what happened to america
>>61760160
I cannot understand why liberal politicians pander to Muslims so much. Islam opresses women, kills gays, kills adulteres and is also pro-slavery.
Why are liberals so stupid? Even here, a pro-LGBT congressman was calling for more mosques to come to Brazil or some shit like that, fucking retarded.
>>61760160
this b8 was posted yesterday
Wait a little longer, iphone poster
>>61760357
I legitimately cannot understand why bringing in Muslims is even done by leftists. Muslims are directly against their agenda inherently unless the Muslim is basically an atheist due to their beliefs (which are by doctrine uncompromising), and they commit terror attacks which directly contribute to far right-wing parties' rise
>>61760357
votes. demographics is destiny and they will vote for the people wiling to pander to them. trudeau dances around and prays at mosques with them.
>>61760160
Today is not June 6 you fucking retarded chink
>>61760813
>chink
Where the fuck did you get that?
>>61760160
Spotted the redditurd
Trump is so fucking based
>>61760357
Same reason we get haitians even tho we dont have jobs for ourselves
Votes
Pretty sure trump didn't even post this lmao
>>61760987
why do you greasy lotiondicked nerds care so much if someone uses an iphone for fucks sake
>>61761069
Keep crying redditard
>>61761216
christ, I wish I could beat you up and take your lunch money faggot
>>61761026
He did, you asswipe.
>>61760160
what happen to our leaf
>>61760160
>muh d-day
most of the troops weren't even from the US, why are Americans so prideful of it?
>>61761016
you wish it was that. It's a premeditated aggressive attack on civilization, to create destruction and suffering out of which they plan to form a global totalitarian order. The claimed un-intentional side effect, that is terrorism, is actually the intended effect, and the goal thereof
>>61760357
Because Islam is anti-West.
>>61761296
I'd beat the fuck out of you and leave you crying on the ground like the little bitch you are
>>61761864
An allied victory would have been impossible without our support
More like Shillary Clinton shilling mudslimes lol
more like /B/ernie Sanders because he is retarded lol
>>61762147
Not even him, but just kill yourself already
>>61762253
underrated post
>>61762278
Not any of those anons but you should eat a bullet
>>61762207
you really believe that?
The Soviets would have won 100% without you
>>61762461
Not until you guzzle some bleach
>>61762489
And that would have been better for the rest of Europe?
>>61762489
>soviets mass import american boots/trucks/industrial supplies
>to the point where the possibility of Arkhangelsk being occupied by the Finns made the Western Allies shit themselves
>hurr they wuld haf wun without u :^)
>>61761864
Yeah, but we were the ones who had to take Omaha and Utah while the rest of you faggots had it easy.
>>61760357
It's because the first goal of the left is to bring down the current order in the west. This blinds them to the fact that they're seriously fucking over their cause in the long term.
>>61760471
Muslims (or immigrants in general) tend to vote left even if they don't support those ideologies at all, simply because leftist parties tend to be all about welfare and muh acceptance of foreigners. I believe that whole strategy will backfire once minorities start founding their own parties, though - a muslim party in an European country would probably draw tons of voters from the labor and green parties.
>>61762676
that's not what we're arguing
>>61762701
>the supply meme
kek the Soviets did all the fighting and even without your supplies they would have won although it would have been slower
>>61762821
>the rest of you faggots had it easy
yes, Finland had it so easy in WW2 having to fight against both sides :^)
says the country that has never had a real war on its own soil
>>61763128
>that's not what we're arguing
It is though
A Soviet controlled Europe would have been worse off than a Nazi controlled one so you have us to thank :^)
>>61763128
>and even without your supplies they would have won
>soviet industry running on American supplies for like 2 years
>huge percentage of soviet population in german occupation areas so no factory workers
>soviet infantry rely on American shipments so their feet don't fall off in the winter
>DEY WULD HAF WUN
>>61760357
VOTES
O
T
E
S
>>61763246
>A Soviet controlled Europe would have been worse off than a Nazi controlled one
That's just your uneducated opinion that is a result of American russophobia and paranoid anti-socialist propaganda.
>>61763270
I read that historians estimated it would've taken the Soviets at least 2 more years to defeat the Nazis but they would've finished the job anyway.
Not surprising given that they contributed more than all other cunts combined.
>>61763505
>without American lend-lease
>no boots for infantry -> infantry can't fight for shit
>no machine parts for factories -> no guns, no tanks, no planes
>DEY WULD HAF WUN
>>61763586
Thank God America invented boots just in time for WWII, imagine all those cold feet in Stalingrad
>>61763586
Like I said, it would've taken at least 2 more years. American aid helped but yes DEY WULD HAF WUN.
