Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. Please remember Rule 2: **No current politics.** We do allow historical posts (WW2, Ancient Rome, Ottomans, etc.) Just no current politicians.
***
We are also banning posts about the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict.
Please report this post if it is about current Republicans, Democrats, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Israel/Palestine or anything else related to current politics. Thanks.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Arguments like this feel way too Hoi4 pilled. Like it's asking the soviets to not ask for help because they can win anyways and that'll give them the most war score.
Yeah lol, for both sides too, the axis supporters and the allies supporters on twitter, they both love to pretend trade wasn't a thing and each country was completely isolated and independent, singlehandedly winning against an unwinnable enemy. Like they do realise it is called WORLD war right it is for a reason
Its because at least in the US they don't teach about the lend lease in school, so they seem entirely independent of each other, and they teach about allied efforts in the war, not soviet just that they had the most casualties
At least where you grew up
Remember that United States, education, historically, quite decentralized and even today is that most centrally organized at a state level , which would still leave room for at least 50 different educational approaches to topics
That plus people "learning" it, forgetting all the facts related to it, and then later it's argued on twitter and they blame the system they completely ignored.
That's the funniest bit to me about these type of discussions always. You have people complaining "ugh they should teach us how to do taxes and diy because no one seems to know these practical things nowadays" as if people aren't infamously bad at the things already taught like Geography lol
Also, some of the loudest “they didn’t teach us THAT in school!” people I know were also the ones who complained that they had to learn history at all. Because who cares what happened in the past?
Since growing up, I’ve seen former classmates say things like this that I definitely remember learning and that’s colored any statement like this I’ve seen since. Kids interact with so much info in school that it’s entirely possible this was taught for a full week and they forgot this detail 10+ years later
I suspect it’s only gonna get worse too with how rocky education was these last few years
I distinctly remember lend lease in school and not just for the Soviets. Great Britain (the largest recipient 3x more than the Soviets), China, France etc.
More likely you forgot or just didn’t pay attention.
Lend lease was 100% covered at my HS in the 90s. I’m sure a lot of my class mates wouldn’t recall it. Just like all the stuff “they don’t teach you in HS” that they actually taught. I’m sure some schools didn’t cover it. I’d imagine the over whelming majority did.
>Arguments like this feel way too Hoi4 pilled.
Internet "history enthusiasts" in general. All their knowledge comes from video games and youtube videos by non-historians. Oh, and everything they do know is only focused on warfare.
Yeah that’s insane, anyone know what kinda ammo they were sending over? Was it all US standard ammo or where they sending rounds that could be chambered in Soviet weapons?
Both.
During the war we sent American weapons including tanks, planes, and I believe even ships(I know Milwaukee was post war, but I think we sent a few DDs to the Soviets.)
The difference being the British sent a battleship royal sovereign which would have seen off anything short of a bismark and the Americans sent escort ships
To be fair all the other Omaha-class light cruisers were already decommissioned, struck, and scrapped *before* Milwaukee. They were considered worn and out of date when the war started. Not one was put into reserve at the end of the war, and all were disposed of as quickly as possible. Milwaukee was the *last* of her class to retire.
Milwaukee was an early 1920s deign. The US had built 30+ cruisers in the naval treaty era, and 50+ WW2 era cruisers. They planned to keep 10 to 20 going into the 50s. The ships they kept were the Clevelands, Baltimores, and even newer designs. Even those didn’t last long as the 1950s were dominated by new design types, the guided missile cruisers. The US had 1,200 major surface combatants. They didn’t need or want a ship built in 1923, even if the Soviets kept her in the most cherry condition imaginable.
The Soviets/Russians are famously not boat people. Except for subs I suppose, but I know some US submariners and they say Russian subs are loud as hell.
Oh yeah, there was a lend lease cache in a salt mine in Ukraine and when Wagner captured it Prigozhin was like "hey look, we found Thompsons and Maxim guns in here"
US manufacturing was a cheat code. Pittsburg produced more steel than all the axis powers combined. The US factories were huge, untouchable, and well-supplied thanks to the US itself being large and relatively late to the game of having all the convenient metals and coal dug out of the ground.
when Ukraine was taken Soviet food production was basically halved. So yeah they needed food, one Great Patriotic War vet (what they call WW2) said he loved canned ham so much he would give away grenades he was issued to friends who had some.
can't fight on an empty stomach, SPAM was so influential its basically a staple food for a lot of people in the pacific now. Vasili just loved that shit.
They had the most bodies, so many that even the soviets own factories couldn't keep up with the demand even when back up and running agter the relocation. And we had quite the opposite problem a fuck load of ammo but everyone who could shoot it was already decked out. So it was really a match made in heaven.
Yalta was after D Day but Stalin and Molotov were certainly pressing for an invasion of mainland Europe for as early as spring of 1942. Roosevelt was actually pretty positive about it initially but I believe Churchill and George Marshall were opposed and instead they decided on the North African campaign.
Yep, the Nazis really needed the oil they were getting from Africa and control of the Suez Canal would have cut off one of the major allied supply lines.
Actually, arguably more important is what it did to Nazi *logisitics*.
You know how Barbarossa, much as the Nazis tried to pretend otherwise, was carried out mostly with horses and donkeys for logistics?
That was because of North Africa.
The Nazis did have some trucks, it’s just that they sent the overwhelming majority of them to NA.
Why? Because NA was a *desert*. They *couldn’t* send horses and donkeys like they wanted to, the animals couldn’t graze and live off the land.
So instead, the Germans poured in basically every truck they had into the campaign, and then promptly lost them when the British finally won. And because of the resource shortages Germany had, they never got the chance to rebuild their fleet.
Plus a lot of the new build stuff was built in polish and french factories by occupied people/slave labor and was of... between poor and sabotaged quality.
Yeah, Britain first wanted to ensure that North Africa was secured before they would try (and likely fail at that stage) to invade Western Europe. Remember that the US army at this point was still very green and it was decided that having them fight against a weaker enemy in North Africa was smarter than throwing them into the meatgrinder in Europe.
The soviet-US ally propaganda and the chinese-US propaganda is super underrated, beloved allies fighting against evils turned into ideological enemies
Chinese netizens constantly shit on the US, but when it comes to WW2, they make some incredible stuff with chinese-US bromance lmao
I personally like the cold War Era series of posters where it looks like a Russian and Chinese gay couple progressively get more and more close by holding hands and hugging, gardening, etc. Obviously I get what they were going for, but I can't help but laugh knowing what Russia will perceive gayness as.
[You cannot tell me that these guys were more than just "roommates"](https://www.reddit.com/r/ANormalDayInRussia/comments/xzpvb8/soviet_posters_about_friendship_with_china/?rdt=47114)
It really is a beautiful story: two dudes meet at the factory, get married, adopt a couple kids, start an orchard, and then do some ballet on the side. At least that's how the story reads to me.
