Was Overlord and the opening of 2nd front in France really that necessary to end the war?
The war was basically won in the East by 1943 purely by Soviet effort.
>>949153
>I have the luxury of hind sight
true
>>949160
Literally everyone who was not a delusional nazi fanatic knew that Germans were fucked since Stalingrad and even the most optimistic ones lost hope after Kursk.
No it wasn't, but the Soviets wouldn't have won the Eastern front without American supplies
>>949153
Soviets would cuck more European countries, US even bombed Škoda factory in Pilsen that was full of civilians so the Soviets wouldn't get it.
>soviet """""""""""""""effort"""""""""""""""
This is what vatniks truly believe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Corridor
The US literally saved your ass. Had it not been for them, Germany would have bitchslapped you even harder and taken Moscow in 1941.
>>949181
They did caused the most casualties to the germans.
I really doubt americans would stand a chance against 100's of divisions that were in the east.
>>949181
>11 million dollars
>what won the war for USSR
top fucking kek motherfucker
>>949153
>the goal of Operation Overlord wasn't to prevent the Commie takeover of all of mainland Europe
Past a certain point the WWII wasn't about beating Germans anymore as it was about competition of who gets most of their lands under their occupation.
>>949153
Necessary? Probably not. Helpful? Fuck yeah. By july of 1944, the forces arrayed against the Allies in northern France was about 1/3 of what was committed to the entirety of the Ostfront. True, those forces would not have been enough to turn the tide in the east, but it would have been enough to slow the Soviets down, bust them up more.
>>949181
U.S. lend lease helped the Soviets, helped them a lot; especially in counter-attacking. But something like 82% of LL arrived in 1943 onward, and Moscow held and Stalingrad was won before the bulk of the aid arrived.
>>949264
Bagration, Kishniev, Belgrade. The "Zerg rush" was something long abandoned when the Soviets soviets started winning and actually dealing body blows to the Germans.
>>949270
In 1941, the Lend-Lease program to the USSR hadn't started, the tanks lent were British, not American. Furthermore, they were of limited utility, British tanks tended to be pretty bad, and married to ineffective Soviet armored doctrine robbed them of even further utility. Infantry and artillery were what stopped the German advance, not a few hundred matildas and over-light cruiser tanks.
It wasn't really necessary, but if the Western Front never happened, I really doubt the war in Europe would have ended in 1945.
If the US, Britain, and company had never landed in France, Germany would have been able to focus more manpower and materiel to fight the Russians.
Basically, the West served as a thorny backside while the Soviets packed the actual heat.
It wasn't about securing victory, it was about ending the war quicker, and more than anything to keep the Soviets from just annexing large swathes of Europe as they curbstomped the Germans.
>>949153
Stalin himself was demanding a second front. They didnt want to be the only ones sending soldiers to die. People at the time thought it was pretty god damn nececary.
>>949273
>This is bullshit. Neo-soviet revisionism at its worst.
more like
>I don't know shit about anything but I post on the internet anyway
>>949254
>11 million dollars
How does it feel to be illiterate?
>>949270
>In late 1941, roughly ever second "soviet" tank was a sherman brought in thru the lend lease/persian and bering strait corridors
so you are saying that in 1941, roughly every second "soviet" tank was a tank which would not be deployed on the battlefield until late 1942?
ARM THE CHRONOSPHERE
>>949280
>If the US, Britain, and company had never landed in France, Germany would have been able to focus more manpower and materiel to fight the Russians.
Doubtful. The Germans still would have had to keep some garrison in France to serve as a deterrent, and even diverting all but a skeleton force wouldn't have stopped Bagration.
>>949356
Don't forget that the interdiction campaign in France was in full swing, and moving anything around in bulk, by rail, became extremely difficult.
>>949172
Forgetting about Britains arctic convoys
>>949254
>11 million
Are you retarded, US and British supplies totaled in the billions of dollars
>>949278
What about boots for their soldiers, food for their people?
Or can armies march without food and boots?
>>949393
people always forget about the British deliveries to the Soviets
American aid made it possible for the Soviets to go go on the counter offensive relatively quickly, but British aid while incomparably smaller in volume came at the most crucial and vulnerable time of the SU
The Germans were losing the war, they hadn't lost yet. Allied bombing, Italy, lend lease, these were already incredibly significant allied contributions to the war by 1943. Landings in France probably hastened the end of the war by a few months, maybe even close to a year although I'd lean more on 3-4 months.
To me it's purely an academic question. Maybe because I don't see the Soviet raid through Europe as anything positive. Former allies, now turned enemies, both equally bad, both deserved to be destroyed. The end.
More important is the possibility of the Balkan soft underbelly of Europe. What would that change?
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com
the total $11 billion sent to the soviet union between is worth between $160.05 billion (1942 to 2016) and $144.90 billion (1945 to 2016) today
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#GDP
soviet GDP in 1942 was $274 billion in 1990 dollars worth $500 billion today
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army#Mechanization
Soviet military spending was about a third of national expenditure.
This graph >>949345 doesn't show how much was sent to the soviet union alone but we can assume the proportions are similar.
1941: 3.1%
1942: 14.8%
1943: 28.1%
1944: 30.9%
1945: 23.6%
So in 1942 when lend-lease was at its most crucial, soviet military spending was about $167 billion (500/3), of which about at least (0.148*144.90) $21.4 billion was from the lend-lease act or 12.8%. Emphasis on "about" because of all the inaccuracies compounded so far. Using the same calculations for 1943, soviet military spending was $184.44 billion (553.32/3) of which lend-lease provided $40.7 billion (0.281*144.9) or 22%.