Just accept it Johnnyboy
>>61763688
https://rbth.com/business/2015/05/08/allies_gave_soviets_130_billion_under_lend-lease_45879.html
http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm
>DEY WULD HAF WUN
>>61761864
Because
FIXING EUROPE AGAIN WASN'T OUR FUCKING PROBLEM IN THE FIRST GODDAMNED PLACE.
>>61763586
>>61762701
>LE BOOTS LE BOOTS
The boots send to the Soviets weren't even from USA, but from the UK. If they didn't get boots, they'd take them from dead Germans.
>>61763743
>no Yugoslavia
Shit graph.
>>61763746
the soviets might've won even earlier if US companies didn't supply the nazis too kek
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-american-companies-that-aided-the-nazis.php
>>61763755
>again
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you think you "won" WW1 as well? You contributed almost nothing, like 2% of the troops were American IIRC
Also it's not like you were some benevolent protectors of the world, you did it because of your own interests. Yes, it was your problem and you gained from being on the winning side
>>61763270
wtf they're factories produced tanks like mad, they outproduced Germany by far
>rely
Kek, American supplies helped for sure but in no way were they absolutely necessary. Soviets would have won in the end without you no matter what. I can't believe you are so brainswashed to think that Germany was defeated because of the US
>>61763246
no, we're arguing whether or not Soviets could have won WW2 without American aid
>>61763866
15% of UK deaths in WWII were civilians though.
>>61764078
Didn't the significant part of the lend-lease arrive after Stalingrad?
aka when germany lost
>>61764078
>they outproduced Germany
yeah, after they started pushing back. You think they were making thousands of t-34s a day in january 1942?
Quote from second link
>For example, in the beginning of 1942, Western tanks fully replenished Soviet losses, and exceeded them by three times
Wow, those Soviets sure could mass produce tanks!
>>61764502
>no source
>>61764546
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/world-war-ii/production.asp
>sources at the bottom of the page:
1.Russian Tanks of World War II Stalin's Armored Might, by Tim Bean & Will Fowler, 2002
2.Russian Tanks and Armored Vehicles 1917-1945, by Wolfgang Fleischer, 1999
3.World War Two Tanks, George Forty, 1995
4.No Simple Victory - World War II In Europe, 1939-1945, 2006, Norman Davies
5.Atlas of Tank Warfare From 1916 to the Present Day, Dr. Stephen Hart, 2012
>>61763128
>USSR would have been able to keep fighting without the millions of boots, half million jeeps, trucks, train locomotives, telegraph lines, phones, etc.
I don't think you understand the importance of basic transport, communication, or fucking boots to an army ability to put up the smallest bit of resistance.
>>61764647
just let it happen
>>61764502
You're also completely ignoring the non-military aid sent to the Soviets
>he Allies supplied 1900 locomotives to the USSR, while only 446 locomotives were produced in the country itself during the same period, as well as 11,000 carriages, while only a few more than 1,000 were made in the USSR. It is impossible to imagine how the Soviet economy would have functioned without these supplies. For example, the telephone cable provided by the Allies could wrap the Earth at the equator.
>>61764674
>One of the main areas of cooperation was aviation fuel. The USSR could not produce gasoline with high octane. However, it was this fuel that was used by the equipment supplied by the Allies. In addition, the Achilles heel of the Soviet Army was communication and transport. The Soviet industry simply could not meet the demand either in number or in quality.
>>61764714
just... just allow it
>>61764647
>>61764674
>>61764714
they could have produced those themselves. Obviously they didn't and focused on tank, bullet and weapon production since they got the other supplies elsewhere
What could Germany have done if it took let's say 2 years longer? Literally nothing, they were losing already and America's contribution to the war is just a cherry on top of the cake and nothing more
>>61764502
>>61764602
And on the topic of tanks,
>At the end of November 1941, only 670 Soviet tanks were available to defend Moscow—that is, in the recently formed Kalinin, Western, and Southwestern Fronts. Only 205 of these tanks were heavy or medium types,
>researchers estimate that British-supplied tanks made up 30 to 40 percent of the entire heavy and medium tank strength of Soviet forces before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941, and certainly made up a significant proportion of tanks available as reinforcements at this critical point in the fighting.