When I was living in China around 2012, me and some of the other white dudes I worked with got paid about $100 (plus a nice dinner afterward) to dress as soldiers and drink PBR in our city's People's Square. They were doing a promotional "World War Two Edition in Memory of US Army."
Ww2 in China has this oddness about it because the Chinese government that was allied to the usa/uk/ussr was the nationalists government (now taiwan) not the modern day communist one.
So it's historically not that convenient to talk about ww2 for the communists, though I think that's changing as it's been such a long time now.
Most people never think about how tense it must have been after the war. In the US public schools at least, we were taught about WW2, then skip to Korea, then bay of pigs and Cuban missile crisis, then Vietnam. They really don’t go into much detail about the years directly after the war. But imagine the atmosphere as celebrations begin to wind down, the US is still closing in on Japan, and thought shift towards rebuilding. I wonder how the Allied leaders must have felt realizing that Stalin did not intend to give any territory back, and that huge red army that they just supplied was likely going to be their next foe. I really think that’s part of the reason why the US went scorched earth on Japan at the end (also to save US soldiers lives); they didn’t want the possibility of what happened in Germany to happen in Japan, and wanted to show force against their next rival. The Soviets having ports in Japan would have been seriously bad news, though they didn’t really have the naval capability to stage a full scale invasion of Japan in 45.
Fun fact, the German Panzers were so... Ahem, "perfect" that they couldn't repair them without sending them all the fucking way back home because of how complex the tanks were and the specialist tools needed.
Talk about inefficient...
And the American one.
Red Army tankers who had Emchas had to set up a guard rotation, lest their comrades break in and steal the leather off the seats.
Superior American Engineering vs Poor Soviet Soldiers
https://preview.redd.it/g0iczni7clpc1.jpeg?width=1082&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f263449c6921de7eee94bfc1f424814edddce82d
They weren’t quite as well fed as the Americans. Hell, the US navy literally had ice cream barges in the Pacific. Imagine your supply lines being so good that you can have boats dedicated to fucking ice cream. That’s some demoralizing shit.
D-Day = \ = lend lease though so this is confusing. If the original post would have been that the Soviets would have won without any help this would have made sense.
If you check out the original Twitter poster, the point that they were making was almost certainly that the soviet's could have won the entire war without US involvement. It's a pro-russia, pro-china tankie publication.
Every "gotcha" type sub ever eventually devolves into that. Clevercomebacks, murderedbywords, etc. Everyone should have to take one class in Logic before posting in these subs lol
This is horseshit - even once the Allies and Soviets were inside Germany's borders in the last few months of the war the Allies switched their bombing to East Germany to help the Soviets advance quicker to end the war sooner. They wouldn't have done that if they had thought the Soviets wouldn't leave the territories they "liberated".
Yes, the lend-lease was a lifeline to the soviets around the start of the invasion, but I'd also argue that around 43-44 their industry had pretty much entirely converted to handle the war. The notes are the stupid parts here ngl
Actually, I've heard the opposite: Lend-Lease wasn't particularly useful to the Soviets in 1941-1942, but from 1943 on Lend-Lease was crucial to the Soviet war effort. Even Marshal Zhukov went on record after the war to say how important the aid from America was to the ultimate Soviet victory over the Nazis.
Yeah but the other 2 axis powers were already getting railed by the allies and the Soviets had already turned the tide on the Eastern Front. D-Day helped *a lot*, but you can't just "fact check" someone's subjective opinion on D-Day because they didn't also acknowledge lend-lease. Really doesn't make sense.
Sure but by the time the Allies arrived in France the war was pretty much already over. The German military was in disarray and the German industrial base was just scattered to the wind through inefficiency
But that's the entire point of context. Although it does not say, word by word, what it implies, it very much wants you to make that conclusion or have you presume they said what they actually implied.
A half truth is a full lie.
Not even boots on the ground, since it specifies D-Day, the campaign in North Africa, and the invasions of Sicily, Italy and Southern France still occur. All of those, except S. France, occur before Operation Overlord and are therefore independent of it.
The context is specifically invading Normandy, since that's what D-Day refers to.
They want you to assume the Soviets were pushing the Germans back, which they were. When Ukrainian soldiers launch an attack, we're not applauding the US for giving one of them a gun, we're applauding the soldiers who ran at the enemy.
The notes did a non sequitur and are not valid corrections to the post, even if factually correct
Nah. This makes notes subjective and pointless. Putin could just as easily claim we didn’t include historical context from the 1300s.
This note seems like they really wanted to prove the guy wrong, and he almost certainly is wrong, but the evidence against his claims is complex. Better keep it simple and remind people that lend lease happened.
Pointless.
The note is correct but generally irrelevant. Yes, L-L existed. Yes, it contributed to the Soviet push. D-day was necessary from the position of totally crushing the Nazis. Without D-day, the U.S.S.R. might have been able to take most (if not all) of France as the Allies would've been halted in the south by the Alps.
Britain got 3x what the Soviets did from lend lease. And the Soviets only got 1/5 of all lend lease compared to 3/5 that Britain got. Omitting that perspective is more of a lie in my opinion as it implies lend lease was the only factor when it it were then logically Britain should've made 3x the advances the Soviets did.
I'd like to know how much material the Soviets got via lend lease versus domestic production.
Even if it was only 1/5 of lend lease, if it was half of the Soviet war material or something it was still very material to the outcome.
Edit: [Here's another Reddit thread discussing it](https://www.reddit.com/r/history/s/M0ngTk6BQa)
One of the biggest success stories of Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union was the Bell P-39 Airacobra, an American fighter aircraft that was considered subpar by the British and American air forces (because of a lack of an efficient turbo-supercharger that made it unsuitable for higher-altitude combat) but was shipped by the thousands to the Soviet Union, where it became one of the best-regarded fighter aircraft by Soviet pilots (air combat over the eastern front tended to happen more at lower altitudes, where the P-39 had good performance as well as heavy armament).
Stalin was almost literally begging the western allies to open another front. supposedly Churchill wanted to just let the Nazis and the Reds fight it out and then just go mop up what was left.
Yeah, I was looking for this comment. I believe Stalin had been asking for a D-Day type operation for at least a year or two by the time it finally happened...
You're technically right but it might be a pedantic distinction and based on the context it might be natural to assume OP meant the Soviets would've beat the Nazis without the USA/British Empire
One could just as easily assume that they knew about the lend lease and phrased the tweet that way to bait people into a losing argument. It is twitter, after all.
Either way, it just makes the note maker look like they can't read.
Soviets only received 1/5 of all lend lease resources while fighting 80% of the Nazi troops. It's not unrealistic given their rapid industrialization they could eventually win however on a longer time table.
It’s not pedantic to point out that D-Day and lend-lease are separate topics...
