Could the USSR have managed without the West, or was the US and UK's efforts crucial for the tide of the war?
If so, what were the actions the West took that definitely helped the Allies win the war that the USSR couldn't have managed without?
Probably asked a bunch of times.
>>1087570
It was crucial, the USSR just won by the skin of their teeth even if they did the lions share of the fighting.
Were it not for the Nazis and the Japanese being tied up on other fronts by the British in particular the USSR are certain to have lost.
>OP asks about Western efforts against Germany
>posts pic of Okinawa
>>1087579
Fuck off, nit-picking sperglord.
I just choose it because it looks cool
>>1087570
>If so, what were the actions the West took that definitely helped the Allies win the war that the USSR couldn't have managed without?
The millions of rounds of ammo, shipments of food, and weapons the US gave to the soviet union helped.
The D-Day landings opened the western front Stalin had been asking for for so long pulling troops away from the east.
>>1087594
>muh lend lease
Daily reminder all that shit didn't appear until '44 when the war was basically won already
>>1087570
The basic premise of your scenario makes no sense. Are you postulating a world without lend-lease? Or a parallel universe where both France and the UK don't exist and Germany is the westernmost part of Europe?
And then we'd have to define what winning the war against the USSR actually means. Because the Germans had no idea themselves.
>>1087598
Fuck off vatnik
>>1087598
The top Soviet general said himself that he didn't think the USSR would have won without US support, most notably rolled steel shipments.
>>1087598
this isn't even worth a .org or .gov
http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm
>>1087598
The USSR couldn't even produce much high-octane fuel. Anything with a more sophisticated engine than a tractor was dependant on high-quality lend-lease fuel.
The USSR also had a massive lack of ball-bearings and locomotives.
While I don't think that it would have lost without lend-lease, its eventual triumph would have been far costlier.
>>1087641
>locomotives.
kek, they had like 20,000 before the war
>>1087655
And lost enormous amounts of them. Trains and rail infrastructure are some of the most obvious targets for air strikes.
Locomotive production also dipped sharply during the war, so those that were lost couldn't be replaced
>>1087575
I think they would have stalemated in Europe rather than lost.
There's a lot of distance between Moscow and Berlin, it doesn't have to be one or the other.
>>1087570
They probably would have won it by themselves, but they would have suffered many more casualties to do so. The USSR might not owe its victory over the Nazis to the Western Allies, but those Soviet soldiers that survived the war because of the supplies certainly owe their lives to them.
>>1087575
> the USSR just won by the skin of their teeth
Actually the USSR was steamrolling Germany in the final two years. Even if you disagree with that statement, I don't think any rational person with even a shred of historical knowledge could make the claim that the USSR won by the skin of their teeth like you did.
>>1087828
That's true, but they were getting substantial help from the western allies and the Nazis had to remain vigilant for a potential British invasion from the west.
>>1087570
The USSR could probably have defeated nazi germany with only its own military, but it absolutely could not have done so without US material support
>>1087594
>The D-Day landings opened the western front Stalin had been asking for for so long pulling troops away from the east.
By the time the D-Day landing happened, the Soviets were already steamrolling the Axis. The D-Day landings were more for favorable division of Europe post war than for the war itself.
>>1087575
The Brits were pretty much irrelevant during the war except sit in their island and blockading the Germans.
>>1087844
Most of the US materials arrived after 1943, when the tide has already turned.
The most important LL support after trucks is actually canned food as the USSR was focused on producing grains for the calorie needs of the Red Army and had little for anything else after the loss of the breadbasket Ukraine. American canned food, especially spam was greatly helpful to the Soviets as they allowed far greater strategic mobility as the Soviets had canned food rather than relying on the battalion soup kitchens like the Germans. The high energy density also boosted morale and helped logistics.
>>1087570
Did they have some way to make it winter 12 months a year?
>>1087866
>when the tide has already turned
There's a difference between defending Moscow and taking Berlin.
The Soviets broke the German advance, but I don't think they could have actually ended the war without logistical support.
>>1087881
Defending Moscow was 1941, anon.
>>1087887
Yeah, but Kursk was 1943, and Bagration was 44.
And the Germans put up a pretty good defense.