>Soviet production of the T-34 (and to a lesser extent the KV series), was only just getting seriously underway in 1942, and Soviet production was well below plan targets. And though rapid increases in tank firepower would soon render the 40mm two-pounder main gun of the Matilda and Valentine suitable for use on light tanks only, the armor protection of these British models put them firmly in the heavy and medium categories, respectively. Both were superior to all but the Soviet KV-1 and T-34 in armor, and indeed even their much maligned winter cross-country performance was comparable to most Soviet tanks excluding the KV-1 and T-34.
>>61764819
>British supplied tanks to the USSR
I only argued about Americans not the rest of the Allies
>>61764818
>the other supplies elsewhere
Yeah, from the fucking Americans and Brits.
The only reason they could afford to ignore so many vital components to their economy is because the gaps were covered by the Western Allies.
>>61762147
-tip-
>>61763128
>says the country that has never had a real war on its own soil
I just imagined 1861-65?
"We received many thousands of radios, trucks, shoes, and medical supplies from the United States. Really, victory would not have been possible without them. Yet it is now made to seem as if we ourselves had all these things in abundance."
-- Georgi Zhukov
>>61764674
>>61764714
Oh and don't forget to mention USA also supplied steel and fuel to Nazi Germany.
>>61765143
So?
Companies want to earn money, and the Germans were willing to pay straight gold. It's not like Congress commanded them to supply the Germans.
>>61763270
You have to remember, most of the fighting happened in Belarus/Ukraine which were economically important areas that contained a lot of the USSR's coal, iron ore, and grain and all of that was completely wrecked in the war.
>>61764967
I believe he's implying the Civil War wasn't a real war.
>>61765204
>U.S. aid constituted only about 7 percent of what the Soviet Union itself produced during the war, but it did allow the Soviets to concentrate their production in the most efficient manner. Lend-lease to Russia was, for Roosevelt, much more than just a wartime aid program. It could demonstrate the benefits of the American system and promote mutual trust, all key elements in Roosevelt's postwar plans. It was, therefore, presidential policy to promise to give the Russians almost everything they requested.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/lend-lease.aspx
>In all, $31.4 billion went to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, $1.6 billion to China, and the remaining $2.6 billion to the other Allies.
>The U.S. received $2M in reverse Lend-Lease from the USSR. This was mostly in the form of landing, servicing, and refueling of transport aircraft; some industrial machinery and rare minerals were sent to the U.S. The U.S. asked for $1.3B at the cessation of hostilities to settle the debt, but was only offered $170M by the USSR. The dispute remained unresolved until 1972, when the U.S. accepted an offer from the USSR to repay $722M linked to grain shipments from the U.S., with the remainder being written off. During the war the USSR provided an unknown number of shipments of rare minerals to the US Treasury as a form of cashless repayment of Lend-Lease. This was agreed before the signing of the first protocol on 1 October 1941 and extension of credit. Some of these shipments were intercepted by the Germans. In May 1942, HMS Edinburgh was sunk while carrying 4.5 tonnes of Soviet gold intended for the U.S. Treasury. This gold was salvaged in 1981 and 1986.[citation needed] In June 1942, SS Port Nicholson was sunk en route from Halifax, Canada to New York, allegedly with Soviet platinum, gold, and industrial diamonds aboard.[57] However, none of this cargo has been salvaged, and no documentation of it has been produced.
>>61766048
What exactly is this supposed to imply? That the Soviets were relying on lend-lease to provide for non-military needs?
>>61760357
Muslims in America are actually more liberal (and accepting of things like gay marriage) than conservative/Evangelical Christians.
Before 9/11, republicans were actually planning on trying to appeal to Muslim voters more, though.
>>61766112
>U.S. aid constituted only about 7 percent of what the Soviet Union itself produced during the war
kek you didn't do shit
>>61766257
But without that 7% they would've had to pull production off of military goods.
You said so yourself
>they could have produced those themselves. Obviously they didn't and focused on tank, bullet and weapon production since they got the other supplies elsewhere
>>61766313
7% is nothing, they could have easily not produced as many tanks since they were outproducing Germany anyway and instead produced that 7% of supplies you provided
>>61766112
>only 7% of what the Soviet industry produced
>Britain took three times more aid
>Roosevelt just wanted to please the Soviet Union for friendship and trust
>Soviet Union paid for everything they used and returned everything that wasn't used
Harry Truman says this
>“If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible …”
Now the world sees that the real villain of WWII wasn't Hitler, The SS or Nazi Germany, it was the U.S all along.
>>61766389
>30-40% of Soviet tanks are imports
>homemade tanks are shit compared to imports
>except the 2 models that were barely being produced
>DEY WULD HAF WUN
>the russians would have won anyway
It doesn't matter, better being invaded by burgers than ivan le liberator.
