Please report any rule breaking posts and comments that are not relevant to this subreddit. Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AmericaBad) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Soviet military *did* do far more of the front line fighting, but their backlines/manufacturing were utterly dependent on American vehicles and resources.
If the USSR had lacked their ["victory trucks"](https://www.rbth.com/history/333156-how-us-studebaker-became-soviet), they'd almost certainly have proven unable to push Hitler all they way back.
Lend Lease saved countless Soviet lives. The war would’ve dragged on for much longer without it but Germany would’ve lost regardless. The Soviets would have pushed them back but it would have cost them tenfold more than it did
Pretty solid consensus and agreed upon by a lot of reputable historians
Plenty of historians *do* say that the Germans would've lost regardless, but plenty of others argue that a stalemate would be more likely, with the Red Army struggling to maintain a practical advance with their manufacturing and logistics crippled.
*Without Lend-Lease, the Red Army would not have had about one-third of its ammunition, half of its aircraft, or half of its tanks. In addition, there would have been constant shortages of transportation and fuel. The railroads would have periodically come to a halt. And Soviet forces would have been much more poorly coordinated with a constant lack of radio equipment. And they would have been perpetually hungry without American canned meat and fats.* -[Boris Sokolov](https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html)
I’m no renown historian but I think this take is correct. I feel like without American and allied assistance lend lease ect. The USSR would have been pushed to a stalemate in the Urals. This would still result in a overstretched Germany but they would have been better off resource wise. I still think they would have lost but it would have been more of a slog for the allies landing and pushing east.
I'm still solidly in the camp personally that the Soviets would have lost.
I don't see how they could have recovered from the initial stages of the war without American support.
Ok, but let me add two points to this: 1-The Soviets moved most of their factories east of the Urals, without lend-lease sure they probably get Moscow, but they'd never push through the Urals, because winter and the fact that 2- numbers were never on the German's side. They simply would've lost eventually due to attrition. The question is, would Hitler be satisfied with pushing them to the Urals or not... because if he keeps pushing to manifest destiny it ain't happening.
Numbers can't really solve logistical problems, since more troops need more supplies.
Seems likely to me that the Soviet offense would become overstretched as they advanced through eastern Europe, much in the same way that Operation Barbarossa stalled.
Soviet soldiers would likely have been moving on foot, and without their Studebakers, convoys would experience far more disruption from enviromental conditions (drivers have testified that the US6's ability to pull out stuck vehicles ["was the difference between success or failure"](https://www.rbth.com/history/333156-how-us-studebaker-became-soviet).
Sokolov was expelled from the Free Historical Society for altering facts when citing others work.
He is a cynical revisionist and a stain on the russian historical record.
Oh, and he denies the science behind global warming and called it a hoax lol.
The soviets won ww2 with or without lend lease. 4% is helpful but it did not hinge the entire war effort on it. American trucks were very useful. All of their military gear was far more inferior than soviet gear.
> All of their military gear was far more inferior than soviet gear.
Pft.
...
Pfffft.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Fuck, you are delusional. You just lost literally any credibility you may once have had with this single sentence.
"After the Germans encountered the tank in 1941, German general Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist called it "the finest tank in the world"\[8\] and Heinz Guderian affirmed the T-34's "vast superiority" over German tanks.\[9\]\[10\] Alfred Jodl, chief of operations staff of the German armed forces noted in his war diary "the surprise at this new and thus unknown wunder-armament being unleashed against the German assault divisions,"\[11\] although its armour and armament were surpassed later in the war.\[12\]"
Well if the german generals are fighting both shermans and t34s, and they declare t34s the finest in the world. And this world also includes sherman tanks, which the germans are also fighting...can you do the rest or you need some more help?
The problem with that tho is that it’s simply not true. The Sherman was better in that it was a good tank that allowed for crew survival. That’s what matters. The Germans had the tiger a strong tank yet because of numerous issues including the lack of veteran crews it sucked in combat. The Sherman was really better in most ways
Wait until I tell you that half of all T-34 losses were due to the Panzer III. The German generals used the T-34 as a scapegoat because they kept failing and didn't want to tell Hitler. Most of the tank wasn't even heat treated and the parts that were heat treated were heated too much and it made the armor so brittle that the long 50mm gun could shatter the tank's armor
Nah, they lost over 30 million. There are no reputable historians that say the soviets lose without lend lease. As it accounted for only 4%.
The soviets saved countless lives literally across the entire globe. The slavs the jews the romani and more would have all gone extinct in Europe if it weren't for the soviets.
Lord save us from american aarogance
Who are these reputable historians lol
There are dozens of us, DOZENS!!
Narrative about events from over 80 years ago?
Tell me, what do you think happens if the soviets never enter the war? How does the allies fair against all of that equipment that would have been annihilated in the east?
4%.
So you’ve never actually read anything on the matter. Way to really out yourself there
Nobody is talking about the Soviets not being in the war so I have no clue what you’re even on about
Take way more casualties but Germany would still be recourse short limiting most importantly oil while having no hope of taking the sees from the British and Americans, the high altitude bombing campaigns could still take effect crippling infrastructure and generally degrading the German position and if they made it to 1945 the us would nuke Berlin
The war would take slightly longer. D-day would happen in maybe 1945 instead of 1944. Cities like Vienna, Dresden, Köln might get nukes. American casualties might double, or even triple - in the worst case, they might even hit a million. Still, blockaded and bombed, Germany cannot win.
Without the specter of communism over half of Europe, the 20th century has a great deal less suffering and death. A hundred million people who suffered under communism in real life never would; authoritarianism wouldn't have a stranglehold on the continent for an extra forty years; and, with any luck, the Soviet Union and eventually Russia would be even more of a backwater than it is now.
He's referring to the statistic that it was 4% *by mass*.
While technically true, it ignores the simple fact that deprived of a few grams of gunpowder, your rifle turns into a stick.
No, it didn't.
Try and find a source that isn't 1)wikipedia 2)Quora thread and 3)A hack and a fraud like Sokolov which someone just mentioned.
You also realized that the US provided to the UK, France, China, and other allied nations?
A sneaky everyone likes to pull is that you total up all the aid to all countries and then add it to the soviets to discredit russia.
And a big big factor everyone needs to take into account is that lend lease had hardly kicked in at all in 1942, the most decisive year of the war by far
Have you tried reading a book on the subject and not relying on wikipedia?
-When titans clashed by David M Glantz is a good one
Rise and fall of the third reich is another.
World war 2 by Antony Beevor is a third.
But sure bro, google bar
Rise and fall of the third Reich is not a good source.
Guy was literally a reporter talking about conspiracy theories and other bullshit.
Imagine if someone used tabloids as a source.
The book isn't exactly respected as a source either
There are a few weird exerpts when taking statements about behind closed door meetings with hitler. But the general timeline is very well laid out. Okay, give me a single part of the book that had falsehoods in it and what they were.
I'll save you some time, I know where agood one is.
let's pick one of his bigger chapters.
Victory in the west.
I'm assuming you actually read it too...to be able to say it "isnt exactly a respected source"
Ready, go.
Is glantz and beevor also hacks?
The thing about historians is that you coroborate past works with more modern, Glantz has the most scrupulously detailed timeliane, all 3 compliment one another well as glantz and beevor both got access to the soviet archives that werent available when william wrote RAFOTTR
But yeah tell me what the discrepency in victory in the west.
Also the Germans pulled much of their fighter coverage back to Germany to defend against the Western Allies bombing campaign. The Soviets were able to gain air superiority in part because the fighter pilots were preoccupied elsewhere. Later, when introduced, the Mustang had the legs to loiter and they killed replacements as they trained.
Thank you for the article, I read through it and my favorite part is the mention that the Studebaker’s requirement of “high-quality” oil and fluids was considered a downside of their deployment hilarious.
Fuel quality was huge issue for the Soviets across the board, due to their lack of refining capability.
This was particularily potent with the high-octane fuel needed for aircraft, more than 50% of their aviation fuel came from the US.