>>1087876
The initial German advance gave Russia enough time build up power for their 2 star CO power.
>>1087866
>The Brits were pretty much irrelevant during the war except sit in their island and blockading the Germans.
I know, it's more to do with the fact that the Germans had to be prepared an invasion than any damage the Brits actually did.
>>1087901
Winter fury is garbage. If the Soviets had used it they would've lost the war.
>>1087575
The Soviets held their own against 90% of the Nazi's forces, and the Nips had their asses handed to them by the skeleton crew Soviet forces in the East.
Mid 1942 the Soviets had already won the war.
>>1087919
Increased fuel expenditure and further worn troops would be more effective in WW2 then in the advance wars universe.
>>1087828
The steamrolling only happened because they survived the earlier parts of the war by the skin of their teeth. Obviously the winning side gains momentum by the end of the war, by that doesn't mean that the Russians didn't almost lose the war several times.
>>1087919
*Blizzard is garbage. His SCOP is great.
>>1087836
Over 85% of Nazi forces were stationed in the Eastern Front.
>>1087930
>won the war
If not for Hitler they could've probably gotten a separate peace if they wanted, but they wouldn't have been able to win conditionless victory without help. (probably)
>>1087916
why would they preperate a invasion?
they decided not to invade britain.
so britain didn't draw away troops from the eastern front except north africa ofc
>>1087936
Do you even know what you're arguing at this point? or are you on some auto-shitposting mode?
Your earlier point was that the Soviets could not have won without western military intervention in the west since they barely defeat the Germans. Now you concede that you were completely wrong. It doesn't look like there's any need to continue any further down this particular path.
>>1087570
They didn't need anything. Pic related is lend-lease, besides trucks, most of the help was small.
USSR even had 1,5 mil troops stationed in the far east in case japan invaded. It was never even close.
>>1087952
Increasing numbers of AAA weapons and crews had to be deployed throughout the west due to RAF activities. Those could have been of great use on the Eastern front.
>>1087942
Only through 41 and 42. Once the US and British Commonwealth forces landed in Italy Germany had to move 40% of their military away from the eastern front.
Plus something like 80% of the german airforce was committed to protecting the skies over Germany from American and British bombing raids. Combine that with the aid provided to the soviets from the west and it's pretty damn clear the USSR on their own isn't going to win a damn thing.
>>1087949
The Soviets would have pushed the Germans out of Soviet land by 1950 without Western help.
Even if Hitler could have concentrated completely on the Eastern Front (as the practically did tbqh) the Nazis did not once defeat the Soviets comprehensively or take the strategic targets.
Even a fall of Moscow would have left the Nazi's completely overextended and the Soviets would have simply pulled back the front line more.
Not enough people realize that although western support sped up the war greatly and helped Russia take Berlin, the Nazis effectively lost the war after Barbarossa failed.
>>1087968
Also, most of lend lease came post 1942, when stalingrad was already won and the tide of war turned. It probably shortened the war for a year max.
>>1087977
>Only through 41 and 42. Once the US and British Commonwealth forces landed in Italy Germany had to move 40% of their military away from the eastern front.
Bullshit
>Plus something like 80% of the german airforce was committed to protecting the skies over Germany from American and British bombing raids. Combine that with the aid provided to the soviets from the west and it's pretty damn clear the USSR on their own isn't going to win a damn thing.
Source = your ass
>>1087978
>The Soviets would have pushed the Germans out of Soviet land by 1950 without Western help.
Yeah dude? I hate to break this to you but this probably just means a ceasefire rather then a victory. Hitler would probably be dead by 1950 or infirm enough that someone else would be in charge of the decision making, and the Soviets would have suffered enough casualties at this point that they would have gladly agreed to a ceasefire rather then fight anymore at this point.
>>1087978
>The Soviets would have pushed the Germans out of Soviet land by 1950 without Western help.
9 years of continuous combat was beyond the level of the Soviet population to support it at the casualty rates suffered during WW2.
>>1087983
Bullshit
Nope.
>>Source = your ass
Nope.
Also, You = assmad.
>>1087570
Using my ass as a source, i'd give it 50/50 that the USSR could have beaten nazi germany without any aid beyond trade. It would have taken a while though
>>1087828
They steamrolled and their losses increased the closer they got to Berlin.