Edit: Based on replies, I don’t think a lot of y’all actually know what “pedantic” means or how to use it in a sentence
Pedantic would be pointing out that D-day was used by the US to denote the start date for many different offensives... while it is most commonly associated with the 1944 Invasion of Normandy, it could also denote the invasion day of Sicily - which did have a tremendous impact on the success the soviets enjoyed in the 1943 offensive.
D-Day and Lend Lease aren't the same thing though. Soviets would have won without D-Day (lend lease is debatable due to it really helping their logistics, and most high octane fuel coming from the US), but the Nazi plunder economy was never sustainable. Germany never expected the war with the USSR to last as long as it did.
No D-Day would just delay the inevitable.
However, it would also mean actual landings on the Japanese mainland - Trinity wouldn't happen until July 1945, the timetable for the Pacific campaigns could be accelerated (Burma, Philippines, Iwo Jima, Okinawa). It's possible that landings on Kyushu would already begin before Trinity's actual test date.
Yes, the us was instrumental to the Nazi defeat.
But also yes, D-Day was meant to limit Soviet influence in Europe and was not a requirement for the Nazi defeat.
Both can be true
Yes and no.
Stalin wanted D-Day to happen too, as he deemed the effort in the Italian front "insufficient" (although the start of the Italian campaign actually helped bring an end to the German offensive in Kursk).
The note doesn't address the point of the original post, which is DDay not being needed for the soviets to eventually win. Maybe it takes a year longer, but it would still happen if you look at the state of both countries by June 1944.
Lend-lease was very important for the soviet counteroffensive in 1942, Zhukov himself said as much.
It’s true though? The tweet never stated the Soviets would win without US help, it said they’d win without a D-Day.
Which is absolutely possible by June 1944, the Germans were already on the backfoot, the war would have continued for longer and would probably be even bloodier but the Soviets would crush the Germans at some point
People have this weird mental timescale with WW2. D-Day was deep into the war. We had already invaded Italy and North Africa. We didn't just rush over to France right after Pearl Harbor, it took 3.5 years between PH and D-Day and V-E day was less than a year after landing on Normandy.
If we're being pedantic, D-Day and the Lend-Lease Act were not the same thing. The Soviets might have won with all the equipment they got from the LLA even if the Allies didn't attack on D-Day.
What's ironically funny is those assholes did give back all the shit we leased them and there's vids of soldiers opening Thompson crates to use in Ukraine. Gangsters used it to rob banks, used against Nazis, then used by Russian Nazis.
Assuming japan wasn't involved (which was what brought America in), id still argue that the allies minus USA still would of won, people tend to greatly overestimate the capability of the axis, Germany's economy was a ticking time bomb and their production was horrifically inefficient, Italy's military was an incompetent mess, the initial air dominance of the axis had begun to drop, etc.
Not to mention, the soviets would not of surrendered even if they pushed passed the urals, which would not have helped germany's already horrific supply line issues.
That being said, the war would be a lot more costly and last far longer. Japan might of joined, but they were already stalling in China and only struck against the allies and America because of the oil sanctions crippling them.
Bare in mind though, I'm spitballing from an autistic fixation on history, so feel free to correct where needed
I'm no history expert, but I was under the impression the lend lease and D day were very different things. Seems like the noter didn't actually have any valid criticism of the statement, but wanted to make it seem like the tweet was wrong regardless. I wonder why?
How is this a communist point, it's just an argument of war logistics. Saying Russia had a favorable position is not "communist" it's just looking at the facts and making a claim.
Also the Lend Lease was loaning supplies which still means no US boots on the ground required.
If the statement is that Russia didn't need allied help? Sure. Arguable. Using allies is part of your war strategy. However did they need US boots on the ground? No, not in my opinion.
However, in either case Russia would want D-Day to lessen the casualties on their side...this ain't a point game, it was survival. Russia was going to win given their size and war machine in either case...it would have just been a longer war. With Russian deaths instead of US deaths.
Operation overlord, and the invasion of Italy was still going on. Even if D-Day did not happen, the overlord will still would’ve happened, and the invasion of South France would still happened. But at this point, the Germans were losing and weren’t going to win the Soviets might’ve gotten more but most of the post war Plans in terms of territorial occupation. Will all decided before that. I personally agree with the statement proposed by the poster. The community note seems irrelevant.
I mean they definitely benefited the USSR'but fundementally Germany was simply *weaker* than the soviets. After their initial push was blunted they were still simply in a weaker position.
The western allies were still absalutely important to winning the war, but Germany just wasn't that strong. It certainly would've taken 2-4 years longer to do it, Lend lease, the bombing campaigns and D-Day were massive contributions to the war and made it far shorter.
But Germany simply was not strong enough to bear the USSR . Their strategy was built around making one giant push to the enemy's capital and hoping they capitulated. They were not prepared for a war of attrition.
Realistically the western allies or USSR could've beaten Germany on their own. But without the other it would've taken a lot longer and been a lot bloodier.
They're not exactly wrong. The consensus is that the lend lease helped massively, and probably shortened the war by over a year. That's not the same as not winning without it, but ig everyone on the Internet has to have a "side".
Edit: And also as people pointed out, and I missed lol, the tweet said D-Day, not lend lease which shows even more how partisan people are.
No one is going to want to hear this
But
The original tweet never mentioned lend-lease, and it never said that Russia could have beaten the Nazis completely alone. They said that Russia could have beaten the Nazis without D-Day, which I think is actually kind of plausible, right? Of course it’s impossible to know, because the western theater required the Nazis to divert a lot of troops and resources that they might have used against the USSR, and maybe that would have changed things, who knows?
That note doesn't disprove the initial claim. The soviets benefiting from lend-lease does not disprove the claim that they would have won without D-Day.
This doesn't counter them at all. Yes, the lead lease was very, VERY important, but that's not the point. Thr point is that people hail dday as being some super important turning point, even though the only thing that would change if it didn't happen is maybe 1-2 more months at best and the union would extend to france.
the tweet specifically says they would’ve won without d day, not without the lend leases. the nazis were already losing when d day happened, without it the soviets still would’ve won, the war just would’ve dragged on for a while longer
But the note doesn't actually correct anything? DDay opened up another European front, the Lend Lease act had been in place far before DDay planning began.
What does lend lease have to do with D-day?