You can nitpick over minor inaccuracies, but I think the objective conclusion is that the US did make a significant contribution, possibly enough to turn the tide of the war, certainly enough to shorten the war, though by no means the majority of the effort on the eastern front.
>>949397
You're still missing the point. It's not just about what was delivered, it's about WHEN it was delivered. By the time Moscow was defended, foreign aid to the Soviets was miniscule. By the time of Stalingrad, it was still small. The Soviet defense in that critical juncture of the war was overwhelmingly supported by Soviet production, not Western Allied production.
You can make a very good case that the major counteroffensives would never have happened without Lend-Lease, certainly not in anything like the real world timeframe. But to say that the USSR would have collapsed and German troops would be parading in Moscow in 1941 without it is simply wrong.
>>949414
that's funny considering how much the British relied on U.S. supplies to even stay in the war, the more you study the war the more you realize it was purely American and Soviet industry that won it, considering how much shit the U.S. flooded the Pacific with in such a short period of time Germany and Japan would have likely lost the war several times over just with the absurdly massive U.S. Pacific fleet
Guys, lets be serious here. The Soviet Union didn't need the rest of the Allies. It could have bore the full brunt of the Nazi and Imperial Japanese war machines, and Soviet troops would still be parading through the rubble of Berlin and Tokyo by 1946 at the latest. Lend-lease amounted to jack shit, and the rest of the Allies needlessly sent their troops to die for evil imperialistic gains.
>>949562
Pffft, the United States of America was nearly useless even on the Pacific front (their main front). The Japanese surrendered only because of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. The US wasn't even close to winning against Japan before that.
>>949616
Not him but
>Pretty much obliterate the IJN
>Cut Japan off from their oil supplies
>And their rubber supplies
>And their forces in China
>In fact, between direct raids and the mining campaign, Japanese shipping was down to about half a million tons displacement by the war's end.
>And bomb most of their cities to rubble
>And destroy the transportation network, both rail and canal, in Japan itself
But oh yeah, they were useless. Not to mention that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria can't get to Japan itself, wheras the Americans can, and Olympic, for all of its casualty projections ,would almost certainly have succeeded. The Soviets, meanwhile, were hoping that they could take Hokkaido, and the first step in the plan was asking the U.S. to lend them some landing craft.
>>949625
All communications after the Soviet Invasion show that the IJA and IJN command and the Emperor were solely concerned with Manchuria. They even said that they were surrendering because of the Soviets, not because of the Nagasaki or Hiroshima or any other action the US undertook. The war in the Pacific before the German surrender is irrelevant.
>>949654
Uhm, no. He mentioned it once in an address to the forces stationed in Japan proper. The actual surrender announcement, on the other hand, references the atomic bomb.
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hirohito.htm
>Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.
>>949477
Oh okay I guess the people behind the arctic convoys and war bonds should have told stalin to fuck off, he clearly had it all under control because you say so, that their efforts was minuscule
>>949734
That's not at all what he's saying. The point was that Lend Lease didn't really start to have a significant contribution until after the German offensives had already stalled. The earliest you could really make an argument for Lend-Lease making an impact is Stalingrad, and even then it's iffy.
If we use frontline forces as the standard, then Lend-Lease really didn't start to make an effect until just after Stalingrad ended. The Kuban campaign in 1943 was where you saw most every piece of Lend-Lease equipment in combat for the first time.
>>949760
Artic convoys ran from 1941
>>949765
whoops, Arctic*
>>949765
Yeah I know, which is why I didn't say that Lend-Lease was nonexistent. I said it wasn't significant enough to have made a decisive impact until at the very earliest the Stalingrad campaign. The situation was never desperate enough that the comparatively minor contribution of Lend-Lease in 1941 could have tipped the balance.
>>949765
1941 Arctic convoys made up about 3% of Soviet military expenditure. It only got big much later.
Do you really think the Soviets would have crumpled if they had 3% less materiel?
>>949793
If it made no impact why would they bother shipping valuable resources to the people they hate?
>>949815
No I don't think the soviets would have crumbled
I think they'd have had a much much tougher time
>>949818
>made no impact
Again, that's not what I said. It was that it didn't make a decisive impact until late '42. You had British P-40s and Hurricanes flying over Russia as early as the Battle of Smolensk, but the contribution from Lend-Lease wasn't making a real significant impact in late '41. Just look at the scale of the General Offensive they launched in late '41. Worst case, not having Lend Lease at that time would have just forced them to drop one of the tertiary offensives like the Kerch landings.
>>949860
So why bother helping someone you despise, if it doesn't matter?
>>949883
Are you dense, or are you just deliberately being belligerent here?
Even an insignificant amount of help is better than nothing, and it fosters goodwill between co-belligerents that would make the Soviets more willing to cooperate on a strategic level later on. Starting the efforts earlier despite not being able to make a significant impact on the front allows you to figure out the logistics and infrastructure of the operation while it's still small and manageable so it doesn't become a massive clusterfuck once production lines kick into high gear and things start flooding into the country in more strategically useful amounts.
>>949683
This is tantamount to propaganda, and shouldn't be taken as serious evidence that the Japanese surrendered due to the nuclear bombs. Even the US knew that the Japanese wouldn't surrender because they destroyed two useless cities.
The Emperor only mentioned it (one time) because he was surrendering specifically to the United States, hoping for leniency from the democratic US and that his nation wouldn't be split in two like Germany. His communications to the military should be interpreted as his true thoughts.
>>949936
Britain and the USSR fucking hated each other, it was a mutual thing against hitler
There was no good blood, the only reason to give them supplies would be to help the enemy of your enemy stay in the fight, if it's not necessary, why help someone that seems like they could also be a bitter enemy, they'd fought before and had opposing ideologies
>>949936
It also allowed the Allies to test out the German defenses when it came to trying to intercept convoys, especially over the Arctic routes. You' rather the subs attack a smaller shipping force than a huge one when you're working the kinks out of your defensive setups.
