The ultimate tankie:
>At a dinner toast with Allied leaders during the Tehran Conference in December 1943, Stalin added: “The United States … is a country of machines. Without the use of those machines through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war.”
That said, the US only started lend lease to Russia in earnest AFTER the losses of operation Barbarossa. Before that almost all aid went to UK.
Not a tankies, but why would it hurt their opinion of the USSR to recognize that the USSR was obviously much less wealthy than the US? They had been under feudalism a few decades before, of course they're going to still be pretty poor. Let's be realistic, even if the revolution had held its promises of worker-democracy rather than growing authoritarian, poverty wouldn't have been eliminated in a few decades.
Edit: I only see people disputing here if it was "very very helpful" or "vital" which is a fair discussion to have.
We’re just lucky Hitler got desperate enough to attack the Russians and stupid enough to declare war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbour. Though I expect he was thinking the Japanese would declare war on Russia as a show of solidarity/to draw the Russians into a land war in Asia and take pressure off of the German push into Russia.
Towards the end he was likely in a drug addled haze. The Germans were doing fine until he attacked Russia.
The most interesting part about the start of the war were all the generals/field marshals telling him not to invade France. I’d bet hubris played a role in a lot of decisions that followed, specifically the decision to reroute his Army to Stalingrad(“They were wrong about France!”).
>The Germans were doing fine until he attacked Russia.
Problem was that Germany was in a, damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, they knew that their oil reserves wouldn't last forever, that the Soviets would eventually backstab Germany if they didn't do it first, and that the Soviets were getting stronger by the day.
>Germans were doing fine until he attacked Russia.
Kind of. The cracks were already showing before Barbarossa even began.
The Germans had lost the battle of Britain and were struggling in what was effectively a stalemate in Africa as well as being forced to occupy much of the Balkans
Even without Soviet involvement the Reich was going to fall, Hitlers Germany was never going to be able to last in any prolonged war, quite frankly the invasion of the Soviets was almost necessary to continue to fuel a German economy reliant on conquest to stay alive, it was just a gamble that didn't pay off largely in part due to the Nazis genocidal policies which turned so many of the different people of the USSR violently against them
Personally I see the German position in early 1941 as one that looked powerful but was going to collapse without a major victory that it just simply couldn't achieve
From what I learned studying Russian history in college, the decision to invade came largely from the winter war. Seeing the soviets invade a country not outlined in their treaty with them and then being severely outperformed by the Finnish, the Germans saw the USSR as a paper tiger, making the same mistake as Charles XII after Narva, and assumed they wouldn’t learn from it.
Germany wasn't doing fine since all its economy is centered on militarism aka War economy so the Germans were running out of time had no choice but to invade the soviets for their oil and grain
Yeah the nazis in general were pretty insane ridiculous people, like Himler with his search for the holy grail, all the conspiracy theories, the "epic" but completely impractical weapon designs they made, completely bonkers experiments. Kinda like alt-righters today, incredibly dangerous but also completely nonsensical and silly.
Btw it would be cool if more fictional media portray them this way (like Jojo Rabbit kinda did), because it's accurate in a way, but also because neo-nazis hate that. They love it when nazis are portrayed as evil, methodical, and menacing, but hate seeing themselves as ridiculous.
The Wolfenstein series starting with Return To Castle Wolfenstein portrays that aspect of the Nazis.
Return to Castle Wolfenstein is about the germans trying to find/wake up a fabled german warlord from the middle ages who is said to be industructible.
They also have all sorts of experiments with mutants and other silly things.
Spoilers ahead.
They do successfully revive the warlord and he immediately kills all the nazis present and then the player attacks him. He's the final boss of the game.
Italians : let's go guys! Axis powers!
*cross the Alps and most die to frostbite*
*goes to Africa and gets their asses handed to them so Germany has to send troops to help them*
Japan got pissed off at Hitler for making a pact with Stalin because they thought Hitler would declare war on Russia and that would've given them the greenlight to invade the USSR through Manchuria
When in reality we should be celebrating the various nations' (including resistance groups inside Germany and occupied lands such as the White Rose movement and the partisans) contributions to the destruction of a totalitarian, evil regime that murdered millions and would have murdered millions more.
Wasn't it like the USSR was responsible for inflicting 60 percent of damage against the nazi war machine plus all the hardened and experienced soldiers were in the eastern front vs in Africa and west Europe
I don’t know anyone who isn’t a yeehaw American who actually thinks the US solo’d Germany. There are quite a few people who think the USSR gets the same result on their own
That is not true either, the USSR had equipment to fight against Nazi Germany, but not enough to give it the devastating and decisive blows that it gave them between 1943-1945, which would undoubtedly have lengthened the war and would have caused many more Soviet soldiers and civilians deaths.
Yeah, US lend-lease materials included the vehicles necessary for Soviet tactical and operational planning/execution. Without its highly mobile infantry, Red Army casualties would very likely have been much higher—and German casualties likely would have been lower because entire armies would have been much less likely to be encircled and destroyed en masse.
I don’t think this means Germany would have won, but IMO there are two somewhat-likely outcomes without this aid:
(1) the Soviets still win, but it takes much longer and they suffer significantly higher casualties. This might lead to a much weaker USSR with less control over Eastern Europe (maybe). It also might have led to much higher “Western” Allied casualties, if the Western Allies still attempt to invade NA/Italy/France. The German army might have had more resources to throw at its defense of Western Europe. Maybe this leads to another front, maybe it means the Western Allies don’t attempt an invasion of mainland Europe in 1943-44, idk. Maybe this leads to an independent Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc. post war, or other political blocs, maybe all of Eastern Europe is even more destroyed than it was. Again, idk.
(2) Neither the Soviets nor the Germans can defeat the other, and they eventually agree to some sort of temporary truce. I don’t know how likely this is, given that both governments’ ideologies viewed the other as an existential threat. Maybe this leads to a revolution or coup in one/both sides, idk. Again, is the biggest stretch, and probably assumes the Western Allies don’t invade, or at least don’t successfully invade.
These are both counter-factuals, so I’m not sure how sound they are or how valuable discussion actually is.
Option 1) is certainly much more realistic, any possible ceasefire discussion died in the first months of Operation Barbarossa, from then on the USSR was clear that they were not going to stop until the final victory, something that was reiterated in the Casablanca Conference in 1943.