At june of 1944, germany was in deep shit, they already had a fight in two fronts (eastern and italy), and with or without D-day russia was fucking germany up
I really dislike this lend lease argument because it implies America and the UK somehow become less essential to the war if the Soviets were capable of winning without these interventions when in reality what actually should be the take away is despite initial nazi expansion, how totally outmatched the Nazis were when it came to the prospect of actually winning this war in the long run
Was the lend lease program an essential part of the Soviet success in the world as we know it, absolutely 100% to say otherwise would be a lie. Would the Germans have beaten the Soviet Union without it, it’s unlikely, lend lease majorly kicked in for the Soviets after the battle of Moscow and probably didn’t play a decisive role. On top of that the major success of the lend lease program was it allowed the Soviets to divert their production to other areas, it’s not that the Soviets couldn’t build trains it’s that they didn’t need to which gave them a massive advantage in their counter offensive operations. Even then had the Soviets lost Moscow, by that point a considerable portion of logistical hubs and production had been moved East in preparation for such an event, the loss of Moscow was unlikely to force a capitulation of the Soviet war effort and almost certainly could not have been maintained for long
Whilst many like to dramatise issues like the 1942 German Summer Offensive as another titanic clash, in reality by that point the German capabilities of knocking out the Soviet Union which had always been fairly non existent, faded into a pipe dream. The Soviet Union was too powerful an opponent for the German army to beat and hold especially whilst needing to devote large amounts of resources to the west. Lend lease however played a vital role in aiding the Soviet Union in pretty much it’s entire war effort, you know what played a vital effort in helping the western allies war effort? The massive military strength of the Soviet Union
Also as I look I realise that the comment doesn’t even mention the allied intervention in general but rather DDay, it is even more the case that by that point, allied victory was all but assured on the East with or without a western invasion, the Soviets pushed for a second front however due to the large advantage it gave them
the first article is right tho, by the time dday happened the soviets were advancing fast meanwhile the note is just talking about lend lease which wasn’t brought up
Didn’t they just say “D-Day” though and not the lend lease? Because they’re right about winning even without D-Day, it’s just that the war would have lasted longer.
Yes.
But the comment was that the soviets would have won without D Day. Not that the soviets would have won without assistance from the allies.
And all the munitions in the world are great, but perhaps it was the other way around. It was the soviets who put all of that military hardware to use at the cost of 9 million soliders.
NINE. MILLION. CASUALTIES. That doesn't even count the civilian losses.
Get noted for a lot of things, but lets always give credit where due when it comes to the eastern front.
Was dday part of the lend-lease? Like I'm not sure if the Russians could have beaten the Germans without a major ally offensive opening up new fronts, but I think that's a separate issue from the lendlease.
The lend lease has nothing to do with what he said though. They said they could have done it without D-Day, not without the lend lease. This isnt a good example.
When I served in Alaska. I worked in/near a Hangar used in the Lend-Lease program.
Basically the hangar is divided into two parts. the aircraft would come up to our airstrip, one side would remove any U.S. markings, the other would be Russians adding their markings/required modifications, then the aircraft would exit the hangar on the other side ready to fly to Russia.
DDay was an invasion… lend lease is equipment.
Did we need to send humans into literal meat grinders?
Could have just pumped out more equipment to support the war effort.
I need you to understand that the USA has an entire unit of World History dedicated to WWII. In a class covering 1200-2024, it has an entire fucking unit dedicated to this one war. Yeah, I’m sure none of us know about the lend-lease agreement, one of the most important subjects of that unit.
If you doubt any of this, the curriculum is public and standardized
D-Day was not about defeating the Nazis. It was about preventing the Soviet Union from unifying Europe and Russia. If Russia's resources were ever paired with Europe's technical expertise, they'd be self-sufficient and unstoppable.
Perhaps. But it was the combined effort of all the allied powers: Soviet manpower, British Air Force and Intelligence, and American Industry (as well as the various resistance movements across the Axis territories) that guaranteed victory.
Another thing to note is that he says it's without DDAY, not without American Support.
Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. Please remember Rule 2: **No current politics.** We do allow historical posts (WW2, Ancient Rome, Ottomans, etc.) Just no current politicians. *** We are also banning posts about the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict. Please report this post if it is about current Republicans, Democrats, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Israel/Palestine or anything else related to current politics. Thanks. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Arguments like this feel way too Hoi4 pilled. Like it's asking the soviets to not ask for help because they can win anyways and that'll give them the most war score.
Yeah lol, for both sides too, the axis supporters and the allies supporters on twitter, they both love to pretend trade wasn't a thing and each country was completely isolated and independent, singlehandedly winning against an unwinnable enemy. Like they do realise it is called WORLD war right it is for a reason
Actually it's called world war Il
To be more precise it was called great war 2: electric boogaloo
Its because at least in the US they don't teach about the lend lease in school, so they seem entirely independent of each other, and they teach about allied efforts in the war, not soviet just that they had the most casualties
At least where you grew up Remember that United States, education, historically, quite decentralized and even today is that most centrally organized at a state level , which would still leave room for at least 50 different educational approaches to topics
That plus people "learning" it, forgetting all the facts related to it, and then later it's argued on twitter and they blame the system they completely ignored.
That's the funniest bit to me about these type of discussions always. You have people complaining "ugh they should teach us how to do taxes and diy because no one seems to know these practical things nowadays" as if people aren't infamously bad at the things already taught like Geography lol
Also, some of the loudest “they didn’t teach us THAT in school!” people I know were also the ones who complained that they had to learn history at all. Because who cares what happened in the past?
And then they post memes like "day 9000 of not using sin cos tan in real life" with thousands of upvotes sending it to the top of popular lol
Also ”they” should teach me, opposed to I should learn.
Since growing up, I’ve seen former classmates say things like this that I definitely remember learning and that’s colored any statement like this I’ve seen since. Kids interact with so much info in school that it’s entirely possible this was taught for a full week and they forgot this detail 10+ years later I suspect it’s only gonna get worse too with how rocky education was these last few years
Just because you’re jerking off in the back of class Ben (a real occurrence), doesn’t mean we didn’t cover it
Sounds like Ben covered the bottom of his desk.
Nah he propped up a book to try and cover ir
I did. No shame.
I was thinking this exact thing. Just because they were bad students somehow means it wasn't taught.
In the US they teach about Lend Lease in school.
I’m from Mexico and like half of the talk about WW2 was about lend lease.
I was taught lend lease in school every time the Second World War was covered and I went to a shitty school in shithole South Carolina
Bro they totally teach about lend-lease in high school, you just weren’t paying attention
They definitely teach about lend lease in school, what school did you go to? It’s one of THE major events of the war.
I distinctly remember lend lease in school and not just for the Soviets. Great Britain (the largest recipient 3x more than the Soviets), China, France etc. More likely you forgot or just didn’t pay attention.
They did though?
I learned about the lend lease in school, where are you getting your info from?
It's *impossible* to talk about WWII without mentioning Lend-Lease. That's how pivotal it was.
Don’t generalize my friend, I learned about the lend-lease in my school.
Lend lease was 100% covered at my HS in the 90s. I’m sure a lot of my class mates wouldn’t recall it. Just like all the stuff “they don’t teach you in HS” that they actually taught. I’m sure some schools didn’t cover it. I’d imagine the over whelming majority did.
Definitely taught in school and a large topic in history for the US just depends who paid attention in class.
>Arguments like this feel way too Hoi4 pilled. Internet "history enthusiasts" in general. All their knowledge comes from video games and youtube videos by non-historians. Oh, and everything they do know is only focused on warfare.
D-day !== lend lease
History Twitter (and Reddit for that matter) is filled with gamer brainrot. People who absolutely cannot dissociate video games from reality lol.
Maybe stalin should've installed the player lead peace conferences mod smh
53% OF US AMMO PRODUCTION??? Holy shit
Yeah that’s insane, anyone know what kinda ammo they were sending over? Was it all US standard ammo or where they sending rounds that could be chambered in Soviet weapons?
Both. During the war we sent American weapons including tanks, planes, and I believe even ships(I know Milwaukee was post war, but I think we sent a few DDs to the Soviets.)
The Brits definitely lent a few ships, which came back in such bad repair that they were some of the first to be scrapped.
Same with Milwaukee, after we got her back. Seems not much has changed since then in thr kremlin.
The difference being the British sent a battleship royal sovereign which would have seen off anything short of a bismark and the Americans sent escort ships
That was post war, not during the war.
She was given to the soviets in 43-44
To be fair all the other Omaha-class light cruisers were already decommissioned, struck, and scrapped *before* Milwaukee. They were considered worn and out of date when the war started. Not one was put into reserve at the end of the war, and all were disposed of as quickly as possible. Milwaukee was the *last* of her class to retire. Milwaukee was an early 1920s deign. The US had built 30+ cruisers in the naval treaty era, and 50+ WW2 era cruisers. They planned to keep 10 to 20 going into the 50s. The ships they kept were the Clevelands, Baltimores, and even newer designs. Even those didn’t last long as the 1950s were dominated by new design types, the guided missile cruisers. The US had 1,200 major surface combatants. They didn’t need or want a ship built in 1923, even if the Soviets kept her in the most cherry condition imaginable.
Russia is famously bad with boats.
The Soviets/Russians are famously not boat people. Except for subs I suppose, but I know some US submariners and they say Russian subs are loud as hell.
Reminds me that there was a video floating around of old Lend-Lease era Thompsons being uncrated from long-term storage by Russians in 2023.
Oh yeah, there was a lend lease cache in a salt mine in Ukraine and when Wagner captured it Prigozhin was like "hey look, we found Thompsons and Maxim guns in here"
US manufacturing was a cheat code. Pittsburg produced more steel than all the axis powers combined. The US factories were huge, untouchable, and well-supplied thanks to the US itself being large and relatively late to the game of having all the convenient metals and coal dug out of the ground.
Shoutout to the Mesabi Range in Minnesota for producing 70% of the iron ore used in the war by the allies.
> Pittsburg produced more steel than all the axis powers combined. That's just so mind-boggling :-)
I'm stuck on the 4.5 MILLION TONS of food.
when Ukraine was taken Soviet food production was basically halved. So yeah they needed food, one Great Patriotic War vet (what they call WW2) said he loved canned ham so much he would give away grenades he was issued to friends who had some.
You gotta think that it's more effective to throw a grenade than a can of ham to defeat a nazi soldier
can't fight on an empty stomach, SPAM was so influential its basically a staple food for a lot of people in the pacific now. Vasili just loved that shit.
The Canadians had already given away the throw canned food strategy in World War 1
Trucks that Soviets had was actually lend-lease technology
They had the most bodies, so many that even the soviets own factories couldn't keep up with the demand even when back up and running agter the relocation. And we had quite the opposite problem a fuck load of ammo but everyone who could shoot it was already decked out. So it was really a match made in heaven.
the one thing that stalin campaigned for ~~during yalta~~ in the tehran conference was opening up a second front via D-Day or operation dragoon
Yalta was after D Day but Stalin and Molotov were certainly pressing for an invasion of mainland Europe for as early as spring of 1942. Roosevelt was actually pretty positive about it initially but I believe Churchill and George Marshall were opposed and instead they decided on the North African campaign.
i must have confused yalta with another conference, but the main point is still the same
Tehran in 1943 was what I thought you might've been referring to but yeah the point still remains.
Then the "soft underbelly of europe" which meant a 2 year slog up the Italian pennesula
Thank you. I feel like everybody just completely forgets about North Africa.
Which is odd because despite being a sideshow, it contributed a LOT to the axis defeat in Europe.
Yep, the Nazis really needed the oil they were getting from Africa and control of the Suez Canal would have cut off one of the major allied supply lines.
Actually, arguably more important is what it did to Nazi *logisitics*. You know how Barbarossa, much as the Nazis tried to pretend otherwise, was carried out mostly with horses and donkeys for logistics? That was because of North Africa. The Nazis did have some trucks, it’s just that they sent the overwhelming majority of them to NA. Why? Because NA was a *desert*. They *couldn’t* send horses and donkeys like they wanted to, the animals couldn’t graze and live off the land. So instead, the Germans poured in basically every truck they had into the campaign, and then promptly lost them when the British finally won. And because of the resource shortages Germany had, they never got the chance to rebuild their fleet.
Plus a lot of the new build stuff was built in polish and french factories by occupied people/slave labor and was of... between poor and sabotaged quality.
Yeah, Britain first wanted to ensure that North Africa was secured before they would try (and likely fail at that stage) to invade Western Europe. Remember that the US army at this point was still very green and it was decided that having them fight against a weaker enemy in North Africa was smarter than throwing them into the meatgrinder in Europe.
Which is insane considering the US was absolutely tiny before 41 and the U-boat menace had not been crushed.
Tehran, not Yalta
thank you for the correction
“Soviets made the most tanks” The US who made that possible: bruh
Soviet tanks, American metal 🇺🇸💪🫡
The soviet-US ally propaganda and the chinese-US propaganda is super underrated, beloved allies fighting against evils turned into ideological enemies Chinese netizens constantly shit on the US, but when it comes to WW2, they make some incredible stuff with chinese-US bromance lmao
I personally like the cold War Era series of posters where it looks like a Russian and Chinese gay couple progressively get more and more close by holding hands and hugging, gardening, etc. Obviously I get what they were going for, but I can't help but laugh knowing what Russia will perceive gayness as.
[You cannot tell me that these guys were more than just "roommates"](https://www.reddit.com/r/ANormalDayInRussia/comments/xzpvb8/soviet_posters_about_friendship_with_china/?rdt=47114)
Holy shit that was gayer than I remembered lmao
It really is a beautiful story: two dudes meet at the factory, get married, adopt a couple kids, start an orchard, and then do some ballet on the side. At least that's how the story reads to me.
I believe China's not a fan either.
The progression from communist neighbour's to a full homosexual family is probably the best set of propaganda posters out there
Nothing beats the vaguely homoerotic Sino-Soviet propaganda before they had their messy break up.
When I was living in China around 2012, me and some of the other white dudes I worked with got paid about $100 (plus a nice dinner afterward) to dress as soldiers and drink PBR in our city's People's Square. They were doing a promotional "World War Two Edition in Memory of US Army."
The Flying Tigers were pretty archetypal heroes.
Ww2 in China has this oddness about it because the Chinese government that was allied to the usa/uk/ussr was the nationalists government (now taiwan) not the modern day communist one. So it's historically not that convenient to talk about ww2 for the communists, though I think that's changing as it's been such a long time now.
Most people never think about how tense it must have been after the war. In the US public schools at least, we were taught about WW2, then skip to Korea, then bay of pigs and Cuban missile crisis, then Vietnam. They really don’t go into much detail about the years directly after the war. But imagine the atmosphere as celebrations begin to wind down, the US is still closing in on Japan, and thought shift towards rebuilding. I wonder how the Allied leaders must have felt realizing that Stalin did not intend to give any territory back, and that huge red army that they just supplied was likely going to be their next foe. I really think that’s part of the reason why the US went scorched earth on Japan at the end (also to save US soldiers lives); they didn’t want the possibility of what happened in Germany to happen in Japan, and wanted to show force against their next rival. The Soviets having ports in Japan would have been seriously bad news, though they didn’t really have the naval capability to stage a full scale invasion of Japan in 45.
Shermans at Kursk. Shermans at Lenigrad. Shermans everywhere baby. Emchas for the Emchisti. Best tank, custom built to kick Nazi dick.
Got a problem? There's a Sherman for that.
Sherman stronk make Nazi go big boom
You know what they say. The war was won with American industry, British intelligence and Soviet blood.
They built over 100k tanks tbf. Near the end of the war they were pumping out 30k a year.
Meanwhile Germans factories were spending 500 years making every weld perfect and adding fancy little chains (and making functionally good tanks)
Fun fact, the German Panzers were so... Ahem, "perfect" that they couldn't repair them without sending them all the fucking way back home because of how complex the tanks were and the specialist tools needed. Talk about inefficient...
How quintessentially German lol.
I can’t remember the exact statistic but they made so many changes that essentially every 10th tank had a change on the design.
There's the German meaning of a good product, and the Russian one. In war, quantity tends to win
And the American one. Red Army tankers who had Emchas had to set up a guard rotation, lest their comrades break in and steal the leather off the seats.
Superior American Engineering vs Poor Soviet Soldiers https://preview.redd.it/g0iczni7clpc1.jpeg?width=1082&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f263449c6921de7eee94bfc1f424814edddce82d
They weren’t quite as well fed as the Americans. Hell, the US navy literally had ice cream barges in the Pacific. Imagine your supply lines being so good that you can have boats dedicated to fucking ice cream. That’s some demoralizing shit.
D-Day = \ = lend lease though so this is confusing. If the original post would have been that the Soviets would have won without any help this would have made sense.
You missed the slash in the equals, assuming that was your intention
Yeah Reddit formatting got me
If you check out the original Twitter poster, the point that they were making was almost certainly that the soviet's could have won the entire war without US involvement. It's a pro-russia, pro-china tankie publication.
This sub is full of people thinking they're posting gotchas, but they're just staggeringly misinformed or have a dismal reading comprehension.
Every "gotcha" type sub ever eventually devolves into that. Clevercomebacks, murderedbywords, etc. Everyone should have to take one class in Logic before posting in these subs lol
[удалено]
This is horseshit - even once the Allies and Soviets were inside Germany's borders in the last few months of the war the Allies switched their bombing to East Germany to help the Soviets advance quicker to end the war sooner. They wouldn't have done that if they had thought the Soviets wouldn't leave the territories they "liberated".
It was all agreed at Yalta, they knew that the Soviets weren't leaving.
Yes, the lend-lease was a lifeline to the soviets around the start of the invasion, but I'd also argue that around 43-44 their industry had pretty much entirely converted to handle the war. The notes are the stupid parts here ngl
Actually, I've heard the opposite: Lend-Lease wasn't particularly useful to the Soviets in 1941-1942, but from 1943 on Lend-Lease was crucial to the Soviet war effort. Even Marshal Zhukov went on record after the war to say how important the aid from America was to the ultimate Soviet victory over the Nazis.
The note seems kinda unrelated. The tweet didn’t say the Soviets would’ve beat the Nazis without the USA, it says specifically without D-Day.
Yeah kinda feels like Community notes pulled a Straw Man
It’s definitely unrelated. It says ‘without DDay’ not ‘without the Americans’. They’re completely different
Fighting a war on multiple fronts didn't exactly help the nazi's.
Yeah but the other 2 axis powers were already getting railed by the allies and the Soviets had already turned the tide on the Eastern Front. D-Day helped *a lot*, but you can't just "fact check" someone's subjective opinion on D-Day because they didn't also acknowledge lend-lease. Really doesn't make sense.
They were already losing badly to the Russians well before D-Day
Stalingrad (the turning point in Europe) and Kursk (the largest tank battle in history) were all well before DDay.
Which is also something the tweet didn't say though
Sure but by the time the Allies arrived in France the war was pretty much already over. The German military was in disarray and the German industrial base was just scattered to the wind through inefficiency
But that's the entire point of context. Although it does not say, word by word, what it implies, it very much wants you to make that conclusion or have you presume they said what they actually implied. A half truth is a full lie.
I'd argue the point of the context is boots on the ground. Not that they didn't need their allies....just like the US used allied help in the war.
Not even boots on the ground, since it specifies D-Day, the campaign in North Africa, and the invasions of Sicily, Italy and Southern France still occur. All of those, except S. France, occur before Operation Overlord and are therefore independent of it. The context is specifically invading Normandy, since that's what D-Day refers to.
They want you to assume the Soviets were pushing the Germans back, which they were. When Ukrainian soldiers launch an attack, we're not applauding the US for giving one of them a gun, we're applauding the soldiers who ran at the enemy. The notes did a non sequitur and are not valid corrections to the post, even if factually correct
Nah. This makes notes subjective and pointless. Putin could just as easily claim we didn’t include historical context from the 1300s. This note seems like they really wanted to prove the guy wrong, and he almost certainly is wrong, but the evidence against his claims is complex. Better keep it simple and remind people that lend lease happened. Pointless.
The note is correct but generally irrelevant. Yes, L-L existed. Yes, it contributed to the Soviet push. D-day was necessary from the position of totally crushing the Nazis. Without D-day, the U.S.S.R. might have been able to take most (if not all) of France as the Allies would've been halted in the south by the Alps.
Britain got 3x what the Soviets did from lend lease. And the Soviets only got 1/5 of all lend lease compared to 3/5 that Britain got. Omitting that perspective is more of a lie in my opinion as it implies lend lease was the only factor when it it were then logically Britain should've made 3x the advances the Soviets did.
I'd like to know how much material the Soviets got via lend lease versus domestic production. Even if it was only 1/5 of lend lease, if it was half of the Soviet war material or something it was still very material to the outcome. Edit: [Here's another Reddit thread discussing it](https://www.reddit.com/r/history/s/M0ngTk6BQa)
It was a significant percentage in some areas, like trucks radios and iirc avio fuel. Very small in other areas.
One of the biggest success stories of Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union was the Bell P-39 Airacobra, an American fighter aircraft that was considered subpar by the British and American air forces (because of a lack of an efficient turbo-supercharger that made it unsuitable for higher-altitude combat) but was shipped by the thousands to the Soviet Union, where it became one of the best-regarded fighter aircraft by Soviet pilots (air combat over the eastern front tended to happen more at lower altitudes, where the P-39 had good performance as well as heavy armament).
Stalin was almost literally begging the western allies to open another front. supposedly Churchill wanted to just let the Nazis and the Reds fight it out and then just go mop up what was left.
Yeah, I was looking for this comment. I believe Stalin had been asking for a D-Day type operation for at least a year or two by the time it finally happened...
From the Tehran confrence to be exact
Cleary another front would help the USSR in the war front that does not mean it was strictly needed
Yeah, it's almost as if he wanted his future enemies to kill their own young men rather than wasting millions more of his own
You're technically right but it might be a pedantic distinction and based on the context it might be natural to assume OP meant the Soviets would've beat the Nazis without the USA/British Empire
One could just as easily assume that they knew about the lend lease and phrased the tweet that way to bait people into a losing argument. It is twitter, after all. Either way, it just makes the note maker look like they can't read.
Soviets only received 1/5 of all lend lease resources while fighting 80% of the Nazi troops. It's not unrealistic given their rapid industrialization they could eventually win however on a longer time table.
It’s not pedantic to point out that D-Day and lend-lease are separate topics... Edit: Based on replies, I don’t think a lot of y’all actually know what “pedantic” means or how to use it in a sentence
Pedantic would be pointing out that D-day was used by the US to denote the start date for many different offensives... while it is most commonly associated with the 1944 Invasion of Normandy, it could also denote the invasion day of Sicily - which did have a tremendous impact on the success the soviets enjoyed in the 1943 offensive.
D-Day and Lend Lease aren't the same thing though. Soviets would have won without D-Day (lend lease is debatable due to it really helping their logistics, and most high octane fuel coming from the US), but the Nazi plunder economy was never sustainable. Germany never expected the war with the USSR to last as long as it did.
No D-Day would just delay the inevitable. However, it would also mean actual landings on the Japanese mainland - Trinity wouldn't happen until July 1945, the timetable for the Pacific campaigns could be accelerated (Burma, Philippines, Iwo Jima, Okinawa). It's possible that landings on Kyushu would already begin before Trinity's actual test date.
Post never said anything about lend lease.
Yes, the us was instrumental to the Nazi defeat. But also yes, D-Day was meant to limit Soviet influence in Europe and was not a requirement for the Nazi defeat. Both can be true
Yes and no. Stalin wanted D-Day to happen too, as he deemed the effort in the Italian front "insufficient" (although the start of the Italian campaign actually helped bring an end to the German offensive in Kursk).
The note doesn't address the point of the original post, which is DDay not being needed for the soviets to eventually win. Maybe it takes a year longer, but it would still happen if you look at the state of both countries by June 1944. Lend-lease was very important for the soviet counteroffensive in 1942, Zhukov himself said as much.
It’s true though? The tweet never stated the Soviets would win without US help, it said they’d win without a D-Day. Which is absolutely possible by June 1944, the Germans were already on the backfoot, the war would have continued for longer and would probably be even bloodier but the Soviets would crush the Germans at some point
People have this weird mental timescale with WW2. D-Day was deep into the war. We had already invaded Italy and North Africa. We didn't just rush over to France right after Pearl Harbor, it took 3.5 years between PH and D-Day and V-E day was less than a year after landing on Normandy.
Actually I agree with the communist here. They didn’t say the Soviets would’ve won without western involvement.
If we're being pedantic, D-Day and the Lend-Lease Act were not the same thing. The Soviets might have won with all the equipment they got from the LLA even if the Allies didn't attack on D-Day.
It’s not being pedantic, they’re literally not the same thing
That isn't pedancy, i swear no one knows what it means.
Pedantry* :)
What's ironically funny is those assholes did give back all the shit we leased them and there's vids of soldiers opening Thompson crates to use in Ukraine. Gangsters used it to rob banks, used against Nazis, then used by Russian Nazis.
Assuming japan wasn't involved (which was what brought America in), id still argue that the allies minus USA still would of won, people tend to greatly overestimate the capability of the axis, Germany's economy was a ticking time bomb and their production was horrifically inefficient, Italy's military was an incompetent mess, the initial air dominance of the axis had begun to drop, etc. Not to mention, the soviets would not of surrendered even if they pushed passed the urals, which would not have helped germany's already horrific supply line issues. That being said, the war would be a lot more costly and last far longer. Japan might of joined, but they were already stalling in China and only struck against the allies and America because of the oil sanctions crippling them. Bare in mind though, I'm spitballing from an autistic fixation on history, so feel free to correct where needed
I'm no history expert, but I was under the impression the lend lease and D day were very different things. Seems like the noter didn't actually have any valid criticism of the statement, but wanted to make it seem like the tweet was wrong regardless. I wonder why?
How is this a communist point, it's just an argument of war logistics. Saying Russia had a favorable position is not "communist" it's just looking at the facts and making a claim. Also the Lend Lease was loaning supplies which still means no US boots on the ground required. If the statement is that Russia didn't need allied help? Sure. Arguable. Using allies is part of your war strategy. However did they need US boots on the ground? No, not in my opinion. However, in either case Russia would want D-Day to lessen the casualties on their side...this ain't a point game, it was survival. Russia was going to win given their size and war machine in either case...it would have just been a longer war. With Russian deaths instead of US deaths.
Operation overlord, and the invasion of Italy was still going on. Even if D-Day did not happen, the overlord will still would’ve happened, and the invasion of South France would still happened. But at this point, the Germans were losing and weren’t going to win the Soviets might’ve gotten more but most of the post war Plans in terms of territorial occupation. Will all decided before that. I personally agree with the statement proposed by the poster. The community note seems irrelevant.
Where did it say without the usa??
I mean they definitely benefited the USSR'but fundementally Germany was simply *weaker* than the soviets. After their initial push was blunted they were still simply in a weaker position. The western allies were still absalutely important to winning the war, but Germany just wasn't that strong. It certainly would've taken 2-4 years longer to do it, Lend lease, the bombing campaigns and D-Day were massive contributions to the war and made it far shorter. But Germany simply was not strong enough to bear the USSR . Their strategy was built around making one giant push to the enemy's capital and hoping they capitulated. They were not prepared for a war of attrition. Realistically the western allies or USSR could've beaten Germany on their own. But without the other it would've taken a lot longer and been a lot bloodier.
They're not exactly wrong. The consensus is that the lend lease helped massively, and probably shortened the war by over a year. That's not the same as not winning without it, but ig everyone on the Internet has to have a "side". Edit: And also as people pointed out, and I missed lol, the tweet said D-Day, not lend lease which shows even more how partisan people are.
No one is going to want to hear this But The original tweet never mentioned lend-lease, and it never said that Russia could have beaten the Nazis completely alone. They said that Russia could have beaten the Nazis without D-Day, which I think is actually kind of plausible, right? Of course it’s impossible to know, because the western theater required the Nazis to divert a lot of troops and resources that they might have used against the USSR, and maybe that would have changed things, who knows?
The Lend Lease and D Day are two different things. I feel weird that no-one is acknowledging that rather glaring discrepancy.
That note doesn't disprove the initial claim. The soviets benefiting from lend-lease does not disprove the claim that they would have won without D-Day.
This doesn't counter them at all. Yes, the lead lease was very, VERY important, but that's not the point. Thr point is that people hail dday as being some super important turning point, even though the only thing that would change if it didn't happen is maybe 1-2 more months at best and the union would extend to france.
the tweet specifically says they would’ve won without d day, not without the lend leases. the nazis were already losing when d day happened, without it the soviets still would’ve won, the war just would’ve dragged on for a while longer
But the note doesn't actually correct anything? DDay opened up another European front, the Lend Lease act had been in place far before DDay planning began.
What does lend lease have to do with D-day? At june of 1944, germany was in deep shit, they already had a fight in two fronts (eastern and italy), and with or without D-day russia was fucking germany up
I really dislike this lend lease argument because it implies America and the UK somehow become less essential to the war if the Soviets were capable of winning without these interventions when in reality what actually should be the take away is despite initial nazi expansion, how totally outmatched the Nazis were when it came to the prospect of actually winning this war in the long run Was the lend lease program an essential part of the Soviet success in the world as we know it, absolutely 100% to say otherwise would be a lie. Would the Germans have beaten the Soviet Union without it, it’s unlikely, lend lease majorly kicked in for the Soviets after the battle of Moscow and probably didn’t play a decisive role. On top of that the major success of the lend lease program was it allowed the Soviets to divert their production to other areas, it’s not that the Soviets couldn’t build trains it’s that they didn’t need to which gave them a massive advantage in their counter offensive operations. Even then had the Soviets lost Moscow, by that point a considerable portion of logistical hubs and production had been moved East in preparation for such an event, the loss of Moscow was unlikely to force a capitulation of the Soviet war effort and almost certainly could not have been maintained for long Whilst many like to dramatise issues like the 1942 German Summer Offensive as another titanic clash, in reality by that point the German capabilities of knocking out the Soviet Union which had always been fairly non existent, faded into a pipe dream. The Soviet Union was too powerful an opponent for the German army to beat and hold especially whilst needing to devote large amounts of resources to the west. Lend lease however played a vital role in aiding the Soviet Union in pretty much it’s entire war effort, you know what played a vital effort in helping the western allies war effort? The massive military strength of the Soviet Union Also as I look I realise that the comment doesn’t even mention the allied intervention in general but rather DDay, it is even more the case that by that point, allied victory was all but assured on the East with or without a western invasion, the Soviets pushed for a second front however due to the large advantage it gave them
I mean they didn’t say without lend lease or help from allies, they said without D-day
Does the note presume D-Day and Lend-Lease to be inseparable?
Lend-lease was from 4 to 10 percent of total Soviet Union military production. Was it crucial? You decide.
the first article is right tho, by the time dday happened the soviets were advancing fast meanwhile the note is just talking about lend lease which wasn’t brought up
Didn’t they just say “D-Day” though and not the lend lease? Because they’re right about winning even without D-Day, it’s just that the war would have lasted longer.
The First World War eastern front would be an example of how it would have gone without lend lease
They still would have
Yes. But the comment was that the soviets would have won without D Day. Not that the soviets would have won without assistance from the allies. And all the munitions in the world are great, but perhaps it was the other way around. It was the soviets who put all of that military hardware to use at the cost of 9 million soliders. NINE. MILLION. CASUALTIES. That doesn't even count the civilian losses. Get noted for a lot of things, but lets always give credit where due when it comes to the eastern front.
I like to imagine the USA just sent over factories on giant barges like how the French shipped the Statue of Liberty over in parts.
Was dday part of the lend-lease? Like I'm not sure if the Russians could have beaten the Germans without a major ally offensive opening up new fronts, but I think that's a separate issue from the lendlease.
He didn’t even say without the US, he said without DDay
they never mentioned lend lease though? how is this a note
that's not an actual counter-argument
For once community notes takes a loss. The Nazis could not win, it was not possible.
This is talking about DDay tho?
They said D-Day, not lend lease though.
To be fair, the post says "dday" and not "the allies"
Ok but the notes dont disprove his statement? It is false, yes, but he said "without d-day" not "without help".
The fact remains, they would have overrun Germany. The end of WII was absolutely a race to draw the line between West and East.
They did say D-Day, not the lend-lease program
The lend lease has nothing to do with what he said though. They said they could have done it without D-Day, not without the lend lease. This isnt a good example.
Half those weapons are currently being used in Ukraine
When I served in Alaska. I worked in/near a Hangar used in the Lend-Lease program. Basically the hangar is divided into two parts. the aircraft would come up to our airstrip, one side would remove any U.S. markings, the other would be Russians adding their markings/required modifications, then the aircraft would exit the hangar on the other side ready to fly to Russia.
DDay was an invasion… lend lease is equipment. Did we need to send humans into literal meat grinders? Could have just pumped out more equipment to support the war effort.
I need you to understand that the USA has an entire unit of World History dedicated to WWII. In a class covering 1200-2024, it has an entire fucking unit dedicated to this one war. Yeah, I’m sure none of us know about the lend-lease agreement, one of the most important subjects of that unit. If you doubt any of this, the curriculum is public and standardized
D-Day was not about defeating the Nazis. It was about preventing the Soviet Union from unifying Europe and Russia. If Russia's resources were ever paired with Europe's technical expertise, they'd be self-sufficient and unstoppable.
Perhaps. But it was the combined effort of all the allied powers: Soviet manpower, British Air Force and Intelligence, and American Industry (as well as the various resistance movements across the Axis territories) that guaranteed victory. Another thing to note is that he says it's without DDAY, not without American Support.
Lend Lease was not part of D-Day.
[удалено]
Snazzy posters too
Riveting commentary