victory and saying they'd lose without it is among the most laughable things anybody can say.

As did dutchie did for example.


>>68253385
France surrendering to Germans was probably the most brilliant thing in the war.

For France at least.

You were treated well by both Germans and Allies and managed to be the top european power until the 90s thanks to the fact that compared to any other nation you were relatively undamaged.

Yugoslavia was going down the same road as that, but then the eternal anglo paid up some officers to overthrow the government and declare war on the germans.

Didn't end well.
Probably something to do with the fact that every single nation around us a german ally and not a single country was with the 'Allies'

>>68253123
Because the Indians were fighting in Burma

>>68253609

Oh I'm sure they could have spared 10-20 million.

That's nothing for India.

Britain was fighting all over the world. It had to defend itself from months or air attacks and bombings. It had to lead the French resistance because they had no way of communicating with each other and spent most of the time fighting and stealing of each other. It had to plan and coordinate the Normandy landings. And so on. Let's not pretend that if Britain had stayed out like Hitler had hoped The Nazis would still have lost.

>>68253670
The Indian army was more of a police force to put down rebellions, we didn;t arm and train vast amounts of Indians for obvious reasons. Sure we could have conscripted them and just used them as cannon fodder since we knew they were bound for independence but I doubt we could have justified it morally.

>>68253747
Just so you know I'm not suggesting we could have invaded Germany on our own. Without the Soviets we would have continued to btfo them in Africa and resist an invasion though.

>>68248616
>The US did rather little in Europe, preferring to focus its efforts on the Pacific.
The opposite is true

>>68248572
>another country
LITERALLY WHO ELSE COULD'VE WON THE WAR
UNLESS YOU'RE IN NORTH KOREA IT'S PRETTY FUCKING OBVIOUS IT'S ONE OF THOSE THREE
WHAT BREED OF MEME IS THIS

>>68253720
If America stays in but Britain is out Nazis lose to combined USSR and American forces after a gruelling war with the USSR ceding a fuckton of land before America pulls their asses out of the fire
If Britain stays in but America is out Nazis lose with the USSR pulling France/UK out of the fire
If neither Britain nor America are in the war then the Nazis probably beat the USSR and the world speaks German or Japanese by today