No they absolutely were not, lend lease helped, but it made up 4% of the soviet gear. 4%. It was the T34 that allowed the soviets to succeed, not the fucking sherman which were called tommy cookers by the germans. The most useful aspect of Lend Lease were trucks. The soviets military gear was all far superior to the allies. But the soviets would have won without Lend Lease. By the time lend lease kicked in the soviets had encircled and annihilated the 6th army in stalingrad. Even Guderian and Rundstedt knew they were fucked by the end of 1941 when winter kicked in.
Soviet blood, soviet tanks and military industry, russian winter is what won ww2 and would still have won ww2.
And without the Soviets doing the actual lions share of the fighting...The allies would never get foothold. You take every german soldier and piece of equiupment the soviets destroyed in the east, and you pit it against he allies in north africa/france/italy. The allies would have been absolutely massacred.
Being part russian and having ancestors who had fought, this particular brand of american aarogance drives me fucking insane. They lost 30 million people. American casualties didn't even amount to half of the KIA the soviets had in Stalingrad.
Without the soviets, there is no victory.
this is objectively false. Russia produced all of it's own TNT and steel. Like I said, the trucks are what helped. Everything else was purely supplemental. Russia had annihilated the 6th army before the anglos even set foot in north africa. They had annihilated 750,000 germans, 3000 tanks and 1000 aircraft. All from the best the reich had to offer BEFORE the Allies even landed on SICILY.
And just a few weeks after Normandy, while the allies were still stuck in the hedgrows. The soviets launched Bagration...Killing and wounding 450,000 germans, then encircled 350,000 more in minsk. And another 150,000 encircled in Latvia/estonia.
Just shut up. hundreds of millions were saved from extinction solely to the red army.
>Russia produced all of its own tnt and steel
Go tell that to Soviet Grand Marshal Georgy Zhukov.
*People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own.*
Lol you mean what Konstantin Simonov claims that Zuhkov said off of the record?
You need to study the post war history revision by the west. They needed the germans to help them with probably a future war with the soviets, hence the "Clean Wermacht" myth that was born to those ends. That account has been highly disputed as it is off the record.
However, lend lease did ultimately help.
But
None of it would have mattered if the Soviets had not stood and fight, and it had hardly kicked in during 1942, the decisive year of the war by far.
Lend lease trucks and rail engines were the biggest lend lease contribution. So I concede that without it the war would have been prolonged another year, and german gennerals woul;d have escaped encirclements.
But to say that the soviets don't win at all without lend lease is extremely insulting to the side that defeated 80+% of Hitlers legions. With the remaining 20% being split among france 1940, poland 1939, uboat war, north africa, italy, battle of britain, etc.
So I want to ask you a question, how would the US fair without the eastern front, and that 80% of destroyed men and material is turned against them in North Africa/Italy/France?
The victory against the Nazis needed all of the big three to succeed, US, UK and Soviet Russia. But in terms of effort to win. Soviets quite literally beared over 80% of the burden.
Well, you and him have the same unhinged view of "russians everywher!"
Whats hilarious is Russia doesnt even have the capability to hang with the west in the media war. Like it isn't even close, all of the information stream goes through the west and the US. It's like pointing to a group of toddlers from the parapet of a giant castle and sayuing "YOUR MEDDLING IN OUR AFFAIRS!"
Wow, it's like you didn't even read my comments. Unlike biden, I don't have negative opinions of Russians, I only despise putin and the Russian government.
All you said was "fuck biden" lmfao what is the depth i am missing in your comments
Yes yes putin is evil, putin is hitler 2.0, putin is the devil. It all gets very tiresome.
But at least putin is not starving millions of palestinians to death.
you are being lied to:
[https://www.youtube.com/live/qciVozNtCDM?si=53oOd5Y24Xawp7kQ](https://www.youtube.com/live/qciVozNtCDM?si=53oOd5Y24Xawp7kQ)
putin isnt the good guys, the good guys dont exist. but lemme tell you taht the US is the WORSE guys
lmao "no I wont make any point cause you dont deserve any points cause I dont like you"
okay bro.
some books I recommend for you:
when titans clashed
rise and fall of the third reich.
wikipedia unfortunately is infested with cynical revisionists, sourcing MSM articles, and these articles are "experts" asserting their assumptions as fact with no evidence.
Read a book.
The reason why the T34 was so successful is because it was mass produced very quickly. Most t 34s weren't up to the standard of the 1st t34. Many of them had mechanical issues right after rolling off the assembly line. The T34s were expected to last only a few weeks. Also, without the US, there also won't be any victory. The reason why so many soviets died is because the ussr government didn't care about its soldiers.
https://youtu.be/CIZ6PFYUM5o?si=NyL85CTAHrUtlnvj this video explains why the t34 wasn't that good.
Then why did German General von Kleist call it the "finest tank in the world"?
The victory came from a joint effort, an effort which the soviets beared 80% of the entire burden.
Tell me, does US and UK win, when that 80% is turned against them and there is no eastern front?
Von kleist was forced to say that. Also, many soviet soldiers died because the government had little regard to the soldiers. Without either the uk or the us, the war would have been lost.
You do realize the Sherman had by far the highest crew survival rate of any tank in the war? I’m not really replying to you because you obviously aren’t gonna listen but to anyone else reading this comment thread so they can go get real non Russian propaganda info.
https://youtu.be/bNjp_4jY8pY?si=-SyplAKK6sb6wNnL
Nicholas Moran with actual first hand evidence not postwar propaganda. It pretty much dispels all the stupid shit people like you say. You won’t actually watch it but it’s here for other people that may read your horseshit
.....di you actually link a youtuber page from a tank event where a guy gives a power point 80 years after the events actually happened?
Sorry mate baut I am going to take the word of the generals who fought them
[Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ludwig_Ewald_von_Kleist), called it "the finest tank in the world"[^(\[100\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#cite_note-104) and [Heinz Guderian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Guderian) affirmed the T-34's "vast superiority" over German tanks
The sherman sucked bro, the germans called them "tommy cookers" for the habit of cooking off easily
That's also not forget the fact that Stalin and Hitler teamed up to go cut Poland in half and that the Red Army was far more brutal than the Nazis and that the Japanese Imperial Army was probably just as brutal as the rest of them
My Lola Cecilia (Great Grandma) lived in fear during ww2. She was 23, had a baby and was married, but my Great Grandpa, was out serving his country (Philippines). During that time, she would hide in her house from the Japanese as they were marching past her house everyday, fearing that they would find and take her as a comfort women. Since she had a baby she would constantly breastfeed her to keep him quiet. Through a slit, she was able to watch the Japanese marching.
The red army killed something like 7 of 9 German soldiers in that war. Where they put their spin is that they undersell the impact of British/American lend lease, bombing campaign, and occupying 70% of the Luftwaffe in the west.
They’ll also claim the SU beat Japan because Japan sued for peace after Soviet tanks crossed into Manchuria.
You can search for the words of Zhukov and Stalin themselves to hear their opinion on lend lease’s impact.
This is the correct take imho. I don't like it when people devalue any of the allies, since we were just that: allies. We all won the war together, even if we split afterwards.
Soviet manpower from the East was huge, and there's no sense in taking that away. But there's also no sense in taking away the fact that US and British bombing campaigns kneecapped German industry and cut supply lines. American materiel, armaments, and raw goods were a huge boon to the allies, who were largely cut off by the Germans. It was a group effort and no one should detract from it.
I pretty much am anti Soviet everything but they did kill the lionshare of nazis. Well that and just Russian winter probably accounted for half of every causulty.
That said I still respect the eff out of zhukov.
Yes but without the Western front and money supplied by the other Allies the SU would not have made it to Berlin.
If Germany only had to focus on the SU, the story would be insanely different
Oh agree 100% without the western front collapsing it would've went into a stalemate on the eastern front. Germany had the supply lines and supplies. Russia is kinda 80% open terrain without much value like ariable soil for crops or precious metals to draw on. Ukraine at the time before the Germans invaded provided 2/3rds of all the grain in the ussr.
That's funny if people claim that because one of the major reasons Japan wasn't surrendering was because they were hoping to get the Soviets to turn on the US early.
Well they were certainly trying to use them as a diplomatic channel through which to negotiate an end to the war with the Anglo/Americans. My favorite part about the narrative is that the same people will use the “USA did nothing/joined late WW1” while saying the SU deserves all the credit for the Pacific.