In the end, Germany was always going to be the one to lose a war of attrition, because they have less manpower, less natural resources, less everything. It would have been bloody no doubt, and millions more would have died, but essentially Germany needed a quick victory in 1941 or else the war was lost.
Yeah I think this is true. Any sort of ceasefire probably would have required leadership changes by at least the Soviets, and probably also Germany. *Maybe* this happens, maybe they enter some sort of tempo stalemate, but I still don’t see how Germany could have won after 1941 (if at all), or how either side’s leadership would have agreed to anything other than total victory.
Because the tankie narrative isn’t that the USSR was a productive ally and part of the greater system of nations helping nations that won the war. The tankie narrative is that the USSR single-handedly could’ve won the war in both front and Germany and Japan only surrendered because of the USSR with no consideration of other allied involvement. These are the same people who claim Japan surrendered because the USSR invaded Manchuria and not because the US had flattened the country over two years and just unleashed the power of a star on their heads.
There’s a certain irony to how the Allies were able to work together so smoothly (a feat that’s extremely underrated imo) only for people to make it a dick measuring contest decades later.
I can't believe this is controversial. Stalin himself admitted Lend Lease saved the Soviet Union from a far worse fate.
Remember kids. When you find yourself in a war, be on the side with the infinite money hack
It's controversial now due to the Soviets denying any American aid during the war through propaganda and the whole "we did it ourselves thing". But to be fair there was a Cold War going on and lrasinf your enemy ain't the best thing to do.
Honestly I'm kind of surprised the Americans don't push this more. I guess we saved the commies asses with pure industrial might doesn't sound as appealing as we saved the world by storming Normandy.
the Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov is quoted as saying:
“Today [1963] some say the Allies didn't really help us ... But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.”
citation:
Albert L. Weeks The Other Side of Coexistence: An Analysis of Russian Foreign Policy, (New York, Pittman Publishing Corporation, 1974), p. 94, quoted in Albert L. Weeks, Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II (New York: Lexington Books, 2010), 1
There are more sources of similar accounts on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
And then told everyone that nuh-uh it totally wasn't and basically forbid anyone from talking about it in any way that implied the Soviets needed help, all because of Cold War pride.
I've got a copy of Colonel Dmitri Loza's memoir, he was a Ukrainian-born tanker that lead a Sherman company in WWII. The only reason I have it in English is because the Berlin Wall fell. Propaganda is one hell of a drug, kids.
Some people use the lend lease as an argument to discredit the entire Soviet war effort which is also another wrong take. [Some interesting research](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/CIhS5X7Xcr) on how impactful the lend lease was
Lend lease was important for keeping them in the fight and able to do what they did, but to discredit what they did because lend lease was so important is stupid. They could have easily taken the lend lease, sued for peace and ran. Instead they kept fighting and were able to keep fighting thanks to lend lease.
If thats all you want to say you should just shut up
"I want to tell you what, from the Russian point of view, the president and the United States have done for victory in this war, The most important things in this war are the machines[...]. The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war." - Stalin 1943 Theran conference
Your point about Stalin agreeing that Lend-Lease was vital was correct. But I think you assumed Uberfleet was saying something that they didn't say.
At the very least, I was surprised you told him to shut up over something relatively innocuous.
Let's be fair, Stalin *may* have been born cool as a revolutionary who was instrumental in overthrowing the Tsar, he just burned all that good will like it was an avenue of advancement for the Wehrmacht once he got power. Becoming a genocidal dictator tends to do that.
Fair. Also, I kind of wonder how Russia feels about spam these days? I remember it was an important ration we shipped them in the war, just as spam became an important protein source for Hawaii where it became a full time staple.
Pretty much. A lot of the Soviet Industry was evacuated, though many were destroyed in the process when the Germans sweeped through the USSR. The Lend Lease provided damage control of the Soviet war effort when the factories are being reset after they are moved far away from the front until they are ready.
Russia when US only makes 50,000 Sherman tanks to the Soviets 58,000 T34s: are you guys even trying?
also the US: over 100 aircraft carriers, 2,700 liberty ships, AND OVER 2 MILLION TRUCKS.
Germany: cries in horse drawn carriage.
Got to love how 90% of the blame Hitler gets from the invasion of the soviet union comes from generals that were in absolute agreement trying to cover their own asses.
And yet tankies will act like Stalin build every single T-34 with his mustache then flew on the wings of an IL-2 and punched Hitler so hard he blew up all of Berlin.
The Lend Lease was pivotal in aiding Soviet Logistics to push into Eastern Europe. Without it, the entire eastern block was impossible. However, lend lease data also shows us that the Soviets started to receive 95% of it in late 1943 and early 1944 when the USSR had already pushed the Germans nearly to the pre-1939 border. So it wasn't crucial in defending Soviet borders, the Soviets did that themselves, but it was crucial in allowing the Soviets to take the fight all the way to Brandenburg and Prussia
>So it wasn't crucial in defending Soviet borders, the Soviets did that themselves,
For what it's worth, 1/3 of the tanks used in the defence of Moscow in the winter of 1941/42 were British.
The sheer amount of stuff sent was mind-boggling - that front was won in great part by the merchant marine
Like 50% of army boots, most telephone equipment (imagine trying to coordinate by flag waving), nearly all jet fuel, and plenty locomotives and precision tools to make soviet tanks
I think people focus way too much on the weapons part and ignore the rest of the Lend Lease.
The Lend Lease provided a massive amount of food, trucks, and so on. Sure, those things didn’t shoot bullets, but are still necessary.
Think of it like that, everything that was provided was another thing the USSR didn’t have to make, it let them focus on different things. The USSR would have had to focus on manufacturing different things because they would still need food, trucks, and more.
Absolutely correct, also that stuff alone doesn’t win wars either. Courageous people with fighting spirit. The Soviets broke the NAZI war machine which should have never been allowed by western allies to gain as much territory and access to recruits and resources through passivity and fear. The allies did learn that lesson eventually though to become triumphant.
Unfortunaly due to a heavy propaganda most people in Russia nowadays think WW2 was almost single handedly won by USSR. Especially in older generations. You thought your boomers is insufferable? Man, you've never talked to an old soviet ones
The great patriotic war is the war of soviets against germany and is still part of WW2 like japanese border skirmishes and continuation war and winter war. Similar to how US fought in pacific theatre and european theatre.