>>949991
And a public announcement made to the troops that were stationed in Japan itself and never fought, saying "Don't worry guys, it wasn't your fault, we lost on another front entirely that you couldn't have affected" isn't propaganda either?
>>949153
No, but it was necessary to keep all of Europe save for Norway, Sweden, Southern Italy, and Spain from going Red. Churchill wanted to invade the Balkans not because he wanted a second front, but because he wanted to keep them out of the Soviet's hands. Churchill, unlike Roosevelt, knew that the fate of post-war Europe was at stake.
>>949860
>>949936
Lend-lease wasn't needed by the Soviet Union and played no real part in their winning the war. By the time it was arriving in any sizeable amount it was no longer needed, as the Soviets were pumping out enough to maintain themselves. The Soviets probably wouldnt even have to drop any tertiary offensives like you suggest, and, if they did, they were unimportant anyway, and unnecessary to win the war.
I will admit, the goodwill part is probably true. It probably made the unstoppable Soviet war machine halt in East Germany and not attack the Allies and liberate France and the low countries.
>>950007
>if it's not necessary, why help
>the only reason to give them supplies would be to help the enemy of your enemy stay in the fight
Well you just answered your own question right there. Strategic supply operations tend to take time to ramp up, and it's pants-on-head retarded to only start such things once you've got the capacity to definitively make a significant impact. Moreover, the Brits had no idea just how much it'd take to make a real impact, so they might as well just start shipping shit over because even minor amounts of help are better than nothing.
And don't act like there wasn't cooperation between the Anglo-American forces and the Soviets. Had Lend-Lease not been a thing, it'd have been far harder to convince the Soviets to join the war against Japan once Europe wrapped up. Plus, you had several token cooperative operations, like Operation Frantic (ignoring how much of a clusterfuck it was)
>>950015
It's more believable propaganda, although you can't totally trust anything out of a Japanese person's mouth. It's especially believable that they'd surrender because of the Soviet Army and the defeat of a large percent of Japanese troops in Manchuria instead of the loss of a few thiusand civilians that didn't contribute to the war effort.
>>950042
Remember when Stalin wouldn't help the poles and wouldn't let the west use their airbases, or even fly in their airspace to help during the warsaw uprising
Remember how the cold war happened
Remember how Britain had already fought the reds in russia, and had wanted to fight them again
They fucking hated the USSR, Churchill hated the USSR, and if they were apparently fine without there help, why even bother
>>950041
A huge component of Lend-Lease was in strategic materials and logistical equipment that people don't really take into account. While the vast majority of frontline equipment was Soviet-made, you had vital logistical elements that consisted of huge amounts of Lend-Lease. I'll have to dig around to find the actual numbers, but Soviet train production over the course of the war was very, very low, despite having suffered heavy losses in Barbarossa to Luftwaffe air attacks. The reason production was so low was because Lend-Lease was sending them enough trains that they didn't need to bother producing any themselves.
>>950057
Because, like that anon said, the weak Western Allies wanted to appease the massive Soviet bear. They were smart and recognized that if the Soviets wanted to, they could overtake the war-weary Allied troops in West Germany, France, and Italy. Their best bet was to give the Soviets Eastern Europe and send them paltry gifts during the war.
>>950041
>lend lease wasn't needed by the Soviet Union
>The Soviet Union could have invaded the rest of Europe
Holy shit, Eastern block propaganda education, the post
>>950053
>It's more believable propaganda,
Given that the Soviets had no means to actually get to Japan itself, and their invasion of the Kuril islands showed how awful they were at attacking even a barely held set of tiny islands in 1945, I don't find it believable at all.
Meanwhile, the atomic bomb demonstrated American willingness to blow up cities any time they felt like it, showing will, not just capability (which had been well established) to hit Japan.
>>950068
Actually false. I won't spoonfeed you or do your research for you, but I guarantee your source will either disagree with you or will be pure propaganda. The Soviets retained most of their trucks/trains/railways from before the war and produced the majority of what they needed after the war began. Lend-lease was meager and unnecessary for the Soviets to win.
>>950057
m8, it's been explained to you plenty of times already and you're just refusing to acknowledge it.
>setting up for larger-scale supply operations
>Brits can't realistically know what the threshold is for "good enough," so they figure they might as well just start shipping things regardless of how little it may be
Also,
>Muh warsaw
The controversy over the Warsaw Uprising is far less black and white than it's made out to be. The Soviets had just overrun the majority of Belarus when they arrived on the gates of Warsaw and were afraid of overextending themselves, lest they be left open for another counterattack a-la Third Kharkov. The time they spent dicking around right outside of Warsaw was because they were consolidating their position - mopping up remnants of Army Group Center and preparing forces for the coming Winter offensive.
>>950076
That's not exactly what I meant. While that probably helped, what I was getting at was more that it got the Soviets to operate on fairly amicable terms with the West. You had token cooperative operations like Operation Frantic and the Normandy Niemen air regiment, and such heavy materiel support would make the Soviets more willing to cooperate on a strategic scale by doing things like coordinating with the Allies in the last days of the war on occupation zones and joining the war against Japan.
>>950080
Wrong. I'm not from part of the butthurt belt, Russia, or any other former Warsaw-pact countries. Do some more research instead of watching Saving Private Ryan, and you'll find the truth.
>>950084
If the Soviets had wanted to, they could've. Do some more research, and you'll see why you're completely wrong.
