Would the Nazi military have completely destroyed the Soviet Union without the aid of the U.S. via lend lease?Also, did Britain directly aid the Soviets before and during WW2?
>>18115180No physical evidence for battle of stalingrad. Nazis could have easily taken Moscow by just not lying and pretending they didn't take it to prolong the war. Also Wikipedia had a edit war to hide Yamato sinking itself.
>>18115180Yes.They were steamrolling them in 1941 and 1942 to an absolutely ridiculous degree. Capturing millions, killing hundreds of thousands, with very light losses themselves. Not the case in 1944. At that point, the casualty rates are by a large degree equal. But the Germans still kill more vatniks for every German killed.
>>18115204So why is your country (Israel) being btfo.
>>18115180Probably not, unless you're removing the US and Britain from the war entirely in which case yes
>>18115204>They were steamrolling them in 1941 and 1942the german army ran out of supplies by early winter of 41 you naziboo. they didn't just stop at moscow and leningrad because it was scary or because they were feeling generous. the raw unstoppable might of the nazi horse-drawn carriage logistical network was already breaking down and the generals shit their pants when they realized they had underestimated the size of the prewar red army by at least 50%at best lend lease sped up the war in the east. there was never any possible situation the germans won due entirely to germany's own, internal, inability to wage a protracted war
>>18115413Lend Lease helped the axis. Soviet's never received a single garand. All the weapons went to the axis partisans.
>>18115413German tanks and trucks in WW2 were highly fuel inefficient. The whole point of attacking Stalingrad was to give forces in the South time to loot the oilfields in the South to give Germany at least a fighting chance at getting a ceasefire to survive by being able to actually have oil for its armies.And yet despite all of this, German losses compared to the soviets were about 5.65:1 for the entire war (excluding 1945 due to lack of reliable statistics for the Germans, but imagine that they were Hess-tier hopelessly incompetent and only managed to inflict a single soviet casualty for every 10 losses. This drops the German military to an embarrassing 4.54:1 ratio in favor of them, naziboos btfo indeed). That's despite a fairly consistent 2-3:1 manpower disadvantage in favor of the Soviets.http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/ww2-myths/The German military was objectively superior throughout the war (except possibly 1945), and lost in the East because the Soviets were regularly able to establish a local numerical-superiority that trumped the Germans' fighting-ability, due to being stretched too thin on a front-line too long. Russians have always historically tend to fight stupid campaigns with high casualties and then still end up winning pyrrhic victories. Meanwhile, Germans were also reporting gigantic German wins in the Eastern Front, even when Berlin was getting carpet bombed. For every German that has died, even more vatniks are killed or sent to Siberia. Even the Poles were wiping floor with Russians for most centuries, despite them having much bigger population.
>>18115180> Imports to the USSR covered up to 70% of the total demand for acutely scarce strategic materials,raw materials and semi-finished products. The study, based on the analysis of import statistics, concludesthat the bulk of supplies, both in physical terms (16.252 million tons or 67.5%) and in value (49.96 billionrubles or 81.19%), were accounted for by lend-lease, a form of military and economic assistance from theUnited States to its allies, which consisted of the free supply of military equipment, vehicles, machinery andequipment, technologies, materials, fuel,and food necessary for the conduct of hostilities in World War II andthe victory over the common enemyhttp://www.csj.umsf.in.ua/archive/2023/1/2.pdfthe Russians were reliant on the West for survival
>>18115450Obviously his is a retard board so it will agree with whatever you'll say.
>>18115450god fucking damn it, formatting and ctrl c + ctrl v are not friends
>>18115435>superior military>didn't thought that their soldiers gonna need useless stuff like food, clothes or fuel
>>18115450>>18115451and how much stuff germans got from exploiting and looting europe?
>>18115458The first reply completley destroyed the entire thread. Lend Lease helped the axis.
>>181151801: Probably not, the Nazis were having massive problems in Barbarosa (many of them self inflicted) that had nothing to do with lend lease. The war would absolutely have been longer and more costly for Russia without it, but the Nazis were still almost certainly losing that fight. 2: You know there are these weird things called 'search engines' that you can ask simple and obvious questions (like this) and that will give you generally reliable answers. >Between October 1941 and March 1946, Britain and the British Empire supplied the Soviet Union with significant military and non-military aid, including 5,218 tanks and 7,411 aircraft, with some aircraft sourced from the United States under Lend-Lease agreements. >In addition to these vehicles Britain directly provided the Soviets with £308 million in munitions and £120 million in food, raw materials, and other supplies, equivalent to roughly £30 billion in today's money.>The aid was provided free of charge, with Britain covering the cost of delivery and the loss of merchant ships and warships.
>>18115180The war would be way longer with the Soviets taking even more casualties and ending with the complete destruction of Germany
>>18115214What alternate universe did you sprang from?
>>18115180Where would the Nazi military (and the whole Nazi Germany) be without the Soviet support throughout the whole 1930s - up until the very Barbarossa?There would have been no Nazi military at all, kek.Stalin couldn't have assumed that a German leader is a literal suicidal, psychopathic, imbecile.
>>18115864>Stalin couldn't have assumed that a German leader is a literal suicidal, psychopathic, imbecile.cont btw, no western leader was operating under this assumption either.
>>18115435>Even the Poles were wiping floor with Russians for most centuries, despite them having much bigger population.I have always wondered why Russia is such a historical paper tiger. I knew that they would mess up their invasion of Ukraine because I'm familiar with their awful track record.
>>18115180No. UK navy blokkade mattered more. Either way, Nazi Germany was a failed state only sustained by plunder.
>>18115455>commieboo botthat's a new one
>>18115866Churchill wasn't a Western leader?
>>18117390Plunder is a valid military tactic. Napoleon had done it. For example in italy he had his troops sack verona & rape all the nuns in public as a warning to other cities. Same thing he had done in the Peninsular War>failed state that thrived on plunderOn the other hand, that's a completely different thing. Not only is it false but it implies that Germany was the aggressor. Germany reinforced its economy and was able to pay for rearmament nationalising industry and then giving said industry something to do, i.e. building an Autobahn and then the Volkswagen, creating jobs.
>>18115214>Guy states a clearly pro-German opinion >Gets accused of being... Israeli?Schizos are losing their touch
>>18117390Germany was the most successful state in Europe or the Americas. It had supply problems like any other. It was never in a severe shortage of basic necessities
>>18117390UK blockade mattered a lot more in WW1 when America was notably more neutral + Germany didn't control Ukraine for food supplies.Germany being starved in WW1 was a big starter for Hitler's Lebensraum into the East
>>18118455>nooo the food and warm clothes are gomunismgeg, your rape was well deserved
>>18118868nazis plunder europe on a massive scale but most europe was pretty poor + huge coruption inside SS means that they didn't get much and thus got easily stomped flat by the Soviets once they step up their productions