>>61760357
Because Muslims are treated rather shit in the US, even though most of the ones here are nowhere near as conservative as Muslims in Europe
>>61766112
Lend-lease wasn't free, you know? As you see from the post above SU paid US in gold, platinum and rare minerals during the war itself and in dollars later on.
Also, Finnish poster is right. Surely, SU would lose more soldiers and it would take more time to finish the war, but soviets would still win even without the lend - lease. Cost of the victory would make it pyrrhic though.
>>61766453
>only 7% of Soviet production
>Even aid that might seem like a drop in the bucket in the larger context of Soviet production for the war played a crucial role in filling gaps at important moments during this period. At a time when Soviet industry was in disarray—many of their industrial plants were destroyed or captured by the advancing Nazi troops or in the process of evacuation east—battlefield losses of specific equipment approached or even exceeded the rate at which Soviet domestic production could replace them during this crucial period. Under these circumstances even small quantities of aid took on far greater significance.
The USSR would have won regardless of American Intervention. The price in human lives abd materiel would be staggering, however.
>>61766485
>30-40% of Soviet tanks were provided by THE BRITISH
I never argued they could have won completely alone. I argued that they could have easily won without the aid of the US.
As an American you have an agenda on this issue unlike me so of course you're going to argue and probably never going to change your opinion
>>61766633
>7
>%
>fucking 7%
>i-it was still so important that USSR would have lost without it even though they were steamrolling Germany!
come on now
>>61766485
>barely being produced
T34 of all models was the most produced tank of WWII. Even with losing half of our industry in Ukraine and having to move tank production to Ural.
>>61766756
>unlike me
t. Ivan Ivanovich
>>61766687
>>61766560
This is true. The sheer size of the country made it impossible for Germany to win, though it would have been considerably more protracted and bloody, perhaps taking an entire decade instead of 4 years.
>>61766756
>the Soviets were steamrolling Germany in 1941
What kind of drugs are you taking
>>61766756
You underestimate how close the Soviets came to losing. That 7% of Lend lease was vital for big name items like field supplies, tanks and artillery, without which the Soviets would have had a much tougher time simply holding against and ultimately stopping the German advance.
Literally every historian recognizes the U.S.'s importance in the war effort.
>>61766485
30-40% were imports only at that specific moment in time, which happened to be exactly the transition phase for Soviet armor where their pre- and early war models became too shit to deal with German tanks, while the production of the much better T-34 was only just beginning.
>>61766760
>most produced tank of WWII
By the end of the war, yeah. Not when soldiers were marching straight from Red Square to the frontlines.
>>61766787
we have more reason than you to hate the USSR but even still I'm not denying factsme behind because of Russians
my grandmother had to abandon her home in Karelia as a child because of the USSR
>>61766894
Again, I never claimed the US didn't do anything but you can't seriously think the Allies won the war because of the US and fucking 7%
>>61766950
And had the Soviets not had those imports at that critical time, they wouldn't have been able to seriously switch over the mass producing t-34s.
That's the entire point I'm making. The Soviets were totally fucked in 1941, and without outside assistance they never would have survived long enough to rebound.
>>61766894
>That 7% of Lend lease was vital for big name items like field supplies, tanks and artillery, without which the Soviets would have had a much tougher time simply holding against and ultimately stopping the German advance.
The only thing lend-lease was vital for the Soviet Union was: trucks. That's right, Ford trucks to be more specific. Nothing else.
Food? Guns?
>the Allied aid to the USSR was equal to no more than 1/10 of the Soviets’ own arms production, and the total quantity of lend-lease supplies, including the familiar cans of Spam sarcastically referred to by the Russians as the “Second Front,” made up about 10-11%.
>the famous American historian Robert Sherwood, in his landmark book, Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History (New York: Grossett & Dunlap, 1948), quoted Harry Hopkins as claiming the Americans “had never believed that our Lend Lease help had been the chief factor in the Soviet defeat of Hitler on the eastern front. That this had been done by the heroism and blood of the Russian Army.”
>British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once called lend-lease “the most unselfish and unsordid financial act of any country in all history.” However, the Americans themselves admitted that lend-lease brought in considerable income for the US. In particular, former US Secretary of Commerce Jesse Jones stated that the US had not only gotten its money back via supplies shipped from the USSR, but the US had even made a profit, which he claimed was not uncommon in trade relations regulated by American state agencies.
>His fellow American, the historian George Herring just as candidly wrote that lend-lease was not actually the most unselfish act in the history of mankind, but rather an act of prudent egotism, with the Americans fully aware of how they could benefit from it.
http://orientalreview.org/2015/05/13/wwii-lend-lease-was-the-us-aid-that-helpful-ii/
>>61760160
That's cherry picking Canada.
I don't give a shit about politics, but both of the democratic candidates had a D-Day post as well.
>>61767096
only a closet red would be this obsessed with discrediting the soviets
>>61767133
>The only thing lend-lease was vital for the Soviet Union was: trucks. That's right, Ford trucks to be more specific
And I suppose you think dragging shit by horse all the way to Berlin would have been acceptable?
>>61760160
Hillary is such a hypocritical fake cunt, fucking disgusting
>>61767096
>The Soviets were totally fucked in 1941, and without outside assistance they never would have survived long enough to rebound.
source? One where it says they would have fallen without the US
>>61767133
>nothing else
>it's not a big deal to be able to provide food to your people who would starve otherwise
>>61767064
>Again, I never claimed the US didn't do anything
>>61766257
>kek you didn't do shit
:^)
>>61767214
If it was necessary soldiers would drag everything by themselves. That's the point.
>>61767234
Zhukov
>>61767297
link?
>>61767234
I already posted one, retard
https://rbth.com/business/2015/05/08/allies_gave_soviets_130_billion_under_lend-lease_45879.html
> It is impossible to imagine how the Soviet economy would have functioned without these supplies.
inb4
>hurr dats just their economy not the war
>>61767280
>We could have dragged these large gun battery's by hand all the way to Berlin.
>That means your help wasn't required! Checkmate murrifats
>>61767340
>7%
>USSR would have lost without it
SEVEN PERCENT
>>61761864
Rational answer:
Because Omaha Beach was the hardest beach to take, it kind of became a part of our military mythos. It's like our version of Vimy Ridge.
>>61767328
https://rbth.com/defence/2016/03/14/lend-lease-how-american-supplies-aided-the-ussr-in-its-darkest-hour_575559
>"Now they say that the allies never helped us, but it can't be denied that the Americans gave us so many goods without which we wouldn't have been able to form our reserves and continue the war," Soviet General Georgy Zhukov said after the end of WWII.
>>61760357
Because Hillary shares my favorite jew Kissinger's view of world order and that involves uniting the Islamic world under Islamic-backed monarchies and the Europe under the European Union held together with American military might.
>>61767396
>soviet economy could not function without lend-lease
>MUH 7% DEY WULD HAF WUN
>>61764203
Lend-Lease with the USSR began the moment Operation Barbarossa happened. For the first 6 months or so it was largely the UK doing most of the lending (They sent of thousands of Valentine tanks, for example.), which means the US was lending by proxy, but once the USA formally join the war the lend-lease really picked up. It was a constant flow.
>>61767434
>a political statement
>true
they also claimed the bombs dropped in Finland were food aid, must be true :^)
>>61767479
>soviet economy could not function without lend-lease
source? how was their tank production so high if they couldn't have produced even basic supplies?
>>61767096
I highly doubt that the battle of Moscow hinged on those 30-40% Allied tanks, especially considering that those were hardly an improvement over the Soviet tin cans of that time. And I doubt even more that the outcome of the entire war hinged on the battle of Moscow. In general, saying that those 500 tanks or these 2000 trucks won the war will never be more than an unverifiable and pointless guess.
>>61767732
Are you literally retarded?
>>61767340
>>61767764
how was their tank production so high if they couldn't have produced even basic supplies?
come on now, you can't think the entire USSR and Europe was saved by your 7%
>>61767234
>>61767096 is full of shit. The German advance in the north during the summer and autumn of 1941 had been halted, and the was a Soviet counter offensive in the winter of 1941-42 which regained some ground.
>>61767732
>all the factories that can produce heavy vehicles are dedicated to tanks because the civilian vehicles are being imported
>durr how do dey mek tank? chekmate
>>61767869
I'm arguing that without lend-lease they simply could have not produced as many tanks, bullets, weapons etc. and instead produce those 7% of other stuff by themselves. Their tank production was through the roof as you can see in >>61764502 so they could have easily sacrificed some of that production for the WAR WINNING MOST IMPORTANT 7%
>>61768013
If they were making plenty of tanks, why did they rush to get British imports into battle ASAP? Shouldn't they have been able to produce plenty of tanks on their own?
>>61760357
Because Saudi Arabia funds them.
It's all about the bottom cash, nothing else. The average liberal is just useful idiot high on moral idealism.