>>950087
>billions worth of goods ranging from military equipment to clothing to food
>meager and unnecessary
Fuck off commie
>>950103
That's a load of fucking horseshit, if their delays weren't about wanting a weak poland that they could take then why didn't they let the US and UK help the polish? Why didn't he let his supposed allies use his air bases?
Because he was a cunt, and because the western powers and russia were not real allies
SO IF THE USSR COULD HAVE DONE IT WITHOUT SUPPLIES, WHY SEND THEM SUPPLIES?
>>950087
>I won't spoonfeed you
read: I'm full of shit
>germany surrenders
>ruskies stare at the english channel
britbongs on suicide watch
>>950116
Billions as compared to the tens of trillions of dollars worth of goods and equipment the Soviets were pumping out.
>>950114
>If the Soviets had wanted to, they could've. Do some more research, and you'll see why you're completely wrong.
I have done research. The Soviet plan for the invasion of Hokkaido's first step was to ask the Americans to expand Project Hula to give them enough sealift to put a division out at a time.
Given that they lost a third of their landing craft at Kuril, and that Hokkaido would be WAY more heavily defended, it's a toss up between whether or not Truman just says no, or if he says yes, gives them their division's worth, and they get bottled up on a mountain slope somewhere indefinitely.
The Soviets were not good at naval operations, or amphibious ones. Soviet involvement crushed the Japanese in Manchuria, and had they wished they could have easily gone on into China and Korea, but they're not getting to Japan itself without literally years of building up a navy in Vladivostok and training to do invasions like that, and by that point, the Americans would have long since occupied the entire island chains.
>>949264
Go to /k/, /int/ or /pol/ if you're going bait this hard. Fuck off, retard.
>>950135
>the americans will be on their knees after the suprise attack, no way they can recover quicky
>the soviet army is done for, millions captured, equipment lost
>
>>950156
0/10 Try to address what the person you respond to says next time.
>>950116
>Why didn't he let his supposed allies use his air bases?
Because Operation Frantic had shown that cooperative air raids of that nature were a clusterfuck that the Soviets weren't willing to put up with.
Granted, there very likely was more malicious intent to the Soviets halting just short of Warsaw. But they were far from sitting with their thumbs up their asses while Warsaw burned. Forces south of Warsaw were busy trying to secure a bridgehead on the Vistula and break out across the Capathians to take Romania out of the war. Those forces that were near Warsaw had already put what was left of Army Group Center on their back foot, and their bigger concern was taking care of a relatively intact Army Group North now trapped in the Baltic. They had a fair degree of plausible deniability in the situation. I personally believe that they wanted that failure to happen, but it was less the Russians being actively malicious and more them just not wanting to put the extra effort into aiding a party they didn't want to deal with postwar.
>>950168
this isnt your ebin 4chin memery board
fuck off retard
you claim things on the same level
you have no fucking idea if and how would such operation go
and if theres any indication, its soviets do whatever they put their mind on
fuck off retard
On the topic of the thread, does anyone have any sources with the raw numbers for Lend-Lease supplies? All I'm finding is numbers for things like tanks and aircraft accompanied by vague statements about non-combat materials being 75% of the Lend-Lease contribution.
>>950130
there's records of the stuff the US sent, and in todays money it's in the hundreds of billions of dollars
Show me evidence that the USSR was pumping out the tens of trillions
because I say you're full of shit
>>950187
I would suggest that the Kuril Islands invasions, carried out in August of 1945, would be very representative of other Soviet amphibious operations in 1945.
They had a hell of a time defeating a tiny force cut off from communications, they lost 5 out of their 16 landing craft against the level of opposition of "Stand on the shore with a tiny mortar and shoot at the boat". Hokkaido, the planned point to hit in Japan would be far more heavily defended. I have enormous doubts whether a single soviet division would have gotten anywhere, no matter how determined the Soviets were.
And if the Americans don't want them to do the operation, and don't give them the boats, it's not going to happen at all.
>>950169
Are you shitting me, there were troops around warsaw just waiting till the resistance collapsed and the germans left
>>950224
They may have been on the gates of Warsaw, but launching an operation to take the city was far from a simple undertaking. Their options were
>disrupt the entire 1944 Summer Offensive plan to divert troops for another encirclement operation around Warsaw
>haphazardly throw men into a direct assault on the city
Neither of which were favorable, especially considering the uprising wasn't friendly to the Soviets.
And they didn't "just wait until the resistance collapsed." They were preparing for the Vistula-Oder Offensive, which wasn't ready to be launched until mid-January 1945 - well after the Warsaw Uprising was over.
Listen, what the Soviets did to the Poles in WW2 was abhorrent, and I'm not arguing otherwise there. But you're portraying the Soviets denying help to Warsaw as an act of pure evil, and that definitely wasn't the case.
>>950265
Yeah the russians weren't one to haphazardly throw troops into the grinder, good point anon very good point
>>950304
>resorting to the lelhumanwaves memeing
>>950322
Want to devalue someones point without having evidence or logic? Better call it a meme.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War#First_battles
>>950361
>the RKKA of 1939 was the RKKA of 1944
You're really grasping for straws, aren't you?
>>950361
>implying the Soviets were at the same operational and tactical level in 1944 that they were in 1939.
>>950380
Nice goal post moving
>>950393
You're sure it's me who's moving the goalposts? You're the one using the opening stages of a war five years prior to the operation in question as "proof."
In other news, I found raw Lend-Lease data.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/LL-Ship/index.html
Now any train autists out there know where I can find data on Soviet train numbers, production, etc?
>>950413
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtrafbat
>>949153
It wasn't strictly necessary to win the war, no, but it served other functions. The west was paranoid that Stalin would continue on past Germany, and they didn't want to lose the entire continent to the Soviets. The opening of a second front also ended the war faster, leading to arguably less casualties and human suffering overall.