>>1087983
He's partially correct. As the war ground on increasing numbers of Luftwaffe fighter units were redeployed to the west to the point that large scale Soviet offensives could be launched with little concern to Luftwaffe response.
>>1087893
>And the Germans put up a pretty good defense.
>lose its largest army group in 2 weeks after slavs get their shit together
lmfao
>>1087999
Post source then, or any creditble link, or whatever
>>1087999
You have no sources for these claims.
By May 1943 (Italy), the outcome of the war was already known.
>>1088021
>>When you are invaded, you kicking them back out = victory.
Yeah but at the same time it's no red flag over Berlin. A still existing Nazi Germany without American and British efforts in europe is quite significant.
I mean, how many people seriously think WW1 had any real victors other then maybe the serbs?
>>1088018
That's because the majority of German aircraft losses were in Russia.
The Nazis in 1943 realized protecting war production was worth more than air support in the East.
The one thing i just do not understand is how the USA was so far ahead of the rest of the world during ww2? Is america just that great of a country? Seeing as how everything from raw resource production to processing and manufacturing in the USA made the efforts of europe look like the work of children, why isn't the usa given the recogniction it deserves?
>>1088027
>>By May 1943 (Italy), the outcome of the war was already known.
Not really no. This is a revisionist claim.
>>1088021
You are talking 44-45 when Germany has been fighting on multiple fronts and and is being bombed around the clock.
For discussion, have Germany fighting solely in the east with all the industrial and transportation capabilities of Western Europe operating at full war production capacity.
>>1088046
I can hear you guys typing already. Be careful, it's tricky.
>>1088039
Kicking the invaders out literally is victory.
>>1088047
Now you are being a faggot. By May 1943 Soviet armies were consistently pushing Nazis back, Stalingrad was over, and Operation Blue had failed.
>>1088054
No. Eastern Front casualties in 1944-1945 were equal between Germans and Nazis.
The trained, well-equipped Nazis were dead by then. The Soviets killed them in 1941-1943.
>>1088027
>>German deployments to the Western Front (including North Africa and Italy) reached levels as high as approximately 40% of their ground forces, and 75% of the Luftwaffe. During 1944, there were approximately 69 German divisions in France, in Italy there were around 19. (Approximate data is given because the number of units changed over time as a result of troop transfers and the arrival of new units.) Keegan, John. The Second World War.
There's your source for 40% of the ground forces, the airforce stuff I'm not as sure about the 80% number but at the same time they did actually move most of their airforce to a defensive posture in Germany itself due to a need to protect against allied bombing raids.
>>1088046
Americas population was bigger than the entire USSR, it was isolated on a rich and productive continent with no serious enemies or threats and had all the advantages of inheriting the traditions of british liberalism and industrialisation
>>1088054
The Soviets would have defeated Nazi-occupied Western Europe in a 1v1. The occupied Western regions in general were a waste for the Nazis.
Now a unified Europe in 1938 would have beat the Soviets though, but that isn't the question.
>>1088057
Hopefully. Honestly ive had my world view shattered recently because i had no idea just how overwhelmingly superior the usa is from the rest of the world. Am i taking a simplistic view of things?
>>1088072
>>By May 1943 Soviet armies were consistently pushing Nazis back, Stalingrad was over, and Operation Blue had failed.
Doesn't matter, they wouldn't have been able to push anyone back if the Germans had more men and machines to use against them, but they didn't because 40% of that was elsewhere.
>>1088042
Yes, but the Luftwaffe was broken in the West. Go through every history and it comes to that conclusion. Even the Soviets were delighted at the time that fighter units were redeployed. It made Bagration, for example, almost free from air attacks. In the East the Luftwaffe losses were a steady drain but certain pilots and units were able to do lots of damage for long periods of time. When transferred to the West they got decimated in a far shorter period and quite a number of experten were killed or otherwise disabled.
>>1088054
>For discussion, have Germany fighting solely in the east with all the industrial and transportation capabilities of Western Europe operating at full war production capacity.