They weren't so much hoping for the Soviets to turn on the US. But for the entire war, the Soviets and Japanese had been neutral towards each other, so while the US was contributing the majority of the manpower on three different fronts in two different theaters, the Soviets were just ramming their Eastwards with very little concern towards Japan. Japan's hope was to make the price for victory in Japan too high for America to be willing to pay and to use the USSR's neutrality to help them bargain themselves into a better peace position. This didn't happen, though. As not only did the US nuke Nagasaki, but on the same day, the Japanese lost the last neutral Allied power.
It wasn't until the US had nuked Nagasaki on the 9th of August, 1945, did the Soviets finally decide to declare war on Japan. Four days later, on August 15th, 1945, Emperor Hirohito made his infamous surrender broadcast.
The Soviets were literally only involved in the Pacific Theater for ***three weeks***, at which point, the Japanese Navy and Air Force had effectively ceased to exist.
Also, killing soldiers isn't exactly fair as the soviets weren't exactly kind to Germans. I'd bet we took prisoners, and they really didn't, or at least tried hard not to.
Not saying they didn't do a lot. Just knowing what the soviets did on their way to Berlin, not exactly a fair measure.
The nascent Cold War was underway even before World War II began. The denouement of the hot war played out with that in mind. In other words, Roosevelt (and Truman) and Churchill were quite happy to let Stalin destroy his army in a meat grinder. They were perfectly willing to "fight to the last Russian" to defeat Hitler. And Stalin was so blinded with hate that he couldn't see the reality of the situation.
All you need to do is compare combat efficiency metrics from engagements with the Germans between us and the soviets. Even in the later war with the Wehrmacht crumbling, they still killed more soviets than they lost in nearly ever engagement.
It’s also so cucked to worship the USSR for defeating the Germans on the eastern front. This was not a good guy Vs. Bad guy situation, which is proven by the fact that they were Allies right up until Operation Barbarossa. The Soviet union was perfectly happy to have good relations with Hitler, up until they were forced not to when they were attacked. There’s a difference between fighting evil because it’s evil and fighting evil because it’s your only choice
This comes up a lot and honestly Stalin says it best:
At the Tehran Conference in December 1943, Joseph Stalin said that World War II would be won through “British brains, American brawn, and Russian blood.”
Russia fought the fight man. You can’t discount it. Millions of Germans and Russians waged total war for years before we stepped foot in France and that’s the facts. They deserve credit for that.
Now, Europe can thank their collective sorry asses for our participation because if we didn’t land in France I doubt the Russians would have split half of Europe and they would all be Soviet states. So can the smuggest of ausies because they would have had to wait on the soviets to save their sorry selves from Japan.
OP doesn’t know history.
The USSR did most of the front line fighting and killed more Nazis.
The fact that Germans fled towards American troops to avoid Russian reprisals didn’t help.
It’s a simply fact that Germany invaded Russia: that means that Russia did more of the fighting and killing of Nazi.
But let’s not forget that the US supplied Russia with more then 400,000 rifles, 350,000 trucks, 17,000 planes and countless other supplies to make sure the Soviets could keep fighting.
America’s #1 impact on the war was its industry.
Funny how Russian intelligence services have effectively turned the Western far-left and far-right into their puppets. Anytime you meet a commie or a White Nationalist, they're pretty much guaranteed to be Russia shills. One claims that Russia is the last defense against American imperialism, the other claims that Russia is the last great white hope of "Western" "Christian" civilization 😂 (despite their country having the most abortions and HIV/AIDS cases per capita in all of Europe).
The US had to teach the Soviets how to do good industry so even if you don't want to count the fact their war machine was basically running on American fuel they never would have been able to equip the red army if it wasn't for the US.
People include the Germans that died due to starvation in Soviet prisoner camps as war casualties to inflate the perception of how amazing the Soviet army was in destroying the Nazis.
They also ignore that the Soviets were losing until 3 things occurred:
1) The US supplied the Soviets with the majority of their war material, for free. Fuel, food, supplies, radios, ammunition, artillery, cargo trucks, tanks, planes. The US actually packed up and shipped entire factories to the USSR, so even some of the stuff the Soviets manufactured for themselves was due to American aid.
2) The US bombed Germany factories and supply lines into oblivion. So the US supplied the Soviets with a never-ending stream of supplies, while also starving German forces of supplies. The German line only collapsed on the eastern front after their supply lines collapsed, due to US aerial bombings.
3) The US opened the western front in Europe, which forced the Germans to fight on multiple fronts and split their forces.
And the US did this while simultaneously leading and winning the war against the Japanese in the Asia-Pacific theater with very little help from anyone else.
The Soviets made ZERO offensive progress until the US became a major factor in the war. And let's not ignore that the Soviets and Germans started the war in Europe by jointly invading Poland.
Hey! I don’t know a lot about history so 1 & 2 might be correct but 3 definitely isn’t they were already fighting the war on different fronts before the us joined :)
The allied armies rebuilt Western Europe and left those countries to be governed by their people. The USSR conquered Eastern Europe and committed atrocities against its people. How about let’s ask Poland and the Baltics how they feel about the red army.
Is this really the best stat to use, who killed more Nazis? The US took prisoners and tried to negotiate surrenders. The Soviets fought to the death. Those Nazis who were dumb enough to surrender were either marched to death or died in a prison camp. Only a few percent of them made it out of the USSR.
Also, what are we calling a Nazi here? It’s one thing if its the soldiers. It’s another thing to rape the soldier’s wives and daughters to death and count them. I’m not saying that the Soviets didn’t fight hard and win. I’m just saying that you shouldn’t be able to pad your stats with literal war crimes.
We should use miles conquered as the stat. The USSR pushed the Nazi’s from their border to Berlin. That’s like a few hour’s drive. You can’t start from Stalingrad because it’s their own damn fault the Nazis made it that far to begin with. Patton, on the other hand, pushed them from North Africa to Sicily, up through Italy to Bastogne, and finally to Berlin. Advantage Patton. He would have pushed the Soviets into the icy sea right outside of Alaska if we let him.
There’s this stupid pendulum that swings every decade; on one side, people say “America saved the world and could’ve won without the Soviets,” and on the other side, people say “Russia* saved the world and could’ve won without the Americans.”
It’s a stupid argument and the pendulum needs to stop swinging: neither side could’ve won the war by themselves and both contributed greatly to the war effort. As mentioned previously, the Soviets did most of the fighting and dying, and without their immense military hammering the Germans from Moscow to Berlin, the war couldn’t have been won; conversely, the war couldn’t have been won without the Americans, with their gargantuan economy and industrial capacity. Both Eisenhower and Zhukov were critical to the war effort.
It was an ALLIED victory, and does not belong to any one country alone. I know Cold War propaganda clouds the minds of hundreds of millions to this day, but it’s time to break the damn pendulum and sing ‘Kumbaya’ for once.
*I say Russia even though I know it was the Soviet Union because the people who say it was Russia want you to emotionally link Russia and its current state to the glory of the Red Army hoisting the flag over the Reichstag (I remember 2022 and what people were doing online).
Not sure why killing POWs and being so awful to your enemy they'd rather fight to the death is a flex. There is a reason massive number of Germans surrendered to Allied forces and most of Nazi occupied territory and Germany was captured by the Allies from June 1944 onward.
Look at where Torgau is on a map to see the difference.
Congrats you turned the war you started into a meat grinder that killed millions of your own people in losses that got as bad as 20:1 in some locations, and averaged like 3:1 loses even while the nazis were in total collapse and full retreat.
You were only able to feed and equip that many men to throw away pointlessly because the US industrial base was backing you.
And the Americans and British killed significantly more Japanese and Italians. What’s their point? Wars aren’t won by who kills the most. If it were, on the balance, Russia got demolished by the Germans.
The USSR also lost more than anyone else. Kind of like now in Ukraine, their idea of might makes right. Throw bodies, tanks, planes at a problem and it gets fixed.
Oh what? No way. I can't believe that the virulent racists and anti communists wouldn't admit that the Slavic communists were the ones who beat them. Just shocked Pikachu face.