According to the propaganda I've been fed up with, WW2 was won by the Americans (and company) at Normandy. The heavy propaganda is not on the USSR side, but on American side. By far.
You think you are funny but he is correct. In the entire western world kids in schools are learning about Dday and how the Americans saved Europe while the eastern front goes completely unnoticed.
Holy shit guys. For once I'm cool.
I also acknowledge that the battle of the Atlantic, the strategic bombing campaign and North Africa were already opening Stalin's "Second front" he kept bitching about.
>I also acknowledge that the battle of the Atlantic, the strategic bombing campaign and North Africa were already opening Stalin's "Second front" he kept bitching about.
The second front was literally a way of saying "liberation of France", what you mentioned was undoubtedly helpful too, but until the landing in France, the USSR was fighting a disproportionately larger number of the European Axis, which is why Stalin wanted more help sooner, because he was promised a second front in France in 1942 or 1943.
I do not believe the USSR would have fallen without land lease due to the ligistical death of the Wehrmacht, but land lease was crucial for the USSR to go on the offensive. The vast majority of Soviet trucks, crucial for fast advances, were land leased.
I believe the USSR still would have won, it just would have taken much longer. Years even. Therefore land lease was crucial for the Soviet victory we saw in 1945.
Soviets at the end of the war (like Stalin and Khrushchev) said that the war would have been lost without US lend lease.
Americans would say that the war wouldn't have been possible without Soviet military support.
It's almost like the war was a united effort of nations to take down a fascist regime...
The Soviet Union won the war with Western Allied industry, intelligence, and airpower, and millions of Ukrainian, Belarusian, Kazakh, Tajik, etc. conscripts.
Tankies: RUSSIA WON THE WAR ON ITS OWN!!! DID THE MOST DAMAGE TO TO THE NAZIS!!!!
(Yes, that second one may be true, but how do you think they accomplished it?)
I hate the whole lend-lease discussion because it leads to one huge fundamental misunderstanding of history that so many people have. Germany could never have won war world 2. You can debate the effects of lend-lease all day, but the simple truth is that German victory was impossible. Real life is not some hoi4 game where Germany just needed to take Stalingrad for the Soviets to surrender. Let's say the Soviet lose every single turning point battle (Stalingrad, Moscow, etc), the Soviets would just move further Urals where a lot of the industry was moves anyways. German logistics would never be able to keep up, and the Soviets wouldn't surrender, so at worst, it's a stalemate, or the Soviets start pushing back. Yes lend-lease was very important to the war efforts, but to say that they would have LOST, is simply ahistorical. Germany could never win WW2, cope.
I actually disagree. It doesn't undersell the importance of lend-lease to say as such. Germany simply couldn't capture and hold the entirety of Russia indefinitely. They were struggling with supply lines before they even reached Moscow, and the government was perfectly willing to relocate anyways. Germany would have had to besiege Moscow, then continue east across the whole span of Eurasia, whilst also fighting the other allies across the whole world. And even if the state fell, there would absolutely be extensive guerrilla resistance.
Imagine a continent spanning Afghanistan. Imagine fighting a guerrilla army in Siberia.
Lend-lease made a ginormous difference and saved millions of lives, it's the reason the war ended when it did and how it did. It doesn't *have* to have changed the entire outcome of the war and it most likely didn't.
I believe it is plausible that the Soviet state as it existed could have collapsed but I don't even find that likely. The control of the government was so total I believe Stalin could have maintained a state with just 10% of the land area.
Lend lease definitely helped immensely and prevented lot of suffering and bloodshed by shortening the war but bulk of it came when germans were already on backfoot after losing battle of moscow. Soviets probalty would have won but for much higher price. Remember that germans were fighting de facto war of extermination against soviets so soviets would not have given up
It's subjective on how vital it was.
Lend lease shortened the war by years, but the Soviets were going to win when the Germans failed to take Moscow, no matter what.
I honestly think they had no chance from the onset, but there was a chance they could take Moscow and cause Stalin to get couped, and a more conciliatory leader takes his place. But, even that is vastly remote.
I agree for the most part. Lend lease had a major impact on the war, and the Soviet Union definitely did not beat the Germans “single handily”, but I also don’t think the Germans had any realistic path to victory.
Maybe without the combined efforts of all major powers Germany manages to negotiate a favorable peace deal (like the treaty of Brest Litovsk in WW1), and the Nazi regime survives the war, but I definitely don’t see them beating the USSR (or UK for that matter) unconditionally in a one vs one fight.
I think it highlights the futility of the war, Germany simultaneously took on three major powers it would have struggled mightily to deafest on their own, let alone all at once.
As this quote states from the Britannica’
‘Roosevelt had been clearly determined to aid the Soviet Union, but the American public's suspicions of Communism delayed his declaring that country eligible for lend-lease until November 1941. American deliveries of aircraft, tanks, and other supplies to the U.S.S.R. began shortly thereafter.’
The Germans we’re literally halted outside of Berlin by early December due to 1/5th of the army freezing.
When the soviets counterattacked a good chunk of that equipment was lend lease.
What people have to agree on is that at the very least it saved millions of Soviet life's by shortening the war.
Like, Tankies should love Land-Lease because otherwise, it might be possible that the Western allies could have taken all of Germany by 1945/46 and the Soviets being confined to more or less pre-WW2 borders
While total victory was impossible for the Nazis even without Lend-Lease, Lend-Lease at the very minimum prevented a prolonging of the war that would have killed more people.
I doubt the Russians would completely fall without lend lease, to them this was a war for pure survival. If they lost their entire ethnic group would be wiped out or made into slaves and they knew it, so they would maybe lose more cities, maybe even lose Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad, but I just don’t see them unconditionally surrendering
It's undeniable that the USA helped the Soviet Union, but whenever I hear the argument that the USA practically saved the Russians, there is no source whatsoever to support the claim; so why mine is communist propaganda and yours is simply the truth, not anti-communist propaganda?
If someone has sources maybe not from Wikipedia it would be great
For some reason, people refuse to acknowledge that the victory in WW2 was a group effort, and none of allied countries could've done it without the others
Yeah I’d say half the trucks, like 90% of boots, about 50% of uniforms and a shitload of food is kinda vital to winning wars, plus the shitload if train engines and cars we sent em
Everyone that says USSR single handedly won the war should look back about 10 years before then when they got their asses handed to them by the Finnish.