With a constant stream of supplies and weapons from Western Europe from the very beginning of the war and continuing throughout, the Germans might have had a chance against Russia if they took territory in the Spring and Summer, scorched earthed it, then withdrew back into defensive positions in time for Winter.
Using superior firepower and supplies to fight a war of attrition and grind the Red Army down might have been possible. Even then, they still probably lose. It's hard to overestimate how badassed the Red Army was back then.
>>1087598
Daily reminder that Lend Lease helped the Soviets relocate their manufacturing base to the Urals. And gave them some of the foundations of their logistics chain, namely, the MOTHERFUCKING TRUCKS.
>>1088087
Combine the german forces committed to western europe with those already present in eastern europe already and that 1v1 scenario is a lot more doubtful for the Soviets.
>>1088100
>TRUCKS
Is a huge point, soviets would have been barely capable of advancing into germany without them
>>1087717
It cant be a stalemate forever. If one side won, then it would be like North and South Korea
>>1088088
>Am i taking a simplistic view of things?
Yes and no. The founders of the US fought for/inherited quite the bounty, but disregarding other nations would be a mistake.
>>1088087
>The occupied Western regions in general were a waste for the Nazis
Not in the scenario we are discussing. Look at the industrial capacity available to the Germans from just France, Belgium and Holland. Now think how much more production can be done without RAF/USAAF bombing.
>>1087717
I agree. Stalemate is the most logical conclusion given everything we know about both sides.
>>1088100
>Daily reminder that Lend Lease helped the Soviets relocate their manufacturing base to the Urals.
Most supplies arrived after the relocation.
>>1088099
>Using superior firepower and supplies to fight a war of attrition and grind the Red Army down might have been possible.
Only if they went full war economy. However, Speer didn't turn the economy to full war economy because the German economy was prone to collapsing because of how it was set up.
>>1088108
>Is a huge point, soviets would have been barely capable of advancing into germany without them
Trucks helped increase the speed of the advance and was greatly helpful. What's just important was canned food from the USA as they prevented the Red Army from facing malnourishment while also helping simplify the logistic chain due to their calorie density.
>>1087717
>I think they would have stalemated in Europe rather than lost.
German economy would have likely collapsed before a stalemate, which was why Speer didn't turn the economy into full war economy until 1944, when the situation became really desperate.
>>1087828
I wounder why they steamrolled the last two years of the war. Its interesting you picked the last two years of the war. What could have helped them do this? Could it have something to do with what happen in early June of 44? Making Hitler split his forces on three fronts? West in France, South in Italy, and leaving less and less to the East in Russia?
Hmmmm
>>1088143
>South in Italy
>Italy
Italy is not south of Germany retard
I think everyone is missing the point of this discussion.
Wouldn't it have been better if the Germans had won? Ergo the Soviets should have lost.
>>1088159
>>1088166
>Wouldn't it have been better if the Germans had won?
Yeah, if you want to be a bigger wagecuck and be possibly genocided at any time.
>>1088159
>Italy is not south of Germany retard
??????????
>>1088159
>>Italy is not south of Germany retard
You are either hilariously ignorant of basic geography, or are about to make some pedantic point about Italy actually being to the south of Switzerland and Austria instead.
Either way it is important to note that you are a faggot.
>>1088159
I'm not gonna yell at you, I just want you to walk through your thought process.
>>1088143
>I wounder why they steamrolled the last two years of the war. Its interesting you picked the last two years of the war.
What the fuck is so interesting about picking the last two years? I picked the last two years because that's when the Soviets steamrolled Germany. How they did it is irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is you started out by saying they won by the skin of their teeth, and now you have completely been BTFO and exposed as a moron, yet you can't stop yourself from posting the filth that is your opinion for whatever reason.
>>1088166
Nazi Germany wasn't the paradigm of order and efficiency it's remembered to be. It had an extremely chaotic system of government that relied far too heavily on Hitler's micromanaging.
It's likely that as soon as Hitler died shortly after the war, a civil war would have erupted over succession in short order.
>>1088187
>>1088181
>>1088175
>>1088143
>>1088185
There are two fronts in WW2. With me so far?
Now, East (France/Italy,etc)
West (Russia)
Italy is consider a WESTERN front battleground
Retards
>>1088197
You didn't read his post obviously. Hes talking about how DDay took pressure off of the Soviets. Witch is why Stalin asked for it.