>>950611
It was useless and a waste of life. The Soviets were going to win no matter what, and the rest of the Allies weren't necessary. The End.
>>950217
I'm not going to spoonfeed you. If you don't agree with what I'm saying you probably haven't read enough on thus subject. Either that or you havent completed your primary school education.
Third Front
We had already invaded Italy before Overlord.
>>950223
I just want to say, that person you responded to is not the original anon claiming that the Soviets were entirely responsible for the Japanese surrender. That would be me.
The Soviets only planned to use Anerican boats so that the other Allies could continue to feel like they were helping out. Those boats probably weren't inspected properly before being used in that operation. I blame western-leaning workers for letting faulty western equipment kill good Soviet Soldiers. If Soviet boats were used, not a single one would have sunk. And if the Stalin had willed it, the Soviet Union could have produced a large and powerful fleet to transport Soviet troops into Japan.
>>950752
It saved Half of Europe from being occupied and controlled by the Soviet Union for half a century.
Stalin would have never stopped going west. Only the presence of the American military halted him in Germany.
>>950223
They invaded Kuril Islands after Japan had surrendered.
The islands belong to Japan. Russia still illegally occupies them.
>>950839
You are probably an Amerifat, right?
Whatever.
It is your choice to remain ignorant of history. Please leave this discussion, so that the educated may speak on this topic.
>>950879
So it was useless, and did not contribute to the victory over Nazi Germany.
If the Soviets had wanted to, they could have crushed the tiny and weak Allied forces in Western Europe.
>>950889
Soviet would have never been able to counter attack successfully if not for the refined oil products and trucks sent by America.
>>950887
And this was not challenged because the Allies both feared and respected the Soviet Union for their monumental victory over the Germans and Japanese. If they had tried to contest it, the Soviets might just have steamrolled Western Europe and Japan.
>>950906
No.
Soviets were basically at the end of the logistics train they could maintain. While the Anglos were well supplied.
Anglos would have had air superiority and naval superority. Would have pushed the Soviets out of Poland and the Baltics. If they Soviets persisted. America would have had a few new nuclear bombs by then. Putting them on a B-29 or B-36. Flying with jet fighter escort.
>Western front was demanded by Stalin.
>Zhukov admitted Red Army could not have pushed Germany back, let alone win w/o Lend Lease.
>Soviets would have won without western allies.
Oh, /his/, never change.
>>950889
>makes an autistic claim
>won't provide evidence to back up autistic claim and restarts to ad hominems
Nothing more to see here, we are dealing with a delusional retard.
>>950874
But not in time for the soviets to take Japan before the Americans. Stop embarrassing yourself.
>>950909
The Soviet Union had captured the oil fields in Bessarabia and Morthern Iran, which would provide more than enough supplies to keep them going. This is, of course, completely disregarding all the other areas in the Soviet Union where there were bountiful harvests of supplies.
>>950931
Once the Soviet Army had regrouped, there would be no stopping them. The US wouldn't have any air fields close enough to bomb any Soviet cities, after the first week or two of the invasion of Western Europe.
>>950955
Western propaganda.
Wow, /his/ is full of uneducated Amerifats. Get some history from real books instead of Hollywood war movies.
>>950999
>bountiful harvests of supplies
lol kid
>>951016
>more ad hominems
Really getting separate aren't you? Keep sucking off the USSR when every source points to the fact they didn't have boats to land on Japan and would have needed Americas help.
>>950999
>Western propaganda.
Russian academics, actually. They would not have won without Lend Lease.
http://www.forbes.ru/mneniya-column/istoriya/288019-lend-liz-fakty-i-mify
>>950874
>I blame western-leaning workers for letting faulty western equipment kill good Soviet Soldiers. If Soviet boats were used, not a single one would have sunk.
'Liberty' ships were designed for 5 years of operation. Of the 38 sent to the USSR under Lend Lease, 19 were still being operated in 1974.
>>950874
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Oh wait, are you serious?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAAAA
Imma save this obvious troll thread, I come bearing gifts.
Soviet Order of Battle WWII Vol 1: "Deadly Beginning" Sovet Tank, Mechanized, Motorized Divisions and Tank Brigades of 1940-1942
https://mega.nz/#!dhtXXQoS!yw-gW65oP6oDP_pLj0qlva_fjAue3PWciG9cOnhblpw
Soviet Order of Battle WWII Vol 2: "School of Battle" Soviet Tank Corps & Tank Brigades January 1942 to 1945
https://mega.nz/#!9odyyRDS!v9eReRojO31T4MRNdE0wz2aeQ3BfWNljcRMfCFtzwUM
Taнки Лeнд-Лизa 1941-1945 (Lend-Lease Tanks 1941-1945) in Russian but photos have English captions.
https://mega.nz/#!kw9VnKgS!h3lT0QNWQ1z8hYBIVzP056tZ-i-N6LPo8sg1qLcSOjg
Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks: The World War II Memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitriy Loza
https://mega.nz/#!kh9B3RwZ!XDxidbpNgQeImRWxRbfGCN0En1zOtwjU8zhfsPz8tKA
Comrade Emcha: Red Army Shermans of WW2
https://mega.nz/#!Nldn2RwZ!I4pPz-N7Qwh44Omv9JwhrdqozLCYGKcvy7IllF6fh0I
The Viaz'ma Catastrophe, 1941: The Red Army's Disastrous Stand Against Operation Typhoon
https://mega.nz/#!4pNFXCCI!XBhGUZ_pdkhjpqCeiRi9lyh1-Z5JPp65azh8FuJhEnw
Russia's War: A History of the Soviet Effort: 1941-1945
https://mega.nz/#!998DxKCQ!D7BKhW89_eNJxQC0JQyYD_3hkNAphb6Qi82FjoFVv74
>>951025
m8, I even agree with what you're arguing, but you're being a raging faggot. Don't make a claim and then get all pissy when people ask for you to actually back it up.