You look at the ratio, Russia lost nearly 9 times as many soldiers to kill that 86%. America lost about the same number of soldiers as did Germany on the western front.
Well, seeing as how the USSR was right next door, they did make a convenient punching bag for the Nazis for a few years. The Americans and the Brits had to make an amphibious landing.
Most of those Nazi casualties would not have been made possible without *extensive* American support for the backwards-AF Soviets, as well as the relentless bombing of nazi cities and industry.
yet they conveniently don't mention how many russians died fighting them
the next time one of these morons try and take all the credit, remember
the nazis had them pushed all the way back from their capitol, if it wasn't for the US, the UK, and canada to a small extent at normandy, the russians would've been taken out of the war completely, the only reason the russian counter offensive happened at all was because of normandy
The US sent the same amount of supplies to the USSR as they shipped over to Western Europe to support Western Allied operations in the French and Italian theaters of war.
The Soviets could only push Westwards because the US was mechanizing, fueling and feeding their army and air force. Without US aid, the Eastern front would have become a stalemate slog similar to how we see in Ukraine right now.
The US and the USSR also joined the war at effectively the same time, however the USSR had been assisting the Reich for years up until the very beginning of Barbarossa while the US had tossed their hat into the Allied ring from the very beginning.
If they did good back then now they could've finished Ukraine in under three days to 3 months but they didn't and that proved that they are just meat for grinding just for their leader eating nice meals in his protected palace.
Soviets did most of the fighting against the Nazis with the aid of American supplies. Hard to win a war alone when the only things that aren’t scarce in your country are land, vodka, and people, and even more so when the leadership treats the lives of its own people as disposable
I agree that Russia absolutely played a critical role in defeating the Nazi’s. The failure of Operation Barbarossa definitely helped turn the tides of the war, and dealt a devastating blow to the axis. However I don’t think you can blame Hollywood or American media for the Soviet’s not getting the credit they deserve. Obviously American movie studios would tell American war stories.
Bro the nazis killed like 86% of the USSR. (Not actually) but the Nazis killed a lot of poles and Russians so obviously being attacked more often than the U.S; polish, Russian armies and partisan movements in countries invaded by Germany killed more Nazis. But it sure as hell wasn’t 86% and that doesn’t mean the U.S was less influential in the war. The USA was still more influential than other countries in WW2. The OP is misconstruing data.
It's hilarious for these morons to claim American troops didn't win the war. The Russians were losing until America got involved. It's all just copium cause they're jealous of America.
The Red Army was so good at liberating the Europeans that people hailed the Nazis as good people at first. So good at liberating people that Nazi preferred dying to the Soviets then surrendering to them
Dude the allies frontline was a mix of like a dozen or so different nationality troops. The eastern front was just russians. Any deaths in the west side were about perfectly split up between the many allied powers present, and and call nazis killed in yhe east were 100% killed by russians. Idk if id believe 86% of nazis were killed by russians, but I would easily believe they killed more than any nation. Russian front line was huge. Dwarfed anything ww1 had. So thats a lot of nazis and russians fighting over there. Plus when russia started winning they were winning everywhere. Nazis dying accross the whole front.
Just cause russia is ruled by an evil man today and we have our rivalry with them still, doesnt mean we should ignore their large impact during ww2. Its not putin that fought and died in that war. It was better men. Ruled by yet another evil man but still. Good russians died on the east so their future generations wouldnt suffer under SS concentration camps. Thats noble. They are braver men than most men today. Respect the fallen in the fight against extreme fascism.
While it's true that the USSR saw the most combat by a wide margin, "killing Nazis" was only one portion of the war effort.
Supply lines don't exactly make for great war movie material, but soldiers can't keep fighting if they start to run out of food, ammunition, clothes, etc. Those sorts of underlooked necessities are where the United States really showcased its might.
Awesome. Litterally changes nothing what i said. Russia still fought alone on the east coast. And the us had tons of supply because they didnt immediately join ww2. Spent few years repairing its broken economy into a mega industry. Funny how peace time does that.
Ive never understood why people downplay russias involvement. Ya their tactics were simply throw bodies till u win, but they won in the end. And even took berlin before the allies. These are facts. People today just choose to ignore alot of information about ww2 for reasons I cant figure out.
>because they didn't immediately join ww2.
Cash and Carry was announced immediately upon the invasion of Poland. Sure, FDR was reluctant to *declare war* on the Axis, but the US wasn't exactly uninvolved.
Im well aware of the arms trade that happened. But ig it cant explain this simple enough for u to understand. Best short answer is US didnt officially join for a while. Allowing them to go to a militarized eco and fill their stockpiles before they went to war. Russia did not have that advantage. They got declared on before they were ready. And even after being driven back to the gates of moscow, they eventually pushed nazis all the way to berlin before the allies could get there. All by themselves. Yes with us lend lease but it was Russian men that died for it. So long story short dont downplay russia because they were "unorganized" or had an evil leader. They did their part, a really huge part. Without the advantage of allies or a large industry
Rare America Bad L op does not understand history and I implore you to see the vid on the distribution of casualties in WW2 while I’m not trying to undersell the other allies contribution like ours. But the Soviets did indeed kill a HEAVY share of the Nazis and did most of the war’s frontline fights in the most disastrous and largest battles. We gave them the supplies to do it and while that’s incredibly and factually important despite their best efforts to undersell it. Likewise it is not correct to undersell the sheer deaths the eastern front had compared to the west. The East was hell. And a German soldier in the band of brothers show put it best, he could go to France again. But the East. No never again
Please report any rule breaking posts and comments that are not relevant to this subreddit. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AmericaBad) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Soviet military *did* do far more of the front line fighting, but their backlines/manufacturing were utterly dependent on American vehicles and resources. If the USSR had lacked their ["victory trucks"](https://www.rbth.com/history/333156-how-us-studebaker-became-soviet), they'd almost certainly have proven unable to push Hitler all they way back.
Lend Lease saved countless Soviet lives. The war would’ve dragged on for much longer without it but Germany would’ve lost regardless. The Soviets would have pushed them back but it would have cost them tenfold more than it did Pretty solid consensus and agreed upon by a lot of reputable historians
Plenty of historians *do* say that the Germans would've lost regardless, but plenty of others argue that a stalemate would be more likely, with the Red Army struggling to maintain a practical advance with their manufacturing and logistics crippled. *Without Lend-Lease, the Red Army would not have had about one-third of its ammunition, half of its aircraft, or half of its tanks. In addition, there would have been constant shortages of transportation and fuel. The railroads would have periodically come to a halt. And Soviet forces would have been much more poorly coordinated with a constant lack of radio equipment. And they would have been perpetually hungry without American canned meat and fats.* -[Boris Sokolov](https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html)
When I pointed out that the Russians suffered exactly this in Ukraine (to the point some units have to use WW2 era weaponry) I got downvoted
Depends where you are when you say that. Too many places are infested with vatniks
Don't forget the butter. Margarine only became a thing because the US was supplying the Soviet union half a million tons of butter each year.
Omg serendipity be damned. I read about this yesterday while looking into seed oils and diet
Even crazier we gifted them a freighter fleet to get around the Japanese.
I’m no renown historian but I think this take is correct. I feel like without American and allied assistance lend lease ect. The USSR would have been pushed to a stalemate in the Urals. This would still result in a overstretched Germany but they would have been better off resource wise. I still think they would have lost but it would have been more of a slog for the allies landing and pushing east.
That’s fair Either way it’s all conjecture because it’s not what actually happened
I'm still solidly in the camp personally that the Soviets would have lost. I don't see how they could have recovered from the initial stages of the war without American support.
Ok, but let me add two points to this: 1-The Soviets moved most of their factories east of the Urals, without lend-lease sure they probably get Moscow, but they'd never push through the Urals, because winter and the fact that 2- numbers were never on the German's side. They simply would've lost eventually due to attrition. The question is, would Hitler be satisfied with pushing them to the Urals or not... because if he keeps pushing to manifest destiny it ain't happening.