>>1088197
I didn't say they won by the skin of their teeth, that was the faggot I was responding to.
This is why we need ID tags mods
>>1088099
>Using superior firepower and supplies to fight a war of attrition and grind the Red Army down
Germany did not have superior firepower, what are you smoking? And a war of attrition was the last thing Germany could have won. They literally had a better chance of successfully carrying out Sea lion.
>>1088203
>Making Hitler split his forces on three fronts? West in France, South in Italy,
>Making Hitler split his forces on three fronts? West in France, South in Italy,
>Making Hitler split his forces on three fronts? West in France, South in Italy,
>Making Hitler split his forces on three fronts? West in France, South in Italy,
>Making Hitler split his forces on three fronts? West in France, South in Italy,
>>1088224
They did have better weapons.
At least when it comes to Tanks. They just outnumbered the German forces witch is all you really need to win a war. Numbers
>>1088203
West in Russia and East in France?
>>1088241
>They did have better weapons.
They barely had weapons.
>At least when it comes to Tanks.
Especially when it came to tanks.
Towards the end of the war, a Soviet division had a much higher concentration of AFVs and artillery than a German division, which was still fighting WW1.
>Numbers
No, the Soviets had much greater firepower and mobility.
>>1088224
>Germany did not have superior firepower
Initially they did.
German fire support for their forces in the early part of the war in the East was much better than anything the Soviets could do. The sheer number of weapons counts for little unless they are firing at the the right place at the right time. It took quite a while before Soviet fire control could match and then surpass the Germans.
With air support it was pretty much the same. For some time, Soviet tactical bombers were shot down in droves.
>>1088241
Dude, sorry , no. Too simplistic a view.
>>1088241
American/british supplies contributed much more to the Soviet victory than the Western Front.
>>1088275
Yeah that is an American/British gun... Your point?
>>1088241
>They did have better weapons.
But they didn't
>At least when it comes to Tanks.
Only if you look at paper specs, which do not represent war.
>German fire support for their forces in the early part of the war in the East was much better than anything the Soviets could do. The sheer number of weapons counts for little unless they are firing at the the right place at the right time. It took quite a while before Soviet fire control could match and then surpass the Germans.
It's pretty easy to surpass a disorganized army when you sneak attack them. When slavs got their shit together, they had much superior firepower.
>>1088275
Classic weapon.
But it would have been preferable to face that than a MG34 or 42
>>1088290
His post reminds me of all the arguments in /k/ about the Panther tank. Too many video games and not enough research.
>>1088295
Germans had the best MGs no doubt. Krauts love machineguns
>>1088301
B'but, muh hitlers zipper...
>>1088299
I know what he was stating. I'm just commenting on the certain weapon. His post was max cringe inducing
>>1088299
Heavy Machine gun placements did not win the war my friend. There is something call "Fire, maneuver, flank"
Look at DDAY. By your logic the Atlantic Wall should have held up
>>1088303
Thats not German retard
>>1088303
They fought a war of machine guns and horses. They never left WW1 while the rest of the world moved on.
>>1088309
>>Heavy Machine gun placements did not win the war my friend.
The guy you're responding to didn't say this.
>>1088311
MG42 and 34 were not german machineguns?
>>1088309
I wasn't suggesting that either. All I disputed was
>all you really need to win a war. Numbers
>>1088320
It could be argued that they went further back than WW1
Citino (2005). The German Way of War: From the Thirty Years' War to the Third Reich.
In reality even the Soviets used large numbers of horses during the war. Germany simply did not, for various reasons, produce enough trucks to replace horses in any meaningful way.
>>1088320
>They never left WW1 while the rest of the world moved on.
>>1087570
Without Britain Germany would have been able to throw its whole army and especially the whole air force against the Soviets so they might have won already in 1941 in that scenario. But even if we assume the Germans lose the battle for Moscow, the USSR would have lost a great share of its population and agricultural/industrial capacity. In the first half of 1942 the Soviet offensives failed miserably (notably 2nd Charkov). In the scenario that the West plays no role, Germany can play the long game. The risky attack on Stalingrad and the Caucasus at the same time happened because the Germans thought that the USSR had to be defeated immediately because of the threat of America. Without the Western involvement, the plans for 1942 would have been probably less hazardous. Also, keep in mind that until fall 1942 the Soviets lost more tanks than they produced so it was Lend & Lease that enabled them to maintain their strength.