>>951451
This is why /his/ needs ID's.
>>951451
Are you confusing me with someone else? No one asked me to back up my claims and i was laughing at the retard who was avoiding giving any sources for this shitty claim that the USSR somehow would be capable of a sea invasion of Japan before America could launch one.
>>951025
>>951026
>>951209
>>951248
I still don't understand how you can think that the Soviet Union wasn't completely unstoppable. It didn't need lend-lease at all. It single handedly won the war. America, Britain, France, and the rest of the Allies were useless and unnecessary for a total victory. They could've taken the full brunt of both the Nazi German and Imperial Japanese war machine with one hand tied behind their back.
>>951573
You need to be more subtle m88
>>951566
Following the reply chain, it's looking like you're the jackass giving people shit for asking for a source
>muh spoonfeeding
>>951585
I'm serious. I'm the anon who's been making most of the pro-Soviet posts in this thread.
If you've never been in a thread discussing the Soviet contribution to victory in World War 2 before, you might disagree with me. I'm not going to show you Amerifats the numerous sources I've seen from here saying that the Soviets won the war completely on their own, and that the rest of the Allies' contributions were so minimal that they should be disregarded.
>>951616
yeah sure
>>951635
I'm sorry that you're so uneducated that you have to resort to calling my opinions bait, autistic or trolling.
>>951650
Seriously, I'm just agreeing with the numerous anons I've seen on here and /int/. The Soviet Union was an unstoppable powerhouse, and they would have been unaffected if the other Allies did nothing.
>>951666
>I'm just agreeing with the numerous anons I've seen on here and /int/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlKL_EpnSp8
>>951708
I have read books on the subject, it's how I know those anons were right. I've also read all their sources.
>>951717
Post them.
>>951616
This is an incredibly stupid post. Not disputing that the Soviets were the primary victors of the war but to pretend that the rest of the allies did effectively nothing stinks of revisionism. First the Russians caused around 2.1M German casualties, the other allies caused around 1M (including Italians). Causing 33% of enemies casualties is hardly "nothing". And that ignores Japanese casualties which were around 2.2M, not sure what the division was but the majority were NOT caused by the soviets. Further considering the strategic advantages, if the Germans weren't at war with at least the US then they would have been free to trade in the Atlantic with restraint, not to mention all of the naval forces they wouldn't have had to commit to trying to stop US aid from reaching Britain. And of course all of the allied bombing of German industry had a huge impact.
The Soviets may have been punching Hitler in the face, but the US was the one holding his hands behind his back.
>>949181
Persian Corridor wasn't even open in 1941 you retard.
>>951666
No, you are just trying too had and it shows.
>>951969
>First the Russians caused around 2.1M German casualties, the other allies caused around 1M (including Italians).
The Soviet Union caused roughly twice that number of casualties (kia and mia, not wounded). German WW2 dead are above five million, 5.3 acc. to Overmans.
>>952022
My numbers exclude death by disease. More Germans were on the eastern so more of them died of disease there, Soviets might get credit for deaths caused by generals mud and winter but not general pox.
>>952088
Fewer than 200,000 soldiers are recorded by the Germans themselves to have died of disease.
![L7bEgka[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/pAFr4l5.png "L7bEgka[1].png")
>>951969
Closer to 10M casualties actually.
>>952160
I've never read a source putting German casualties that high. Not even combined German, Italian, and Romanian losses.
Most sources put the number at this.
http://warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/deaths.htm
![M2ehbYI[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/6IsEcwF.png "M2ehbYI[1].png")
>>952201
This is from Glantz, which counts permanent casualties rather than deaths.
Also, there is a very distinct difference between a casualty and a death.
Here are his figures for Axis on the Eastern Front.
>>949272
In literally every encounter the Soviets outnumbered Germany by far and still had way higher losses.
![wHdwr8R[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/Jfh2sMQ.png "wHdwr8R[1].png")
>>952239
Only if you read Soviet figures which count non-permanent casualties while reading German figures which only count permanent casualties.
Here are Soviet casualties from Glantz.
>>952239
Except no, that's not true. In many encounters in 1941, the Germans outnumbered the Soviets; and in the battles I listed, as well as quite a few others in the 44-45, the Soviets inflicted a hell of a lot more casualties than they took.
>>951418
The first 2 pdf's are pretty rare, they sell for like $30 a piece on ebay. I don't have the rest of the series though.
>>949172
And the allies wouldn't have won against the Axis without Russia...
Who cares other than autists.
>>952254
What figures would I read other than Soviet figures? Who would have kept records of dead Russian farmers but them? Certainly not the Germans, who might be autistic but probably had better things to do than count every dead Russian.
>>952304
In small skirmishes maybe.
In the end the point remains: Russia sucks at war and without the US saving their asses they would have lost horribly like the incompetent retards they are.
>>949270
(Citation needed)
>>952329
>In small skirmishes maybe.
Are you ignorant, or just severely retarded? Do you think the elimination of the entirety of AGC a "skirmish"? The steamrollering of Romania and the loss of the single biggest source of oil to the Reich by far? The liberation of Yugoslavia?
>>949466
Price does not necessarily equal amount of usefulness.
>>952342
Their losses in the major battles speak for themselves. It's a fact that Russia fought by Zergrushing and Soviet revisionism isn't going to change that.
>>950024
This is the worst kind of historical revisionism.