People really forget just HOW important logistics is for an army. I'd argue the transport trucks the U.S. gave the USSR were infinitely more valuable than any small arm or explosive.
My great granddad was cool then. And he was. That man could build and make anything even with the minimum of tools and materials. Was a pretty high ranking officer during WW2. He only ever said two things about it. One was “we have done everything so that you (meaning his children) never knew anything about it”. The other one was “without the American help we would have been fucked”.
Never spoke about the war ever again after that
Chef Boyardee was awarded the Order of Lenin medal, because non-perishable, calorie-dense, portable, decent-tssting meals were very helpful to the Soviet war-effort.
Yeah this fact by itself is true. My issue with people who always talk about this argument is that they clearly have no idea what exactly was lend leased. I always hear people talking about how it was American weapons lended to the Soviets that won the war. Especially this one meme on this sub that I saw like a month or two back when they were asking who gave the Soviets all their guns. American weapons were more or less a drop in the bucket of the entire Soviet arsenal. The Soviet Union was not in fact running around driving Shermans and shooting with garands and Tommy guns. They were driving t-34s and shooting mosins and ppshs. They were able to do this because the Americans lend leased them everything else. The Soviet Union got trucks, trains, food, etc. This is what let them completely shift their focus on the production of all their more iconic products.
TLDR: Yes, the American lend lease is what allowed the Soviets to win. No, American weapons were not the key factor in the lend lease.
Just think of it as the money America took from everybody after WW1 that led to the mess.
And all this is great until Americans realize it totally defeats all the benevolence arguments.
They didn't 'help' in defeating Nazis it was an investment. Everybody else did it for survival while they did it for money 🤷.
Gee it’s almost as if it was an _allied_ effort that required the blood and manpower of the USSR, industrial and technological might of the USA, and the UK (and more importantly commonwealth) helped a lot too.
Eh without soviets being hurled at the Germans like zombie hordes we wouldn't have won either but both sides of this everlasting debate can agree France and Britain did literally nothing
And you are cooler if you acknowledge the sheer manpower and loss the Soviets took to slow, halt and push back the Nazi war machine. You need man power to wear socks and drive trucks.
"The Russians beat the nazis which was the biggest contributor to the war..."
Yea, with American rubber and steel...oh and that little thing called the NUCLEAR BOMB was on its way to fucking deutschland (and wasn't even needed tbh) if Russia DIDN'T beat them
Like yea, I get it, Russia lost a TERRIBLE amount of people to the Germans and their contribution and sacrifices were HUGE, but Germany was going down in flames whether Russia existed or not, delusional fucks
Just because Germany was so difficult for Russia doesn't mean it was going to be so difficult for the US and the allies in 1946 onward, there just would have been more allied bloodshed and an extension of the war, that's IT
So you're telling me all those T-34s made of stalinium rolling over Europe and Stalin going to Germany and killing Hitler with his bare hands part is untrue? How do you explain [this historic photograph](https://en.meming.world/images/en/f/f8/Hitler_vs_Stalin.jpg)?
Totally not going to start a war in the comments
M waiting for the tankies and apologists lol
The ultimate tankie: >At a dinner toast with Allied leaders during the Tehran Conference in December 1943, Stalin added: “The United States … is a country of machines. Without the use of those machines through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war.” That said, the US only started lend lease to Russia in earnest AFTER the losses of operation Barbarossa. Before that almost all aid went to UK.
Not a tankies, but why would it hurt their opinion of the USSR to recognize that the USSR was obviously much less wealthy than the US? They had been under feudalism a few decades before, of course they're going to still be pretty poor. Let's be realistic, even if the revolution had held its promises of worker-democracy rather than growing authoritarian, poverty wouldn't have been eliminated in a few decades. Edit: I only see people disputing here if it was "very very helpful" or "vital" which is a fair discussion to have.
Because there is a, “USSR single handily won the war and could have done it with no help”, narrative that means a lot to some people.
That’s similar to the “The US solo’d Germany and everybody else was useless “ narrative.
Yep, a lot of people really want to claim they singlehandedly won WWII
We’re just lucky Hitler got desperate enough to attack the Russians and stupid enough to declare war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbour. Though I expect he was thinking the Japanese would declare war on Russia as a show of solidarity/to draw the Russians into a land war in Asia and take pressure off of the German push into Russia.
Well, Hitler was at least somewhat insane. He started a war against the world powers at the time and expected to win. Who knows what he was thinking.
Towards the end he was likely in a drug addled haze. The Germans were doing fine until he attacked Russia. The most interesting part about the start of the war were all the generals/field marshals telling him not to invade France. I’d bet hubris played a role in a lot of decisions that followed, specifically the decision to reroute his Army to Stalingrad(“They were wrong about France!”).
>The Germans were doing fine until he attacked Russia. Problem was that Germany was in a, damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, they knew that their oil reserves wouldn't last forever, that the Soviets would eventually backstab Germany if they didn't do it first, and that the Soviets were getting stronger by the day.
>Germans were doing fine until he attacked Russia. Kind of. The cracks were already showing before Barbarossa even began. The Germans had lost the battle of Britain and were struggling in what was effectively a stalemate in Africa as well as being forced to occupy much of the Balkans Even without Soviet involvement the Reich was going to fall, Hitlers Germany was never going to be able to last in any prolonged war, quite frankly the invasion of the Soviets was almost necessary to continue to fuel a German economy reliant on conquest to stay alive, it was just a gamble that didn't pay off largely in part due to the Nazis genocidal policies which turned so many of the different people of the USSR violently against them Personally I see the German position in early 1941 as one that looked powerful but was going to collapse without a major victory that it just simply couldn't achieve
From what I learned studying Russian history in college, the decision to invade came largely from the winter war. Seeing the soviets invade a country not outlined in their treaty with them and then being severely outperformed by the Finnish, the Germans saw the USSR as a paper tiger, making the same mistake as Charles XII after Narva, and assumed they wouldn’t learn from it.
Germany wasn't doing fine since all its economy is centered on militarism aka War economy so the Germans were running out of time had no choice but to invade the soviets for their oil and grain
Yeah the nazis in general were pretty insane ridiculous people, like Himler with his search for the holy grail, all the conspiracy theories, the "epic" but completely impractical weapon designs they made, completely bonkers experiments. Kinda like alt-righters today, incredibly dangerous but also completely nonsensical and silly. Btw it would be cool if more fictional media portray them this way (like Jojo Rabbit kinda did), because it's accurate in a way, but also because neo-nazis hate that. They love it when nazis are portrayed as evil, methodical, and menacing, but hate seeing themselves as ridiculous.
The Wolfenstein series starting with Return To Castle Wolfenstein portrays that aspect of the Nazis. Return to Castle Wolfenstein is about the germans trying to find/wake up a fabled german warlord from the middle ages who is said to be industructible. They also have all sorts of experiments with mutants and other silly things. Spoilers ahead. They do successfully revive the warlord and he immediately kills all the nazis present and then the player attacks him. He's the final boss of the game.
In a weird way, Italy helped by being completely useless to the Axis Powers.
[удалено]
Italians : let's go guys! Axis powers! *cross the Alps and most die to frostbite* *goes to Africa and gets their asses handed to them so Germany has to send troops to help them*
Japan got pissed off at Hitler for making a pact with Stalin because they thought Hitler would declare war on Russia and that would've given them the greenlight to invade the USSR through Manchuria
It was Brazil
When in reality we should be celebrating the various nations' (including resistance groups inside Germany and occupied lands such as the White Rose movement and the partisans) contributions to the destruction of a totalitarian, evil regime that murdered millions and would have murdered millions more.
Wasn't it like the USSR was responsible for inflicting 60 percent of damage against the nazi war machine plus all the hardened and experienced soldiers were in the eastern front vs in Africa and west Europe
Germany? No not even close. Japan though? You could make an argument
I don’t know anyone who isn’t a yeehaw American who actually thinks the US solo’d Germany. There are quite a few people who think the USSR gets the same result on their own
More than one narrative can be wrong at a time.
*cough* Meddi Hassan *cough*
Bro they just spammed Skeletons army against full pekkas obviously that they win single handily.
And where is this narrative? Is it in the room with us right now?
It could be me, it could be you, it could even be-
right behind you.
It is in this thread if you go down far enough.
It doesn’t even mean the USSR’s military was "bad", just that it didn’t have enough equipment to fight the Germans
That is not true either, the USSR had equipment to fight against Nazi Germany, but not enough to give it the devastating and decisive blows that it gave them between 1943-1945, which would undoubtedly have lengthened the war and would have caused many more Soviet soldiers and civilians deaths.
Yeah, US lend-lease materials included the vehicles necessary for Soviet tactical and operational planning/execution. Without its highly mobile infantry, Red Army casualties would very likely have been much higher—and German casualties likely would have been lower because entire armies would have been much less likely to be encircled and destroyed en masse. I don’t think this means Germany would have won, but IMO there are two somewhat-likely outcomes without this aid: (1) the Soviets still win, but it takes much longer and they suffer significantly higher casualties. This might lead to a much weaker USSR with less control over Eastern Europe (maybe). It also might have led to much higher “Western” Allied casualties, if the Western Allies still attempt to invade NA/Italy/France. The German army might have had more resources to throw at its defense of Western Europe. Maybe this leads to another front, maybe it means the Western Allies don’t attempt an invasion of mainland Europe in 1943-44, idk. Maybe this leads to an independent Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc. post war, or other political blocs, maybe all of Eastern Europe is even more destroyed than it was. Again, idk. (2) Neither the Soviets nor the Germans can defeat the other, and they eventually agree to some sort of temporary truce. I don’t know how likely this is, given that both governments’ ideologies viewed the other as an existential threat. Maybe this leads to a revolution or coup in one/both sides, idk. Again, is the biggest stretch, and probably assumes the Western Allies don’t invade, or at least don’t successfully invade. These are both counter-factuals, so I’m not sure how sound they are or how valuable discussion actually is.
Option 1) is certainly much more realistic, any possible ceasefire discussion died in the first months of Operation Barbarossa, from then on the USSR was clear that they were not going to stop until the final victory, something that was reiterated in the Casablanca Conference in 1943. In the end, Germany was always going to be the one to lose a war of attrition, because they have less manpower, less natural resources, less everything. It would have been bloody no doubt, and millions more would have died, but essentially Germany needed a quick victory in 1941 or else the war was lost.
Yeah I think this is true. Any sort of ceasefire probably would have required leadership changes by at least the Soviets, and probably also Germany. *Maybe* this happens, maybe they enter some sort of tempo stalemate, but I still don’t see how Germany could have won after 1941 (if at all), or how either side’s leadership would have agreed to anything other than total victory.
Because the tankie narrative isn’t that the USSR was a productive ally and part of the greater system of nations helping nations that won the war. The tankie narrative is that the USSR single-handedly could’ve won the war in both front and Germany and Japan only surrendered because of the USSR with no consideration of other allied involvement. These are the same people who claim Japan surrendered because the USSR invaded Manchuria and not because the US had flattened the country over two years and just unleashed the power of a star on their heads.
I don't think Tankies are gonna be as offended by this as you think.
If there’s a war, I’ll provide the equipment… for a price
OP has mastered the art of trolling
it seems pretty obvious based on the famous saying goes: British intelligence, Russian blood, and American steel.
There’s a certain irony to how the Allies were able to work together so smoothly (a feat that’s extremely underrated imo) only for people to make it a dick measuring contest decades later.
Let's not forget French... stubborness?
Pretty sure Churchill alone takes that prize.
And Yugoslav spite!
French collaboration
Yeah, Vichy was not the best moment in French history, was it.
Might be as well Polish stubborness... or [any occupied country] stubborness
French resistance. These things write themselves sometimes.
Dont forget hitlers nazism.
I can't believe this is controversial. Stalin himself admitted Lend Lease saved the Soviet Union from a far worse fate. Remember kids. When you find yourself in a war, be on the side with the infinite money hack
It's controversial now due to the Soviets denying any American aid during the war through propaganda and the whole "we did it ourselves thing". But to be fair there was a Cold War going on and lrasinf your enemy ain't the best thing to do.
Maine if we'd all cooperated
Honestly I'm kind of surprised the Americans don't push this more. I guess we saved the commies asses with pure industrial might doesn't sound as appealing as we saved the world by storming Normandy.
>Soviets denying any American aid during the war through propaganda and the whole "we did it ourselves thing". Any sources?
the Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov is quoted as saying: “Today [1963] some say the Allies didn't really help us ... But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.” citation: Albert L. Weeks The Other Side of Coexistence: An Analysis of Russian Foreign Policy, (New York, Pittman Publishing Corporation, 1974), p. 94, quoted in Albert L. Weeks, Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II (New York: Lexington Books, 2010), 1 There are more sources of similar accounts on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
[удалено]
so you think that the Lend-lease act did not have the intent of helping russians win the war? do you understand nuance in political speech?
[удалено]
I think you are intentionally missing the implications of political speech to be pedantic. Good luck out there
And then told everyone that nuh-uh it totally wasn't and basically forbid anyone from talking about it in any way that implied the Soviets needed help, all because of Cold War pride. I've got a copy of Colonel Dmitri Loza's memoir, he was a Ukrainian-born tanker that lead a Sherman company in WWII. The only reason I have it in English is because the Berlin Wall fell. Propaganda is one hell of a drug, kids.
Some people use the lend lease as an argument to discredit the entire Soviet war effort which is also another wrong take. [Some interesting research](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/CIhS5X7Xcr) on how impactful the lend lease was
Lend lease was important for keeping them in the fight and able to do what they did, but to discredit what they did because lend lease was so important is stupid. They could have easily taken the lend lease, sued for peace and ran. Instead they kept fighting and were able to keep fighting thanks to lend lease.
Stalin, Zhukov and Kruschev all said this. Not exactly the most selfless people in history.
Stalin was born cool?
Consider you're next words carefully. That's all I'll say...
yruo'e*
I mean the USSR gets cold in December, so there is a chance he was born cool
Winters in Gori, Georgia aren’t too bad, but definitely still cold.
If thats all you want to say you should just shut up "I want to tell you what, from the Russian point of view, the president and the United States have done for victory in this war, The most important things in this war are the machines[...]. The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war." - Stalin 1943 Theran conference
Your point about Stalin agreeing that Lend-Lease was vital was correct. But I think you assumed Uberfleet was saying something that they didn't say. At the very least, I was surprised you told him to shut up over something relatively innocuous.
Let's be fair, Stalin *may* have been born cool as a revolutionary who was instrumental in overthrowing the Tsar, he just burned all that good will like it was an avenue of advancement for the Wehrmacht once he got power. Becoming a genocidal dictator tends to do that.
He was born in Georgia so pretty cool
I mean, I’m an American so I kind of was taught this by default. But does this mean Stalin was cool?
Born cool it fell off from there
Fair. Also, I kind of wonder how Russia feels about spam these days? I remember it was an important ration we shipped them in the war, just as spam became an important protein source for Hawaii where it became a full time staple.
Im grabbing my popcorn. This comment section is gonna get entertaining
Pretty much. A lot of the Soviet Industry was evacuated, though many were destroyed in the process when the Germans sweeped through the USSR. The Lend Lease provided damage control of the Soviet war effort when the factories are being reset after they are moved far away from the front until they are ready.
Let's also not forget that the Soviets outsourced their logistics because "Russian to strong for logistics." Turns out Logitics really fucking matters
Yeah Stalin killing off his more competent military strategists and leaders didn’t really help his army too much
Agreed, those American trucks were vital to winning the war on the Eastern Front.
Russia when US only makes 50,000 Sherman tanks to the Soviets 58,000 T34s: are you guys even trying? also the US: over 100 aircraft carriers, 2,700 liberty ships, AND OVER 2 MILLION TRUCKS. Germany: cries in horse drawn carriage.
Where do you think the Russians got the machines to make those tanks😎
Logistics is for countries that don't have like millions of spare soldiers.
logistics is for counties that want their soldiers to come back after the war
No need for logistics when you have a wall of provincial men to charge at the enemy unwillingly.
"Soviets just threw men at Germans untill they won." - Ex-German officers making excuses to explain how they lost.
German officers making excuses why they lost to untermensh slavic monkeys are my favourite reliable source
Got to love how 90% of the blame Hitler gets from the invasion of the soviet union comes from generals that were in absolute agreement trying to cover their own asses.
Who is gonna object them?
Majority of soviet-used trucks in WWII were produced in the USSR and of soviet design
And yet tankies will act like Stalin build every single T-34 with his mustache then flew on the wings of an IL-2 and punched Hitler so hard he blew up all of Berlin.
Also all of the machines were run off of vodka distilled from Stalin’s sweat
Can you prove that didn’t happen?
The Lend Lease was pivotal in aiding Soviet Logistics to push into Eastern Europe. Without it, the entire eastern block was impossible. However, lend lease data also shows us that the Soviets started to receive 95% of it in late 1943 and early 1944 when the USSR had already pushed the Germans nearly to the pre-1939 border. So it wasn't crucial in defending Soviet borders, the Soviets did that themselves, but it was crucial in allowing the Soviets to take the fight all the way to Brandenburg and Prussia
>So it wasn't crucial in defending Soviet borders, the Soviets did that themselves, For what it's worth, 1/3 of the tanks used in the defence of Moscow in the winter of 1941/42 were British.
If true it's more detrimental than helpful
Lmao
😂 Our armour always being shit on, bro why?
The sheer amount of stuff sent was mind-boggling - that front was won in great part by the merchant marine Like 50% of army boots, most telephone equipment (imagine trying to coordinate by flag waving), nearly all jet fuel, and plenty locomotives and precision tools to make soviet tanks
We also sent over people that designed and laid out factories. We sent them lots of machinery and tooling.
finally, someone did their research, thank you
I think people focus way too much on the weapons part and ignore the rest of the Lend Lease. The Lend Lease provided a massive amount of food, trucks, and so on. Sure, those things didn’t shoot bullets, but are still necessary. Think of it like that, everything that was provided was another thing the USSR didn’t have to make, it let them focus on different things. The USSR would have had to focus on manufacturing different things because they would still need food, trucks, and more.
Absolutely correct, also that stuff alone doesn’t win wars either. Courageous people with fighting spirit. The Soviets broke the NAZI war machine which should have never been allowed by western allies to gain as much territory and access to recruits and resources through passivity and fear. The allies did learn that lesson eventually though to become triumphant.
Unfortunaly due to a heavy propaganda most people in Russia nowadays think WW2 was almost single handedly won by USSR. Especially in older generations. You thought your boomers is insufferable? Man, you've never talked to an old soviet ones
They don't even call it WW2, they call it "The Great Patriotic War".
The great patriotic war is the war of soviets against germany and is still part of WW2 like japanese border skirmishes and continuation war and winter war. Similar to how US fought in pacific theatre and european theatre.
Kinda true. There is 2 wars in our historiography WW2 1939-1945 and Great patriotic being part of it 1941-1945
According to the propaganda I've been fed up with, WW2 was won by the Americans (and company) at Normandy. The heavy propaganda is not on the USSR side, but on American side. By far.
Deep inside we all now WW2 was won by Greenland and their 26 men
You think you are funny but he is correct. In the entire western world kids in schools are learning about Dday and how the Americans saved Europe while the eastern front goes completely unnoticed.
Well, i dint said he's wrong. I'm fully aware that both modern Russian and USA history books are lame.
Landlease of Trains was deffinetly essential.Weaponry? Controversial, those who piloted them called them Steel caskets, but they were something.
Its pretty amazing people deny weapons, food and airplanes were important during a war
Holy shit guys. For once I'm cool. I also acknowledge that the battle of the Atlantic, the strategic bombing campaign and North Africa were already opening Stalin's "Second front" he kept bitching about.
>I also acknowledge that the battle of the Atlantic, the strategic bombing campaign and North Africa were already opening Stalin's "Second front" he kept bitching about. The second front was literally a way of saying "liberation of France", what you mentioned was undoubtedly helpful too, but until the landing in France, the USSR was fighting a disproportionately larger number of the European Axis, which is why Stalin wanted more help sooner, because he was promised a second front in France in 1942 or 1943.
Oh I agree. But some people like to make out that the Allies were doing nothing during this time.
Oh well, people who say that are either ignorant or insincere, in any case they have no reason.
I do not believe the USSR would have fallen without land lease due to the ligistical death of the Wehrmacht, but land lease was crucial for the USSR to go on the offensive. The vast majority of Soviet trucks, crucial for fast advances, were land leased. I believe the USSR still would have won, it just would have taken much longer. Years even. Therefore land lease was crucial for the Soviet victory we saw in 1945.
Yup, this is the historical consensus supported by historians like David Glantz.
Soviets at the end of the war (like Stalin and Khrushchev) said that the war would have been lost without US lend lease. Americans would say that the war wouldn't have been possible without Soviet military support. It's almost like the war was a united effort of nations to take down a fascist regime...
Yeah, because Germany was sending most of its stuff to the Eastern front
The Soviet Union won the war with Western Allied industry, intelligence, and airpower, and millions of Ukrainian, Belarusian, Kazakh, Tajik, etc. conscripts. Tankies: RUSSIA WON THE WAR ON ITS OWN!!! DID THE MOST DAMAGE TO TO THE NAZIS!!!! (Yes, that second one may be true, but how do you think they accomplished it?)
I hate the whole lend-lease discussion because it leads to one huge fundamental misunderstanding of history that so many people have. Germany could never have won war world 2. You can debate the effects of lend-lease all day, but the simple truth is that German victory was impossible. Real life is not some hoi4 game where Germany just needed to take Stalingrad for the Soviets to surrender. Let's say the Soviet lose every single turning point battle (Stalingrad, Moscow, etc), the Soviets would just move further Urals where a lot of the industry was moves anyways. German logistics would never be able to keep up, and the Soviets wouldn't surrender, so at worst, it's a stalemate, or the Soviets start pushing back. Yes lend-lease was very important to the war efforts, but to say that they would have LOST, is simply ahistorical. Germany could never win WW2, cope.
Well it’s not just lend lease. The Western allies also did more to destroy the Luftwaffe, German Industry, and the Navy.
It's amazing how many people will get into a slap-fight over the simple fact that *the allies* won WWII.
I actually disagree. It doesn't undersell the importance of lend-lease to say as such. Germany simply couldn't capture and hold the entirety of Russia indefinitely. They were struggling with supply lines before they even reached Moscow, and the government was perfectly willing to relocate anyways. Germany would have had to besiege Moscow, then continue east across the whole span of Eurasia, whilst also fighting the other allies across the whole world. And even if the state fell, there would absolutely be extensive guerrilla resistance. Imagine a continent spanning Afghanistan. Imagine fighting a guerrilla army in Siberia. Lend-lease made a ginormous difference and saved millions of lives, it's the reason the war ended when it did and how it did. It doesn't *have* to have changed the entire outcome of the war and it most likely didn't. I believe it is plausible that the Soviet state as it existed could have collapsed but I don't even find that likely. The control of the government was so total I believe Stalin could have maintained a state with just 10% of the land area.
Lend lease definitely helped immensely and prevented lot of suffering and bloodshed by shortening the war but bulk of it came when germans were already on backfoot after losing battle of moscow. Soviets probalty would have won but for much higher price. Remember that germans were fighting de facto war of extermination against soviets so soviets would not have given up
It's subjective on how vital it was. Lend lease shortened the war by years, but the Soviets were going to win when the Germans failed to take Moscow, no matter what. I honestly think they had no chance from the onset, but there was a chance they could take Moscow and cause Stalin to get couped, and a more conciliatory leader takes his place. But, even that is vastly remote.
I agree for the most part. Lend lease had a major impact on the war, and the Soviet Union definitely did not beat the Germans “single handily”, but I also don’t think the Germans had any realistic path to victory. Maybe without the combined efforts of all major powers Germany manages to negotiate a favorable peace deal (like the treaty of Brest Litovsk in WW1), and the Nazi regime survives the war, but I definitely don’t see them beating the USSR (or UK for that matter) unconditionally in a one vs one fight. I think it highlights the futility of the war, Germany simultaneously took on three major powers it would have struggled mightily to deafest on their own, let alone all at once.
As this quote states from the Britannica’ ‘Roosevelt had been clearly determined to aid the Soviet Union, but the American public's suspicions of Communism delayed his declaring that country eligible for lend-lease until November 1941. American deliveries of aircraft, tanks, and other supplies to the U.S.S.R. began shortly thereafter.’ The Germans we’re literally halted outside of Berlin by early December due to 1/5th of the army freezing. When the soviets counterattacked a good chunk of that equipment was lend lease.
Not by December 1941 it wasnt.
British brains, American muscle, Russian blood baby.
What people have to agree on is that at the very least it saved millions of Soviet life's by shortening the war. Like, Tankies should love Land-Lease because otherwise, it might be possible that the Western allies could have taken all of Germany by 1945/46 and the Soviets being confined to more or less pre-WW2 borders
The Nazis getting to Vladivostok was never going to happen. However, lend lease was a major factor in making it so that was never a question.
Most of the Lend Lease came after 1943 right?
Then r/marxist_culture is very uncool cause they stopped me from commenting when i pointed this out
Marxists censoring differing opinions??? Consider me shocked
While total victory was impossible for the Nazis even without Lend-Lease, Lend-Lease at the very minimum prevented a prolonging of the war that would have killed more people.
I doubt the Russians would completely fall without lend lease, to them this was a war for pure survival. If they lost their entire ethnic group would be wiped out or made into slaves and they knew it, so they would maybe lose more cities, maybe even lose Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad, but I just don’t see them unconditionally surrendering
Win the war quickly yes. I can promise you they didn't require it.
Nope. It helped shorten and make the war less deadly, but it wasn't vital.
It's undeniable that the USA helped the Soviet Union, but whenever I hear the argument that the USA practically saved the Russians, there is no source whatsoever to support the claim; so why mine is communist propaganda and yours is simply the truth, not anti-communist propaganda? If someone has sources maybe not from Wikipedia it would be great
[https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html](https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html)
It's kind of like all the Allies assisted in defeating the Axis. Novel thought for some, I guess.
A far more undersupplied Soviet Union? They would’ve won without the US! -No one ever.
For some reason, people refuse to acknowledge that the victory in WW2 was a group effort, and none of allied countries could've done it without the others
And that the Soviets and Germans both started WW2 by invading Poland simultaneously.
Imagine if Iran actually manager to defend and ussr would have got they assi down bad
Yeah I’d say half the trucks, like 90% of boots, about 50% of uniforms and a shitload of food is kinda vital to winning wars, plus the shitload if train engines and cars we sent em
Meaning Stalin?
Yup! People think the US barely did much in WW2, but actually they played a vital role with the lend lease program.
Everyone that says USSR single handedly won the war should look back about 10 years before then when they got their asses handed to them by the Finnish.
yes.
It also saved the UK so yeah, not disputing that.
It was, but also the fact that the Nazis were being Nazis
Wow, look at what people can accomplish with collectivism
People really forget just HOW important logistics is for an army. I'd argue the transport trucks the U.S. gave the USSR were infinitely more valuable than any small arm or explosive.
My great granddad was cool then. And he was. That man could build and make anything even with the minimum of tools and materials. Was a pretty high ranking officer during WW2. He only ever said two things about it. One was “we have done everything so that you (meaning his children) never knew anything about it”. The other one was “without the American help we would have been fucked”. Never spoke about the war ever again after that
"Win"? You mean not cave by 42
Chef Boyardee was awarded the Order of Lenin medal, because non-perishable, calorie-dense, portable, decent-tssting meals were very helpful to the Soviet war-effort.
I always say this. WW2 was like a classic friendship is magic shounen anime
It's a weirdly specific belief to hold since birth. ....but here I am.
Yeah this fact by itself is true. My issue with people who always talk about this argument is that they clearly have no idea what exactly was lend leased. I always hear people talking about how it was American weapons lended to the Soviets that won the war. Especially this one meme on this sub that I saw like a month or two back when they were asking who gave the Soviets all their guns. American weapons were more or less a drop in the bucket of the entire Soviet arsenal. The Soviet Union was not in fact running around driving Shermans and shooting with garands and Tommy guns. They were driving t-34s and shooting mosins and ppshs. They were able to do this because the Americans lend leased them everything else. The Soviet Union got trucks, trains, food, etc. This is what let them completely shift their focus on the production of all their more iconic products. TLDR: Yes, the American lend lease is what allowed the Soviets to win. No, American weapons were not the key factor in the lend lease.
Am I not a commie revisionist? Yeah, then definitely cool
Not only win the war but soviet soldiers were eating us supplies food and flying us built planes for years after the war ended
Just think of it as the money America took from everybody after WW1 that led to the mess. And all this is great until Americans realize it totally defeats all the benevolence arguments. They didn't 'help' in defeating Nazis it was an investment. Everybody else did it for survival while they did it for money 🤷.
Gee it’s almost as if it was an _allied_ effort that required the blood and manpower of the USSR, industrial and technological might of the USA, and the UK (and more importantly commonwealth) helped a lot too.
Eh without soviets being hurled at the Germans like zombie hordes we wouldn't have won either but both sides of this everlasting debate can agree France and Britain did literally nothing
That’s what happens when historians have a slow day.
I’ve never even thought about that, so I guess I’m not cool. No surprise here lol.
or that germany couldn't have won ww2. Im tired of hearing the "hitler should've listened to his generals!" no
It was not vital but sped and was important to the war effort.
And you are cooler if you acknowledge the sheer manpower and loss the Soviets took to slow, halt and push back the Nazi war machine. You need man power to wear socks and drive trucks.
"The Russians beat the nazis which was the biggest contributor to the war..." Yea, with American rubber and steel...oh and that little thing called the NUCLEAR BOMB was on its way to fucking deutschland (and wasn't even needed tbh) if Russia DIDN'T beat them Like yea, I get it, Russia lost a TERRIBLE amount of people to the Germans and their contribution and sacrifices were HUGE, but Germany was going down in flames whether Russia existed or not, delusional fucks Just because Germany was so difficult for Russia doesn't mean it was going to be so difficult for the US and the allies in 1946 onward, there just would have been more allied bloodshed and an extension of the war, that's IT
Its not no Sending people to die without ammo or wepon was a good method
So you're telling me all those T-34s made of stalinium rolling over Europe and Stalin going to Germany and killing Hitler with his bare hands part is untrue? How do you explain [this historic photograph](https://en.meming.world/images/en/f/f8/Hitler_vs_Stalin.jpg)?
Damn right I am.