>>1088360
But theres no way tanks can advance through forest anon
>>1088084
USA population in 1941 was 133 mil
USSR population in 196 mil
Why do people just keep making stuff up.
>>1088367
By 1943, everyone else in the world had left them far behind. Germans had like 30 battalions of mechanized infantry with halftracks. They were the least mechanized armed forces of the major western powers.
>>1088367
Yes but remember, the Panzer, Panzergrenadier, and Light divisions were the only ones fully motorized. Every ordinary Infantry division used numbers of horses.
>>1088373
>Without Britain Germany would have been able to throw its whole army and especially the whole air force against the Soviets
The whole army did push into the USSR and Germany did not have the logistics to support the Luftwaffe that was there, let alone an air force twice the size.
>Germany can play the long game
No not even in a wehraboo's wildest dreams.
>>1088388
Pure ignorance.
>>1088388
Yeah but the USSR was like, multiple countries yo
>>1088373
Lend-Lease was minor until late 1942/1943. By that time stalingrad already happened.
>>1088079
Thank you.
I still don't think that is accurate to what you claimed, and only 1944 is mentioned.
Furthermore it is well-known that France was manned with under-equipped and inexperienced units.
>>1088399
Germany basically did the same mistake as in 1914. They thought the war would be over by christmas and their economy and military conception was based on a short war.
With the failure of Barbarossa at defeating the soviets before winter, they could never win a war of attriction against the russians.
>>1088088
In 1970-1985 the US and allies would have been hard pressed to defeat the Warsaw Pact, let alone MAD capability.
>>1088091
Except nowhere is this stated.
Do you really think Germans wouldn't have stationed forces in occupied countries?
>>1088095
The Luftwaffe was broken over Russia. There's literally no way around this fact.
>>1088104
The German forces in Western Europe were there for far more than "defend against UK/US" reasons.
>>1088474
what is:
Battle of Britain
daily/nightly bombing raids
>>1088108
How did the Germans do it to Russia with horses?
>>1087570
Lend lease from the USA was critical. Without that the USSR & probably Great Britain would have fell. The tanks,trucks & airplanes made the difference
>>1088474
Sorry no. Even the Russians agree the Luftwaffe fighter force was broken in the West in 1944. As a bit of a clue look at how many high scoring experten in the East were relatively ineffective in the West as well as the number who were killed/seriously wounded as well.
>>1088125
Those regions were restive and an overall waste for the Germans. If they had invaded Russia before France and Norway, they would have likely had a much higher chance of winning.
But by the time they attacked Russia they were already overextended relative to their population.
>>1088538
If they had inaveded russia first frane and britain would have buttraped them from behind. Remember germany was not at war with russia, it was at war with france and the UK
>>1088373
>Without Britain Germany would have been able to throw its whole army and especially the whole air force against the Soviets
No
>Also, keep in mind that until fall 1942 the Soviets lost more tanks than they produced so it was Lend & Lease that enabled them to maintain their strength.
The first Lend Lease shipments with tanks and trucks arrived in October 1942. Lend Lease had little effect until Stalingrad was over.
>>1088439
Take a look at the distance from the Polish border to Stalingrand. It was a tremendous victory but the Germans were still deep inside Soviet territory. Also take a look at the results of the Second Battle of Kharkov. That lead directly to the Battle of Kursk, which strictly speaking, was even a more important victory than Stalingrad in the larger scale of things.
>>1088399
It was most of the army, but not the whole of it. Don't know if it was really that impossible to send in more air force units as you say, did the fuel and spare parts shipments really make up such a big chunk of the total transport capacities? Idk I'm not an expert but the war in the Med also ate up a ton of fuel which was chronically short since summer 42.
>No not even in a wehraboo's wildest dreams.
The industrial capacity of the remaining USSR was smaller in 1942 then Germany's IIRC. Then there's also the problem to feed your army and remaining population without Ukraine. There was hunger throughout the war in the USSR and without LL it would have been even worse.