If the allies in the West didn't help out after 1940, it's very likely Russia would have been incapable of defeating Germany.
The Soviets would be very very unlikely to have been able to push into Western Europe even with our help 1939-1944.
So maybe we did it to keep Western Germany from going red, but if we didn't help out originally then the situation would have never developed that way.
>>950084
But the Soviets continuing to blow the fuck out of Japanese forces in China DID and WOULD continue to have an effect.
>>952370
Bagration saw the Germans losing about 4.2 men for each that the soviets lost, Kishniev had twice as many Germans captured as the Soviets took entire losses in the operation, and at Belgrade they lost almost 10 men for each one of the Soviets. These are major battles.
Stop talking out of your ass. The Soviets didn't "Zerg rush" their way to victory. By the end of the war, they were considerably more tactically sophisticated than their adversaries.
>>952386
Oh, to be sure, it would have an effect post-war. It did not factor in highly to Japanese considerations of surrender; they weren't holding their overseas possessions anyway at that point and weren't expecting to.
>>952370
(You)
>>952389
I'm sure that's what your Soviet propaganda sources tell you.
>>952394
Look at all these claims that couteract well-known historical evidence of Imperial Japanese council discussions over surrendering because of the COMBINED nuclear attacks and Soviet destruction of Manchuoko in 2 weeks.
>>952407
Just wiki the battles, if you don't believe me.
>this thread
>>952389
>By the end of the war, they were considerably more tactically sophisticated than their adversaries
Operationally more than tactically. From what I understand, Soviet low-level tactics were generally lacking for the whole war.
>>949254
It said 11,000 millions... aka 11 billion aka worth about $200 billion today.
>>949270
It should be mentioned that even the pre-war Soviet equipment was largely American licensed. It many cases the Lend-Lease equipment was supplementing Soviet-produced American equipment. Trucks and tractors, specifically. Even the T-34 was the evolution of the American licensed, Soviet produced BT tanks.
That Lend-Lease didn't have an immediate effect, i.e. "The first shipments didn't arrive until late 1941!" is a shortsighted argument. For example the agreement allowed the Soviets to immediately covert truck production factories to tank production knowing trucks would be supplied via LL well before shipments arrived.
>>952329
I don't understand the point of this bait. Is this some attempt to make contemporary Americans feel better about fighting Russia in a future war?
I don't like to say this, but the Germans outclassed the Americans as well. The Germans who had seen action in the East often derided the Americans for being incompetent and far less aggressive than the Russians.
>>952459
>For example the agreement allowed the Soviets to immediately covert truck production factories to tank production knowing trucks would be supplied via LL well before shipments arrived.
Quick, list all truck factories that were converted to tank factories, and provide a rough estimate of the number of tanks that were built from such factories. You should be able to do this since you are obviously not literally pulling shit from your asshole in order to support an argument you made based solely on your prejudice.
>>951418
>>952319
Soviet Order of Battle WWII Vol 1: "Deadly Beginning" Sovet Tank, Mechanized, Motorized Divisions and Tank Brigades of 1940-1942
>7th Tank Division
>....Like 4th Tank Division in the same corps, this was one of the best equipped units in the Red Army by June 1941; its fate shows graphically how little equipment on hand can contribute to combat effectiveness when everything else is missing. By 1 June the division had 51 KVs, 150 T-34s, 125 BT-5 or BT-7, and 42 T-26 tanks, and was at virtually full strength in artillery, armored cars, mortars, antiaircraft weapons, and personnel. On paper, it was a very powerful armored force.
>In reality, the division did not have a single round of 76mm armor-piercing ammunition on hand, so the 201 modern tanks were almost useless against German armor. In addition, the division had only enough diesel fuel to fill up its vehicles one time. and once the 10th Army fuel depot in Bialystok was destroyed by bombing, as it was on 22 June, no one in the division knew where any other fuel depots were located! By 28 June the division commander was killed in action, the rifle regiment separated and overrun without support, the artillery and heavy weapons immobilized for lack of working tractors, and most of the tanks abandoned for lack of fuel. The 7th Tank Division disappeared from the Soviet order of battle before 1 July - less than 9 days after the war started.
>German officers who interrogated prisoners from 6th Mechanized Corps in July 1941 remarked on the fact that both 4th and 7th Tank Divisions were better equipped in heavy and medium tanks and artillery than any panzer division in 1941. The fact that both divisions were destroyed in a few days, without doing any comparable damage to the enemy, shows how difficult it is for even a relatively well-equipped armored force to go from a peacetime environment to full-scale battle, on no notice, with poorly trained officers and men, and no support.
>>949153
Americans invaded because they wanted to stop the Soviet Union from taking the entire of Europe. They wanted to reach Berlin before the Soviets did.
Overlord was never necessary to defeat Germany, they had already lost in Russia and North Africa.
Also their almost none-existing navy was crushed. Their air force reduced to a handfull of planes with untrained pilots. Allies held complete air dominance by the end of the war.
>>952477
USSR was begging for the Allies to open up a second front.
>>952473
>>952477
>North Africa
Was a tiny, tiny sideshow. At least say Italy, where the Germans deployed about 5 times as many troops as they ever did to North Africa.
>Their air force reduced to a handfull of planes with untrained pilots. Allies held complete air dominance by the end of the war.
Which was more due to the Americans than the Russians.
http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm
>>952487
Good job, you posted a literal wall of text that did not support your claim at all except in the vaguest sense.
Oh good! Another I know better than Marshall Zhukov thread.
>Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic], we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of American deliveries.
>It is now said that the Allies never helped us. However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and could not have continued the war. We had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance.
>>952500
What are you talking about? That definitely supported his point.