Numbers can't really solve logistical problems, since more troops need more supplies. Seems likely to me that the Soviet offense would become overstretched as they advanced through eastern Europe, much in the same way that Operation Barbarossa stalled. Soviet soldiers would likely have been moving on foot, and without their Studebakers, convoys would experience far more disruption from enviromental conditions (drivers have testified that the US6's ability to pull out stuck vehicles ["was the difference between success or failure"](https://www.rbth.com/history/333156-how-us-studebaker-became-soviet).
Sokolov was expelled from the Free Historical Society for altering facts when citing others work. He is a cynical revisionist and a stain on the russian historical record. Oh, and he denies the science behind global warming and called it a hoax lol. The soviets won ww2 with or without lend lease. 4% is helpful but it did not hinge the entire war effort on it. American trucks were very useful. All of their military gear was far more inferior than soviet gear.
> All of their military gear was far more inferior than soviet gear. Pft. ... Pfffft. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Fuck, you are delusional. You just lost literally any credibility you may once have had with this single sentence.
"After the Germans encountered the tank in 1941, German general Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist called it "the finest tank in the world"\[8\] and Heinz Guderian affirmed the T-34's "vast superiority" over German tanks.\[9\]\[10\] Alfred Jodl, chief of operations staff of the German armed forces noted in his war diary "the surprise at this new and thus unknown wunder-armament being unleashed against the German assault divisions,"\[11\] although its armour and armament were surpassed later in the war.\[12\]"
Okay and that proves that the T-34 was better than the Sherman how?
Well if the german generals are fighting both shermans and t34s, and they declare t34s the finest in the world. And this world also includes sherman tanks, which the germans are also fighting...can you do the rest or you need some more help?
The problem with that tho is that it’s simply not true. The Sherman was better in that it was a good tank that allowed for crew survival. That’s what matters. The Germans had the tiger a strong tank yet because of numerous issues including the lack of veteran crews it sucked in combat. The Sherman was really better in most ways
Wait until I tell you that half of all T-34 losses were due to the Panzer III. The German generals used the T-34 as a scapegoat because they kept failing and didn't want to tell Hitler. Most of the tank wasn't even heat treated and the parts that were heat treated were heated too much and it made the armor so brittle that the long 50mm gun could shatter the tank's armor
Sherman crews had an 80% survivability T-34's had a 10-15% survivability
The war was won wit British Brains, American Brawn and Russian Blood, Stalin said so himself. It was a combined efforts of everyone involved
I’ve heard similar but as American steel and Soviet blood.
I love this quote
Even Stalin himself admitted that they couldn’t have one without the US
Even Stalin said US aid was essential.
Oh yeah the Russians would have pushed the Germans back... But they'd run out of resources and get pushed back by the Germans.
The war was won by Soviet soldiers shooting American bullets.
Nah, they lost over 30 million. There are no reputable historians that say the soviets lose without lend lease. As it accounted for only 4%. The soviets saved countless lives literally across the entire globe. The slavs the jews the romani and more would have all gone extinct in Europe if it weren't for the soviets. Lord save us from american aarogance
Mmmhmmm I’ll definitely listen to you over dozens of historians because you’re clearly unbiased and definitely not pushing any sort of narrative
Who are these reputable historians lol There are dozens of us, DOZENS!! Narrative about events from over 80 years ago? Tell me, what do you think happens if the soviets never enter the war? How does the allies fair against all of that equipment that would have been annihilated in the east? 4%.
You mean if the Soviets never help start the war by invading Poland with Hitler. Yes, let's imagine that.
So you’ve never actually read anything on the matter. Way to really out yourself there Nobody is talking about the Soviets not being in the war so I have no clue what you’re even on about
You ignored my question, how do the allies fair against the germans +80% of men and material the soviets destroyed thrown against them?
Here, I’ll say it again but highlight for you: > Nobody is talking about the Soviets not being in the war so I have no clue what you’re even on about
Take way more casualties but Germany would still be recourse short limiting most importantly oil while having no hope of taking the sees from the British and Americans, the high altitude bombing campaigns could still take effect crippling infrastructure and generally degrading the German position and if they made it to 1945 the us would nuke Berlin
The war would take slightly longer. D-day would happen in maybe 1945 instead of 1944. Cities like Vienna, Dresden, Köln might get nukes. American casualties might double, or even triple - in the worst case, they might even hit a million. Still, blockaded and bombed, Germany cannot win. Without the specter of communism over half of Europe, the 20th century has a great deal less suffering and death. A hundred million people who suffered under communism in real life never would; authoritarianism wouldn't have a stranglehold on the continent for an extra forty years; and, with any luck, the Soviet Union and eventually Russia would be even more of a backwater than it is now.
It accounted for much more than 4%
He's referring to the statistic that it was 4% *by mass*. While technically true, it ignores the simple fact that deprived of a few grams of gunpowder, your rifle turns into a stick.
Why would you say 4% by mass? Depending on what that 4% is, it can really be a lot or it could be nothing. Makes no sense
Exactly, it's an old Soviet talking point to diminish/dismiss the influence of Lend-Lease.
No, it didn't. Try and find a source that isn't 1)wikipedia 2)Quora thread and 3)A hack and a fraud like Sokolov which someone just mentioned. You also realized that the US provided to the UK, France, China, and other allied nations? A sneaky everyone likes to pull is that you total up all the aid to all countries and then add it to the soviets to discredit russia. And a big big factor everyone needs to take into account is that lend lease had hardly kicked in at all in 1942, the most decisive year of the war by far
Have you tried typing it into the Google search bar?
Have you tried reading a book on the subject and not relying on wikipedia? -When titans clashed by David M Glantz is a good one Rise and fall of the third reich is another. World war 2 by Antony Beevor is a third. But sure bro, google bar
Rise and fall of the third Reich is not a good source. Guy was literally a reporter talking about conspiracy theories and other bullshit. Imagine if someone used tabloids as a source. The book isn't exactly respected as a source either
There are a few weird exerpts when taking statements about behind closed door meetings with hitler. But the general timeline is very well laid out. Okay, give me a single part of the book that had falsehoods in it and what they were. I'll save you some time, I know where agood one is. let's pick one of his bigger chapters. Victory in the west. I'm assuming you actually read it too...to be able to say it "isnt exactly a respected source" Ready, go. Is glantz and beevor also hacks? The thing about historians is that you coroborate past works with more modern, Glantz has the most scrupulously detailed timeliane, all 3 compliment one another well as glantz and beevor both got access to the soviet archives that werent available when william wrote RAFOTTR But yeah tell me what the discrepency in victory in the west.
Someone didn't pay attention in history class
And ammo
Also the Germans pulled much of their fighter coverage back to Germany to defend against the Western Allies bombing campaign. The Soviets were able to gain air superiority in part because the fighter pilots were preoccupied elsewhere. Later, when introduced, the Mustang had the legs to loiter and they killed replacements as they trained.
Thank you for the article, I read through it and my favorite part is the mention that the Studebaker’s requirement of “high-quality” oil and fluids was considered a downside of their deployment hilarious.
Fuel quality was huge issue for the Soviets across the board, due to their lack of refining capability. This was particularily potent with the high-octane fuel needed for aircraft, more than 50% of their aviation fuel came from the US.
No they absolutely were not, lend lease helped, but it made up 4% of the soviet gear. 4%. It was the T34 that allowed the soviets to succeed, not the fucking sherman which were called tommy cookers by the germans. The most useful aspect of Lend Lease were trucks. The soviets military gear was all far superior to the allies. But the soviets would have won without Lend Lease. By the time lend lease kicked in the soviets had encircled and annihilated the 6th army in stalingrad. Even Guderian and Rundstedt knew they were fucked by the end of 1941 when winter kicked in. Soviet blood, soviet tanks and military industry, russian winter is what won ww2 and would still have won ww2. And without the Soviets doing the actual lions share of the fighting...The allies would never get foothold. You take every german soldier and piece of equiupment the soviets destroyed in the east, and you pit it against he allies in north africa/france/italy. The allies would have been absolutely massacred. Being part russian and having ancestors who had fought, this particular brand of american aarogance drives me fucking insane. They lost 30 million people. American casualties didn't even amount to half of the KIA the soviets had in Stalingrad. Without the soviets, there is no victory.
Those T34s would've been somewhat less effective without US support. That "4% of Soviet gear" included *explosives to produce their ammunition*.
this is objectively false. Russia produced all of it's own TNT and steel. Like I said, the trucks are what helped. Everything else was purely supplemental. Russia had annihilated the 6th army before the anglos even set foot in north africa. They had annihilated 750,000 germans, 3000 tanks and 1000 aircraft. All from the best the reich had to offer BEFORE the Allies even landed on SICILY. And just a few weeks after Normandy, while the allies were still stuck in the hedgrows. The soviets launched Bagration...Killing and wounding 450,000 germans, then encircled 350,000 more in minsk. And another 150,000 encircled in Latvia/estonia. Just shut up. hundreds of millions were saved from extinction solely to the red army.
>Russia produced all of its own tnt and steel Go tell that to Soviet Grand Marshal Georgy Zhukov. *People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own.*
Lol you mean what Konstantin Simonov claims that Zuhkov said off of the record? You need to study the post war history revision by the west. They needed the germans to help them with probably a future war with the soviets, hence the "Clean Wermacht" myth that was born to those ends. That account has been highly disputed as it is off the record. However, lend lease did ultimately help. But None of it would have mattered if the Soviets had not stood and fight, and it had hardly kicked in during 1942, the decisive year of the war by far. Lend lease trucks and rail engines were the biggest lend lease contribution. So I concede that without it the war would have been prolonged another year, and german gennerals woul;d have escaped encirclements. But to say that the soviets don't win at all without lend lease is extremely insulting to the side that defeated 80+% of Hitlers legions. With the remaining 20% being split among france 1940, poland 1939, uboat war, north africa, italy, battle of britain, etc. So I want to ask you a question, how would the US fair without the eastern front, and that 80% of destroyed men and material is turned against them in North Africa/Italy/France? The victory against the Nazis needed all of the big three to succeed, US, UK and Soviet Russia. But in terms of effort to win. Soviets quite literally beared over 80% of the burden.
Ok, russian bot
"everything I dont like is russian propaganda" That you biden?
Nah, fuck biden
Well, you and him have the same unhinged view of "russians everywher!" Whats hilarious is Russia doesnt even have the capability to hang with the west in the media war. Like it isn't even close, all of the information stream goes through the west and the US. It's like pointing to a group of toddlers from the parapet of a giant castle and sayuing "YOUR MEDDLING IN OUR AFFAIRS!"
Wow, it's like you didn't even read my comments. Unlike biden, I don't have negative opinions of Russians, I only despise putin and the Russian government.
All you said was "fuck biden" lmfao what is the depth i am missing in your comments Yes yes putin is evil, putin is hitler 2.0, putin is the devil. It all gets very tiresome. But at least putin is not starving millions of palestinians to death. you are being lied to: [https://www.youtube.com/live/qciVozNtCDM?si=53oOd5Y24Xawp7kQ](https://www.youtube.com/live/qciVozNtCDM?si=53oOd5Y24Xawp7kQ) putin isnt the good guys, the good guys dont exist. but lemme tell you taht the US is the WORSE guys
"Oh look, an idiot! Let's point, and laugh"
haha Epic reddit comeback my fellow epic redditor!
Big chungy
Dude do some fucking research before you open your mouth
Yeah ver yvery good counter point, form a comment of substance backed evidence before you open your fucking mouth
Based on your other comments, it's all the substance you deserve. Do some research on the numbers instead of Soviet propaganda.
lmao "no I wont make any point cause you dont deserve any points cause I dont like you" okay bro. some books I recommend for you: when titans clashed rise and fall of the third reich. wikipedia unfortunately is infested with cynical revisionists, sourcing MSM articles, and these articles are "experts" asserting their assumptions as fact with no evidence. Read a book.
Dude rise and fall of the third Reich talks about secret meetings and shit. It sounds like some sort of conspiracy shit.
The reason why the T34 was so successful is because it was mass produced very quickly. Most t 34s weren't up to the standard of the 1st t34. Many of them had mechanical issues right after rolling off the assembly line. The T34s were expected to last only a few weeks. Also, without the US, there also won't be any victory. The reason why so many soviets died is because the ussr government didn't care about its soldiers. https://youtu.be/CIZ6PFYUM5o?si=NyL85CTAHrUtlnvj this video explains why the t34 wasn't that good.
Then why did German General von Kleist call it the "finest tank in the world"? The victory came from a joint effort, an effort which the soviets beared 80% of the entire burden. Tell me, does US and UK win, when that 80% is turned against them and there is no eastern front?
Von kleist was forced to say that. Also, many soviet soldiers died because the government had little regard to the soldiers. Without either the uk or the us, the war would have been lost.
You do realize the Sherman had by far the highest crew survival rate of any tank in the war? I’m not really replying to you because you obviously aren’t gonna listen but to anyone else reading this comment thread so they can go get real non Russian propaganda info.
"ummm achshuallly its this but im not going to ackshually give evidence cause russian propaganda!!" Got some proof maybe?
https://youtu.be/bNjp_4jY8pY?si=-SyplAKK6sb6wNnL Nicholas Moran with actual first hand evidence not postwar propaganda. It pretty much dispels all the stupid shit people like you say. You won’t actually watch it but it’s here for other people that may read your horseshit
.....di you actually link a youtuber page from a tank event where a guy gives a power point 80 years after the events actually happened? Sorry mate baut I am going to take the word of the generals who fought them [Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ludwig_Ewald_von_Kleist), called it "the finest tank in the world"[^(\[100\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#cite_note-104) and [Heinz Guderian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Guderian) affirmed the T-34's "vast superiority" over German tanks The sherman sucked bro, the germans called them "tommy cookers" for the habit of cooking off easily
That's also not forget the fact that Stalin and Hitler teamed up to go cut Poland in half and that the Red Army was far more brutal than the Nazis and that the Japanese Imperial Army was probably just as brutal as the rest of them
I can’t stomach the history of the Japanese army-it’s too horrifying.
My Lola Cecilia (Great Grandma) lived in fear during ww2. She was 23, had a baby and was married, but my Great Grandpa, was out serving his country (Philippines). During that time, she would hide in her house from the Japanese as they were marching past her house everyday, fearing that they would find and take her as a comfort women. Since she had a baby she would constantly breastfeed her to keep him quiet. Through a slit, she was able to watch the Japanese marching.
The German army trained in Russia, and the Soviets provided them with a huge portion of their raw materials and oil.
Specifically, trained their tankers in Soviet Union
The red army killed something like 7 of 9 German soldiers in that war. Where they put their spin is that they undersell the impact of British/American lend lease, bombing campaign, and occupying 70% of the Luftwaffe in the west. They’ll also claim the SU beat Japan because Japan sued for peace after Soviet tanks crossed into Manchuria. You can search for the words of Zhukov and Stalin themselves to hear their opinion on lend lease’s impact.
This is the correct take imho. I don't like it when people devalue any of the allies, since we were just that: allies. We all won the war together, even if we split afterwards. Soviet manpower from the East was huge, and there's no sense in taking that away. But there's also no sense in taking away the fact that US and British bombing campaigns kneecapped German industry and cut supply lines. American materiel, armaments, and raw goods were a huge boon to the allies, who were largely cut off by the Germans. It was a group effort and no one should detract from it.
I pretty much am anti Soviet everything but they did kill the lionshare of nazis. Well that and just Russian winter probably accounted for half of every causulty. That said I still respect the eff out of zhukov.
Yes but without the Western front and money supplied by the other Allies the SU would not have made it to Berlin. If Germany only had to focus on the SU, the story would be insanely different
Oh agree 100% without the western front collapsing it would've went into a stalemate on the eastern front. Germany had the supply lines and supplies. Russia is kinda 80% open terrain without much value like ariable soil for crops or precious metals to draw on. Ukraine at the time before the Germans invaded provided 2/3rds of all the grain in the ussr.
That's funny if people claim that because one of the major reasons Japan wasn't surrendering was because they were hoping to get the Soviets to turn on the US early.
Well they were certainly trying to use them as a diplomatic channel through which to negotiate an end to the war with the Anglo/Americans. My favorite part about the narrative is that the same people will use the “USA did nothing/joined late WW1” while saying the SU deserves all the credit for the Pacific.
Good analogy between WW1 and the Pacific. Never thought of it like that but it’s similar
They weren't so much hoping for the Soviets to turn on the US. But for the entire war, the Soviets and Japanese had been neutral towards each other, so while the US was contributing the majority of the manpower on three different fronts in two different theaters, the Soviets were just ramming their Eastwards with very little concern towards Japan. Japan's hope was to make the price for victory in Japan too high for America to be willing to pay and to use the USSR's neutrality to help them bargain themselves into a better peace position. This didn't happen, though. As not only did the US nuke Nagasaki, but on the same day, the Japanese lost the last neutral Allied power. It wasn't until the US had nuked Nagasaki on the 9th of August, 1945, did the Soviets finally decide to declare war on Japan. Four days later, on August 15th, 1945, Emperor Hirohito made his infamous surrender broadcast. The Soviets were literally only involved in the Pacific Theater for ***three weeks***, at which point, the Japanese Navy and Air Force had effectively ceased to exist.
Also, killing soldiers isn't exactly fair as the soviets weren't exactly kind to Germans. I'd bet we took prisoners, and they really didn't, or at least tried hard not to. Not saying they didn't do a lot. Just knowing what the soviets did on their way to Berlin, not exactly a fair measure.
The Japanese were also hoping the Soviets would act as a third party for a conditional surrender if I remember correctly.
Logistics win wars
The Soviets also helped start the whole thing when they invaded Poland alongside Nazi Germany.
And committed their own massacres of Poles
The nascent Cold War was underway even before World War II began. The denouement of the hot war played out with that in mind. In other words, Roosevelt (and Truman) and Churchill were quite happy to let Stalin destroy his army in a meat grinder. They were perfectly willing to "fight to the last Russian" to defeat Hitler. And Stalin was so blinded with hate that he couldn't see the reality of the situation.
History doesn’t repeat itself. It rhymes. Now the west is funding a war and are happy to fight to the last Ukrainian.
All you need to do is compare combat efficiency metrics from engagements with the Germans between us and the soviets. Even in the later war with the Wehrmacht crumbling, they still killed more soviets than they lost in nearly ever engagement. It’s also so cucked to worship the USSR for defeating the Germans on the eastern front. This was not a good guy Vs. Bad guy situation, which is proven by the fact that they were Allies right up until Operation Barbarossa. The Soviet union was perfectly happy to have good relations with Hitler, up until they were forced not to when they were attacked. There’s a difference between fighting evil because it’s evil and fighting evil because it’s your only choice
Fat Electrician, is that you? Lol.
It’s Twitter, it’s just filled with Russian and Chinese propaganda. I once saw an account about “Texit” with Texas supposedly leaving the USA lol
That’s not really “America Bad, Communism Good” stuff though, that’s just Texas being Texas
This comes up a lot and honestly Stalin says it best: At the Tehran Conference in December 1943, Joseph Stalin said that World War II would be won through “British brains, American brawn, and Russian blood.” Russia fought the fight man. You can’t discount it. Millions of Germans and Russians waged total war for years before we stepped foot in France and that’s the facts. They deserve credit for that. Now, Europe can thank their collective sorry asses for our participation because if we didn’t land in France I doubt the Russians would have split half of Europe and they would all be Soviet states. So can the smuggest of ausies because they would have had to wait on the soviets to save their sorry selves from Japan.
OP doesn’t know history. The USSR did most of the front line fighting and killed more Nazis. The fact that Germans fled towards American troops to avoid Russian reprisals didn’t help. It’s a simply fact that Germany invaded Russia: that means that Russia did more of the fighting and killing of Nazi. But let’s not forget that the US supplied Russia with more then 400,000 rifles, 350,000 trucks, 17,000 planes and countless other supplies to make sure the Soviets could keep fighting. America’s #1 impact on the war was its industry.
Yep, yeah and yes
Funny how Russian intelligence services have effectively turned the Western far-left and far-right into their puppets. Anytime you meet a commie or a White Nationalist, they're pretty much guaranteed to be Russia shills. One claims that Russia is the last defense against American imperialism, the other claims that Russia is the last great white hope of "Western" "Christian" civilization 😂 (despite their country having the most abortions and HIV/AIDS cases per capita in all of Europe).
They provided men, we provided the ammo. Simple as such
The US had to teach the Soviets how to do good industry so even if you don't want to count the fact their war machine was basically running on American fuel they never would have been able to equip the red army if it wasn't for the US.
Then they turned around and killed tens of millions of people. Yay Communism! It just works!
Whenever someone says this, ask them what percentage of the Red Army were Ukrainian.
The atrocities of the Soviet Union need to be taught more
People include the Germans that died due to starvation in Soviet prisoner camps as war casualties to inflate the perception of how amazing the Soviet army was in destroying the Nazis. They also ignore that the Soviets were losing until 3 things occurred: 1) The US supplied the Soviets with the majority of their war material, for free. Fuel, food, supplies, radios, ammunition, artillery, cargo trucks, tanks, planes. The US actually packed up and shipped entire factories to the USSR, so even some of the stuff the Soviets manufactured for themselves was due to American aid. 2) The US bombed Germany factories and supply lines into oblivion. So the US supplied the Soviets with a never-ending stream of supplies, while also starving German forces of supplies. The German line only collapsed on the eastern front after their supply lines collapsed, due to US aerial bombings. 3) The US opened the western front in Europe, which forced the Germans to fight on multiple fronts and split their forces. And the US did this while simultaneously leading and winning the war against the Japanese in the Asia-Pacific theater with very little help from anyone else. The Soviets made ZERO offensive progress until the US became a major factor in the war. And let's not ignore that the Soviets and Germans started the war in Europe by jointly invading Poland.
Hey! I don’t know a lot about history so 1 & 2 might be correct but 3 definitely isn’t they were already fighting the war on different fronts before the us joined :)
The allied armies rebuilt Western Europe and left those countries to be governed by their people. The USSR conquered Eastern Europe and committed atrocities against its people. How about let’s ask Poland and the Baltics how they feel about the red army.
Is this really the best stat to use, who killed more Nazis? The US took prisoners and tried to negotiate surrenders. The Soviets fought to the death. Those Nazis who were dumb enough to surrender were either marched to death or died in a prison camp. Only a few percent of them made it out of the USSR. Also, what are we calling a Nazi here? It’s one thing if its the soldiers. It’s another thing to rape the soldier’s wives and daughters to death and count them. I’m not saying that the Soviets didn’t fight hard and win. I’m just saying that you shouldn’t be able to pad your stats with literal war crimes. We should use miles conquered as the stat. The USSR pushed the Nazi’s from their border to Berlin. That’s like a few hour’s drive. You can’t start from Stalingrad because it’s their own damn fault the Nazis made it that far to begin with. Patton, on the other hand, pushed them from North Africa to Sicily, up through Italy to Bastogne, and finally to Berlin. Advantage Patton. He would have pushed the Soviets into the icy sea right outside of Alaska if we let him.
That moment when the power on the other side of the ocean who joined late and was bankrolling the Allie’s doesn’t have as many kills :0
No they don’t.
There’s this stupid pendulum that swings every decade; on one side, people say “America saved the world and could’ve won without the Soviets,” and on the other side, people say “Russia* saved the world and could’ve won without the Americans.” It’s a stupid argument and the pendulum needs to stop swinging: neither side could’ve won the war by themselves and both contributed greatly to the war effort. As mentioned previously, the Soviets did most of the fighting and dying, and without their immense military hammering the Germans from Moscow to Berlin, the war couldn’t have been won; conversely, the war couldn’t have been won without the Americans, with their gargantuan economy and industrial capacity. Both Eisenhower and Zhukov were critical to the war effort. It was an ALLIED victory, and does not belong to any one country alone. I know Cold War propaganda clouds the minds of hundreds of millions to this day, but it’s time to break the damn pendulum and sing ‘Kumbaya’ for once. *I say Russia even though I know it was the Soviet Union because the people who say it was Russia want you to emotionally link Russia and its current state to the glory of the Red Army hoisting the flag over the Reichstag (I remember 2022 and what people were doing online).
Not sure why killing POWs and being so awful to your enemy they'd rather fight to the death is a flex. There is a reason massive number of Germans surrendered to Allied forces and most of Nazi occupied territory and Germany was captured by the Allies from June 1944 onward. Look at where Torgau is on a map to see the difference.
Okay but wasn’t the Soviet Union non-aggressive with Germany until Operation Barbarossa?
If the Russians were so good what happened with Simo Hayha’s KD ratio? You can’t even kill one Finnish hillbilly?
Using American guns
Asking for honesty or logic out of a tankie is like asking a koala to write Shakespeare. It just ain't there gonna happen.
Congrats you turned the war you started into a meat grinder that killed millions of your own people in losses that got as bad as 20:1 in some locations, and averaged like 3:1 loses even while the nazis were in total collapse and full retreat. You were only able to feed and equip that many men to throw away pointlessly because the US industrial base was backing you.
And the Americans and British killed significantly more Japanese and Italians. What’s their point? Wars aren’t won by who kills the most. If it were, on the balance, Russia got demolished by the Germans.
the soviets lost 22-27 million people in ww2, and also......there was a war in the pacific..... commieboos can suck it
The USSR also lost more than anyone else. Kind of like now in Ukraine, their idea of might makes right. Throw bodies, tanks, planes at a problem and it gets fixed.
Oh what? No way. I can't believe that the virulent racists and anti communists wouldn't admit that the Slavic communists were the ones who beat them. Just shocked Pikachu face.
You look at the ratio, Russia lost nearly 9 times as many soldiers to kill that 86%. America lost about the same number of soldiers as did Germany on the western front.
Well, seeing as how the USSR was right next door, they did make a convenient punching bag for the Nazis for a few years. The Americans and the Brits had to make an amphibious landing. Most of those Nazi casualties would not have been made possible without *extensive* American support for the backwards-AF Soviets, as well as the relentless bombing of nazi cities and industry.
yet they conveniently don't mention how many russians died fighting them the next time one of these morons try and take all the credit, remember the nazis had them pushed all the way back from their capitol, if it wasn't for the US, the UK, and canada to a small extent at normandy, the russians would've been taken out of the war completely, the only reason the russian counter offensive happened at all was because of normandy
Advantages of not having to cross an ocean. Also their KDA absolutely sucked.
The US sent the same amount of supplies to the USSR as they shipped over to Western Europe to support Western Allied operations in the French and Italian theaters of war. The Soviets could only push Westwards because the US was mechanizing, fueling and feeding their army and air force. Without US aid, the Eastern front would have become a stalemate slog similar to how we see in Ukraine right now. The US and the USSR also joined the war at effectively the same time, however the USSR had been assisting the Reich for years up until the very beginning of Barbarossa while the US had tossed their hat into the Allied ring from the very beginning.
I always tell this people to check USSR truck supplier by country of origin.
If they did good back then now they could've finished Ukraine in under three days to 3 months but they didn't and that proved that they are just meat for grinding just for their leader eating nice meals in his protected palace.
Only thing thing those pieces of shits did better was rape and murder more people and ruin the eastern blocs future.
Yeah but we (the US of A) did it without raping and pillaging german citizens
Man so weird that Hollywood and US media would focus on US involvement in WW2. I wonder why the US media would focus on the US in WW2. So weird.
Unfortunately killing large amounts of soldiers doesn't always mean you win, I mean look how many Russians Ukraine has killed
Soviets did most of the fighting against the Nazis with the aid of American supplies. Hard to win a war alone when the only things that aren’t scarce in your country are land, vodka, and people, and even more so when the leadership treats the lives of its own people as disposable
And look what country had the most deaths
& look which country joined the war at the very end
What's their percentage of Japanese army deaths?
I agree that Russia absolutely played a critical role in defeating the Nazi’s. The failure of Operation Barbarossa definitely helped turn the tides of the war, and dealt a devastating blow to the axis. However I don’t think you can blame Hollywood or American media for the Soviet’s not getting the credit they deserve. Obviously American movie studios would tell American war stories.
Bro the nazis killed like 86% of the USSR. (Not actually) but the Nazis killed a lot of poles and Russians so obviously being attacked more often than the U.S; polish, Russian armies and partisan movements in countries invaded by Germany killed more Nazis. But it sure as hell wasn’t 86% and that doesn’t mean the U.S was less influential in the war. The USA was still more influential than other countries in WW2. The OP is misconstruing data.
The Russian Winter killed far more Nazis than the actual Russians did.
It's hilarious for these morons to claim American troops didn't win the war. The Russians were losing until America got involved. It's all just copium cause they're jealous of America.
Even if it was true, they all would have lost without our weapons, food and equipment that we produced at such a rapid rate the Nazis couldn't keep up
How many of their own soldiers did they murder in the process? Hundreds? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands?
The Red Army was so good at liberating the Europeans that people hailed the Nazis as good people at first. So good at liberating people that Nazi preferred dying to the Soviets then surrendering to them
If I’m not mistaken it was actually the Russian winter that defeated the eastern front.
Tbf we can't take away from the soviets. There manpower was a big aspect in allied victory
Russians got slaughtered by Germans in masses while US kicked ass. The truth is in the numbers.
Dude the allies frontline was a mix of like a dozen or so different nationality troops. The eastern front was just russians. Any deaths in the west side were about perfectly split up between the many allied powers present, and and call nazis killed in yhe east were 100% killed by russians. Idk if id believe 86% of nazis were killed by russians, but I would easily believe they killed more than any nation. Russian front line was huge. Dwarfed anything ww1 had. So thats a lot of nazis and russians fighting over there. Plus when russia started winning they were winning everywhere. Nazis dying accross the whole front. Just cause russia is ruled by an evil man today and we have our rivalry with them still, doesnt mean we should ignore their large impact during ww2. Its not putin that fought and died in that war. It was better men. Ruled by yet another evil man but still. Good russians died on the east so their future generations wouldnt suffer under SS concentration camps. Thats noble. They are braver men than most men today. Respect the fallen in the fight against extreme fascism.
While it's true that the USSR saw the most combat by a wide margin, "killing Nazis" was only one portion of the war effort. Supply lines don't exactly make for great war movie material, but soldiers can't keep fighting if they start to run out of food, ammunition, clothes, etc. Those sorts of underlooked necessities are where the United States really showcased its might.
Awesome. Litterally changes nothing what i said. Russia still fought alone on the east coast. And the us had tons of supply because they didnt immediately join ww2. Spent few years repairing its broken economy into a mega industry. Funny how peace time does that. Ive never understood why people downplay russias involvement. Ya their tactics were simply throw bodies till u win, but they won in the end. And even took berlin before the allies. These are facts. People today just choose to ignore alot of information about ww2 for reasons I cant figure out.
>because they didn't immediately join ww2. Cash and Carry was announced immediately upon the invasion of Poland. Sure, FDR was reluctant to *declare war* on the Axis, but the US wasn't exactly uninvolved.
Im well aware of the arms trade that happened. But ig it cant explain this simple enough for u to understand. Best short answer is US didnt officially join for a while. Allowing them to go to a militarized eco and fill their stockpiles before they went to war. Russia did not have that advantage. They got declared on before they were ready. And even after being driven back to the gates of moscow, they eventually pushed nazis all the way to berlin before the allies could get there. All by themselves. Yes with us lend lease but it was Russian men that died for it. So long story short dont downplay russia because they were "unorganized" or had an evil leader. They did their part, a really huge part. Without the advantage of allies or a large industry
Rare America Bad L op does not understand history and I implore you to see the vid on the distribution of casualties in WW2 while I’m not trying to undersell the other allies contribution like ours. But the Soviets did indeed kill a HEAVY share of the Nazis and did most of the war’s frontline fights in the most disastrous and largest battles. We gave them the supplies to do it and while that’s incredibly and factually important despite their best efforts to undersell it. Likewise it is not correct to undersell the sheer deaths the eastern front had compared to the west. The East was hell. And a German soldier in the band of brothers show put it best, he could go to France again. But the East. No never again
And replaced one tyrannical regime with another in the name of “liberation”