>>1088439
As I said, without it the Soviets would have become weaker and weaker. LL in 1942 was not that much but it allowed them to maintain strength. Besides, the German strategy would have been different if it wasn't for Western involvement.
>>1088542
The UK and France did fucking nothing 1939-May 1940.
>>1088578
True, but fuck czechoslovakia and poland. They would not have ignored a full scale invasion of the USSR
>>1088159
Should have stayed awake during geography class
>>1088575
The Nazis lost any chance of defeating the Soviets in Moscow Jan 1942.
They lost any chance of ending the war in Soviet territory at Stalingrad Jan 1943.
They lost any chance of surviving as a nation at Kursk mid 1943. Arguably before that actually.
>>1088597
They never had a chance
>>1088583
They would not, but you'd most likely have not seen a meaningful offensive into Germany ready until late 1940.
The Germans should have attacked Russia in early 1940. Not France.
>>1088562
>The first Lend Lease shipments with tanks and trucks arrived in October 1942. Lend Lease had little effect until Stalingrad was over.
British tank deliveries arrived already in 1941 as well as some American ones. Allied tanks were already significant in the South in the summer of 42, making up 10-15% (Glantz) I think. And tanks were only a minor factor in Allied deliveries.
>>1088601
They had a chance to end it on favorable terms in Winter 1940.
Sadly Hitler was a madman.
>>1088618
Maaaaaybe
>>1088610
The first US supplied Lend Lease arrived in December 1941.
Just because British supplied tanks showed up by mid 1942 doesn't change what I said considering I was talking about American tanks.
Lend Lease helped the Soviets crush Germany. It did not save the Soviets from defeat.
>>1088618
What happened in winter 1940?
>>1088573
The Luftwaffe War Diaries: The German Air Force in World War II- Cajus Bekker.
Luftwaffe Over Germany: Defense of the Reich- Donald Caldwell Richard Muller
http://www.au.af.mil/au/afri/aspj/airchronicles/aureview/1983/mar-apr/murray.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of_the_Reich
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/eastern.html
Just a few off the top of my head but there are at least 2-3 dozen serious sources on the air war during WW2 that can be found in any library.
>>1088633
I was hypothesizing a 1940 attack instead of a 1941 attack, but let's just change it to the 1941 reality.
Moscow looked like it would fall and most of the Communist Party had evacuated the capital.
The Germans could have negotiated the independence of the Baltics, the annexation of Poland, and oil/trade rights.
That'd be before much of Allied help would have arrived.
>>1088625
>Just because British supplied tanks showed up by mid 1942
They already showed up earlier and by mid 1942 Allied tanks were significant on parts of the front. Tanks aren't the main point anyway
>>1088637
That says that the Luftwaffe was finally defeated in early 1944.
Compare the airplane losses to the Eastern front by the way.
>>1088674
That wasn't the concern. I was talking about American supplied tanks.
>>1088224
Considering the tremendous Soviet losses of 1941 including the sharp decline in industrial output, a war of attrition in a hypothetical 1v1 war isn't completely impossible
>>1088679
The Luftwaffe had serious losses in the East but held it's own for quite some time due to the virtually similar nature of the combat for an extended period of time. Not so in the West. The changes came much more often and against much tougher opposition. Luftwaffe units which suffered steady losses in the East were decimated in short order in the West once sufficient ranged Allied fighters came into play. As time went on, more and more of the best the Germans had in the East were redeployed and suffered fed into the buzzsaw of aerial combat in the West.
>>1088706
Considering that they went to war over vital resources as well as having less manpower to start and their economy was a clusterfuck that needed years to straighten out to a proper economy, a war of attrition is not to Germany's best interest.
>>1088679
Here's just a single example of an Allied aerial operation that also had important ramifications on the Eastern Fronts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Flax#Closing_the_straits
>>1087655
Sounds adequate for 3 million+ riflemen
>>1088820
In the whole history of German war from the days of Frederick the Great, attrition was an undesirable situation. They frequently got stuck when they found themselves in such a state.
>>1087655
Not all locomotives are built for heavy hauling.
>>1088834
>Sounds adequate for 3 million+ riflemen
Do you have any idea what an adequate number of locomotives would be? It doesn't sound like you do.
>>1087655
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_locomotive_class_Ye#World_War_II
>>1088820
Without the war against the Brits the oil situation wouldn't have looked so grim for the Germs, I think. Coal liquefaction would have delivered far greater quantities later in the war, too, if it wasn't for the bombing campaign. I think the Nazis wouldn't have been in a bad situation for a war of attrition after capturing the most productive farmlands, large coal and ore deposits and industrial centers. The late switch to war economy was more of a political decision than the inability to do so.
>>1088578
>The UK and France did fucking nothing 1939-May 1940.
That's not surprising, there's not a lot Germany could do against the worlds largest navy at the time, one-third of the entire worlds shipping was British, let that sink in for a moment one third of the entire world.
Britain didn't have to do anything other than secure its shipping, and it did.
Pic related, and that's not even delving into the Arctic, Asian and African naval campaigns etc
>>1088046
More arable land than any other country in the world and the world's largest oil fields by far.
>>1087866
Artillery is the devil of all armies.
>>1087691
And just 1000 extra is much amairite?
the anglo shilling is disgusting, read a book
>>1089916
You should be doing the same.
Let's just put this in perspective if USSR hadn't received the canned food from Lend Lease
>"URRA WE CAN WIN ON OUR OWN"
>USSR lose Ukraine farmland
>malnutritioned combat rations given to soldiers
>soldiers goes full Auschwitz mode
>all kill
>Germany fucks their women
>>1088952
>Those horrible losses
Well, the krauts attacked merchant convoys, but even so...
>>1087570
that shit was basically a race to see which side could be the most incompetent and idiotic, the Russians were a fucking joke until late 1942 when they finally unfucked themselves (with material support from the US) and the Germans started making absurd mistakes.
Also the Nazis were also occupying all of Europe and were heavily deployed in North Africa, USSR was nearly entirely deployed on the eastern front and had a much bigger force
Like in every successful war Russia has been ever in the weather did most of the damage, and they fought mainly a defensive war trying to repel the Nazis and who then fought a drawn out rearguard against the Russians who had to fight them back through eastern Europe to Berlin, whilst the Nazis were also fighting against the D-Day invasions.
this "russia won ww2" is a fucking stale meme that not even Russians believe
Did the enigma break do much to stop the Nazis? If Britain hadn't broken the Nazi enigma, wood they have won against the USSR?
>>1088136
Dates and sources for those dates.
>>1090290
maybe, the battle at Kursk was largely won because the Russians got word from the British months in advance about where and when the attack would be.
>Like in every successful war Russia has been ever in the weather did most of the damage
Russians and their damn +10 frost resistance right
>>1088439
Your chart disproves your own point.
According to your own chart it made up 12% of the expenditure in '41 and 14% in '42. As a percentage it hardly moves between '41 and '45.
>>1087982
>>1088072
>>1087982
>>1088439
Do you people not realize that the west was fighting Germany before D-Day? Why does everyone ignore the Africa campaign?
The African campaign ended almost the same time as Stalingrad. During the campaign the Axis lost 500K men, 8K aircraft and 2.5K tanks. At Stalingrad the Axis lost 850K men, 900 aircraft and 500 tanks making the loses comparable in men and material. Do you think the soviets could have fought another Stalingrad simultaneously with the original?
>>1092967
Don't forget Italy too
>>1092909
The first graph is important. It quantifies the aid to soviet union in billion of dollars.
The second graph refers to expenditure of the US on the war effort - to how much of that expenditure was LL. It stayed constant, but the absolute numbers of LL in the first graph going up just means that the US was ramping up their military effort.
>>1093010
True, but they always get really focused on Stalingrad which ended in Feb-43, The Africa Campaign ended in May-43. So even if you somehow decide that Stalingrad was the point when Germany lost the war you still have to accept that the West's contribution was significant.
Obviously the war did not end with Stalingrad as Kursk Showed.
>>1093142
Fair enough, but in a way that also demonstrates the main point that the allies were a major part of the war effort. It shows that lend lease was only 14.4% of an apparent $50 billion being spent on the war effort in general.