>Majority of Soviet trucks built to American standards
>That means logistics are already set up to deal with American built-trucks that arrive under Lend-Lease
>>952524
Whenever someone uses the "wall of text! reading is hard!" argument it's best to just ignore them.
>>952500
>not support your claim at all except in the vaguest sense.
it completely supports his point and is actually pretty interesting if the source is correct
>>949172
Maybe it wasent but what would have stopped stalin from occupying all of europe if they had not?
>>952239
Why do retards allways belive that attacks should be carried out by numbers equal to the defenders?
Soviets can not do what mighty Americans can!
Do not doubt Murica!
Why do there're still people who says "USSR was useless, it's US won the War" and "US was useless, it's USSR won the War"?
Nobody doubts in that US supplied some shit to USSR, and this shit probably was critical (we really cannot know), but in the same time nobody doubts that it's USSR crushed Nazi's army.
> bulk of german forces are sent to eastern front
> Russians do most of the fighting
well no shit, fuck tard.
Love how these threads always ignore the Italian front that was also British and US and tied down 1 million German troops.
Nope there was France and the Steppes of Russia das it mang.
>>952749
It's actually more than just the forces committed to Italy, the Germans transferred even more troops than the 26ish divisions to Italy to places like southern Yugoslavia, Greece, and southern France to prevent any opportunistic landings out from Italy itself; and while such attacks never materialized, they still occupied a shit ton of forces that never actually got to fight at all.
>>949616
Dude what this is fucking historical revision at its finest. The soviets were too busy fighting the nazis. The main bulk of the fighting in the Pacific was done by the US. This resulted in the creation of the massive navy, air power at sea through the aircraft carrier, and infantry that was extremely experienced in naval landings. While the soviets had a huge land army, the US had a huge naval and air force.
The US was destroying all of the Japanese forces after an extremely rocky start because the Japanese officers had the retarded philosophy of "no surrender." This resulted in the destruction of all of their forces stationed in all of the islands, their navy, and their airforce.
The Soviets were uncomfortable with the prospect of a second front with the Japanese. But the Japanese were too busy fighting in SEA, throughout the islands of the Pacific, and in China. This allowed them to practically throw all of their military might to the Nazis. I can't recall the exact details, but I believe it was the Soviet ambassador to Japan who sent the message to Stalin that Japan was not a threat to the USSR. In addition, the Soviet involvement in the last month of the war against Japan was from a deal it made with the US if I remember correctly. The deal was after a certain amount of time after the defeat of Germany, the soviets will fight against Japan. Even then, at the time the soviets got involved, Japan's military and supplies was wrecked.
>>949153
I think it kept Germany from taking England. if they had occupied the UK America wouldn't have had a place to launch their attack. That being said, America would have used a nuke on Berlin if came down to it.
It's true that Germany was pretty much defeated single handedly by the Soviet Union. But if It wasn't for Americas industrial efforts to supply Stalin with war time equipment, Germany would have walked right in and taken out Moscow and marched onward east.
>>950053
Are you blatantly ignoring the whole Pacific campaign that destroyed the Japanese military? The japanese were practically getting their ass handed over to them every single time an operation or battle started, especially when their navy and air force practically became nonexistent. And it was mainly done by the US.
>>952828
The Battle of Britain is what kept Germany from taking England. That and operation sealion was a meme.
>be planning sealion
>ask army what it wants
>ask navy what it wants
>both disagree with each other in the main points
>don't even invite the air force to the meeting
>>950187
Yet you're the jackass who is saying, "the soviets will win cause I say so"
The problem with these threads is that 2/3rd of it is spent refuting moronic statements and obvious trolling, almost always the same things as the last 'Eastern Front' thread. Any actual discussion is the exception.
I know /his/ isn't supposed to have general threads but in the case of WW2 or the Eastern Front we could really use one. That or post ID's like /int/ and /pol/ to at least combat the obvious baiting and trolling.
>>952918
>that pic
Is that a carcano?
>>952927
Yep
>>952933
To be fair, Goering wasn't the only person making that assumption. You had Arthur "bomb everything in Germany" Harris, and Chennault once boasted that given 500 bombers and fighters to escort them, he could kick the entire Japanese force out of China without any need for land offensives.
>>952918
The sad part is compared to the general public many posters know a lot more than the average John Q. Citizen.
>>952994
Also with Goering, it's hard to take whatever he said at face value. Because he was a shameless, bald-faced liar.
The last time Goering gave a fuck was in August of 1939, when he tried to convince everyone that Germany would lose the war. Goering basically gave no fucks by 1940.
>>953004
John Q citiezen, however, is often more reasonable, more willing to admit he doesn't know something. Anons will keep doubling down on their stupidity.
>>952994
Thanks for reminding me. That's how the air force kept on getting high casualty rates along with the deaths of civilians. Which caused a good chunk of European culture getting destroyed. It's just that the battle of Britain, along with other German operations and helping the Italians, kept on stretching them out, making them more vulnerable to the soviets, leading to defeat.
>>953010
lol true
> land-lease -- our most proudest contribution to war!
So even if the Germans had won Stalingrad and marched onto Moscow to capture by some stroke of luck, would the Western Allies' invasions have been applicable?
>>952994
To be fair, Big Wing was a shit and Chennault knew jack fucking shit about combined arms. (An Airman through and through, that Chennault.)
That, and his superior was a crabby kike who hated Chiang while he was pushing for modernizing and training the RoC Air Corps.
Not gonna disagree with Chennault being blinkered enough to think that he needed only 500 bombers to defeat the Japanese though. You need men to hold land.
Also, re: that fucking Russia uber alles shitposter, have some Dmitry Loza.
http://iremember.ru/en/memoirs/tankers/dmitriy-loza/
Also this
http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm
