Explain This

Luckily that didn't happen, so we don't have to see a world in which the US nukes a major European cultural center.

>his hate of Slavdom
[citation needed]

Hitler said in his book that Russians were sub-human, so killing them in order to take their farmland was fine.

>Source: Mein Kampf

The slavs were untermenschen, and Mein Kampf specifically says that lebensraum must come from Russia (and her vassals). He also thought Marxism was Jewish plot. Check out the related wiki pages for more.

Because the US was in a state of war with Germany 5 months after barbarossa started, and it was obviously in its interest that the USSR doesn't crumble.
It's also alot easier to get a populace to support a war if you basically just produce weapons instead of shedding blood.

When was the last time America didn't arm the people that were going to become its future enemies?

Because the Soviets engaged the majority of German forces. Should they fail, or be vasalized by the Krauts, the latter would be able to withdraw some of the armies in the East, gain strategic resources they craved so much for, and get ready for assaulting the British Isles, their colonies, or get a favourable peace, so they would gain so much force in a matter of two or even one generation that they would be unstoppable, given their exploitation of occupied nations and pro- population growth policies.

Giving arms to the Soviets bled out the Germans, and finally resulted in their defeat. There was of course Cold War, however fragile peace with the Nazis would be probably a little bit worse than what we had with the Soviets.

>Why didn't they just let the Nazis and Commies fight it out?
I'm pretty sure that was the plan and this observable truth has simply been demphasized in the post-war narrative for reasons of political convenience and sensitivity.

You ever notice how in popular historiography (from a casual American perspective) WWII doesn't pay too much attention to the dates of U.S. participation? Namely in the stark difference between the Normandy invasion (June 1944) which begins the "Western front" and the start of the war with the brunt of serious history changing fighting (September 1939). Yes there was the African campaign, but that was more of a half assed attempt to knock Italy out of the war and probably protect English colonial properties.

It's pretty obvious to me that the Allies sans USSR were waiting out the major fighting and deliberately delaying a serious second front in the hopes that Nazi Germany and the USSR would destroy each other. Or the weakened winner could be immediately counterattacked by fresh forces leaving Britain and the USA holding all the cards for Europe.

STALIN 1941-943: YOU FUCKERS, GIVE ME A SECOND FRONT NOW! WE ARE DYING ,YOU CAPITALIST PIGS.
ALLIES: lol we're working on it, friend comrade. Just wait until next year. Promise :^) Have some trucks, you can do it.
EASTERN FRONT: Stalingrad happens. Wehrmacht can extend no further into USSR, let alone meet crucial time tables and capture key strategic points. Soviet forces now winning pitched battles and actually pushing back Nazi forces at times. With an unambiguously superior resource and industrial capacity still and Nazi over-extension this is the death knell of Nazi military force.
Allies 1943: ...oh shit. Well, good news Stalin. That second front you wanted is coming next year for sure. WE can do this.
2 FRONTS: Suddenly it's a "race" to Berlin.

Almost like they were scared if they waited longer the USSR might conquer all of Europe back and be the total kingmaker.

>Yes there was the African campaign, but that was more of a half assed attempt to knock Italy out of the war and probably protect English colonial properties

You do realize that the African campaign was in direct preparation for the Italian campaign, which forced the commitment of roughly 1/5 of the entire Heer come a year earlier than Normandy, yes?

And that it takes time to go from a a country whose land army is smaller than Portugal's to actually being able to throw down with major powers in Europe?

Italy was in 43 bro. It saw over half a million Germans deployed there until capitulation.

Not to mention Tunisia where 150k Germans surrendered literally while Stalingrad was in full swing.

And let's not forget the strategic bombing campaign which put paid to most of the Luftwaffe, not the VVS.

don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

Doubly so when you realize at least for the RAF (I don't know USAAF stats) you had about a 21% chance to survive your tour of duty if you were in Bomber Command, which are pretty awful odds.

>Who needs logistics in modern war?

That's you, tell me about transporting armies that large and enormous amounts of material across oceans and who else in history has even come close to such a feat.

>fragile peace with the Nazis would be probably a little bit worse than what we had with the Soviets
why?

The USSR was seen as a state that the Western Allies could at least deal with, so they had a vested interest in keeping them alive, especially when they're fighting 80% of the Wehrmacht.

to put some context to it, In May of 1941, All of Continental Europe sans Britain and the Soviets were under direct German control or influence. The British are barely holding on to the skies, it was not unreasonable to think that Hitler already won.

But Operation Barbarossa opens a new front that ties up the overwhelming majority of Germany's resources, and Germany now has a chance of being defeated on the battlefield between Britain and later the US, and now the Soviets in the east. Of course they'll send aid to the enemy of their enemy, because as said before, the Soviets could at least be dealt with as a state, Nazi Germany absolutely could not exist as it directly threatened to flip the entire world order in Germany's favor.

If you read into Churchill's memoirs though, he did expect the Soviets to be on the brink of collapse by the time the fighting with Germany was over, and be weak enough to pressure Stalin militarily and diplomatically. But that didn't happen, Churchill was surprised that the Soviets were now an unstoppable juggernaut, and so he drew up and submitted Operation Unthinkable, which was immediately thrown out because of how catastrophic a war with that juggernaut would be.

From Churchill, you can conclude that the plan was for Germany and Russia to kill each other, to to make sure that Germany for sure was defeated, but it didn't go according to plan, with the Russians coming out of the conflict much stronger than when they entered.

Who needs strong allies in a modern war?

Pop quiz: an epic war is unfolding. And one of your most important allies is facing an all out attack to knock them out. You actually like this ally and want them to survive (this is key). Do you?

A. Wait around and commit a couple thousand here and there to divert some kind of decent attention while your ally continues to lose ground to what seems to be an apocalyptically bad, for them, invasion. And then take on your enemy with your full forces one at a time when you "feel ready".

B. Attack with everything you got as soon as possible despite logistic difficulties because 2, 3, or 4 healthy allies at full strength attacking all at once is much stronger. Diluting strength of the enemy to multiple fronts as early as possible being so immensely strategically important.

You don't see the economics of this? It makes so much Machiavellian geopolitial sense to build up your forces as the USA and then swoop in at the end to mop up the survivors if you don't care who wins.

What a coincidence that the logistics for a grand invasion only came together after years right when the Eastern Front started collapse and the Soviets were making major gains into the European heartland.

>Wait around and commit a couple thousand here
really? Did you not read any of the replies to you?

as there would be little or no balance of forces. Germans would strive for world dominance, while destroying nations in Eastern Europe to a far bigger extend that the Soviets did.

But lesser evil prevailed, and "Ubermensch" were defeated by lowly "Untermensch"

The Italy campaign was never that serious. If it was the Allies would have more seriously committed to it and it would have gone somewhere. There's a reason we don't talk about it much in our post war romantic stories/movies. It's kind of an embarrassment.

"Soft underbelly of Europe" my ass, the alps are immensely defendable. And besides that even when the war was all but over they still hadn't even managed to conquer Italy let alone stab at Germany and Southern Europe. Patton was spitting in the Seine at the same time they were trying to wrap up Florence. And that was with a half committed German skeleton crew.

I'm not saying it's nothing. I am saying it clearly wasn't a real second front if the other D-Day second front (3rd?) was marching towards Berlin before they were even done with Italy.

Counterargument: Dieppe. The attempt they made to just do a feasibility study of landing in 1942 was a fucking disaster.

Not to mention that the Allies were enormously stronger in 1943 than they were in 1942, and an order of magnitude stronger still in 1944; when they finally had things like actual landing craft and practice at making opposed landings.

>What a coincidence that the logistics for a grand invasion only came together after years right when the Eastern Front started collapse and the Soviets were making major gains into the European heartland.

Not really, since the modern landing craft (again necessary) only start being developed AFTER dieppe proved that you can't just slap any ships together and make a hostile landing.

>The Italy campaign was never that serious.

You might want to take that up with accredited scholars in the field who seem to think otherwise.

amazon.com/Path-Victory-Mediterranean-Theater-World/dp/0374529760

> If it was the Allies would have more seriously committed to it and it would have gone somewhere.

They did seriously commit to it: The problem is that in the narrow confines of the Italian peninsula, you can't cram that many troops, which is why you only had about 20-25 divisions there at any one time.

>There's a reason we don't talk about it much in our post war romantic stories/movies. It's kind of an embarrassment.

More to do with the fact that it was a slow, grinding advance, more resonant with WW1 than what people think of WW2.

>And that was with a half committed German skeleton crew.

That is completely wrong. The Germans committed more troops than the Allies did, they committed elite units like the LXXVI Panzer Corps and the 10th army, and that's not counting the other 30 or so divisions that were scattered around Southern France, Yugoslavia, and Greece that were suddenly necessary to either pick up garrison duties that the surrendering Italians left open, and to guard against opportunistic attacks out of Italy.

>I'm not saying it's nothing. I am saying it clearly wasn't a real second front if the other D-Day second front (3rd?) was marching towards Berlin before they were even done with Italy.

I'm saying you're an imbecile with no actual knowledge of the campaigns in question, or how it rather badly poleaxes your argument that the Allies are sitting around on their hands waiting for the USSR and the Nazis to kill each other.

On what page and with what exact words does he claim Slavs were untermenschen?
Marxism IS a jewish plot btw.

kek, this. It is offical US policy to arm your enemies before you fight with them.

>Marxism IS a jewish plot btw.

It must be a Germanic plot too, since it was the Kaiser's government that

>Shipped Lenin to Russia
>Provided him with funding
>And an external threat that crushed a lot of the Czar's government
>And moved in to help them during the early stages of the struggle with the Whites.

You never would have had the Bolsheviks in charge of anything if not for the Germans.

Germans would never have invaded Britain
They would have postured and demonstrated their capability, forcing England into a peace on German terms. If German dominance was irrefutable the British would have acquiesced, leaving Germany with possession of mainland European territories. Anyone who seriously talks about the reality of a German invasion of England is an idiot who's indulged in the more interesting version of history

Because FDR was a naive Socialist who thought Stalin was charming.

>implying it isn't on purpose

Take your stupid baseless assumptions back to /pol/

>Why didn't they just let the Nazis and Commies fight it out?

Because the Soviets were initially on board w/ the Atlantic Charter, which they essentially broke by pushing for the recognition of their 1941 borders from the 1939 pact w/ Hitler.

>allowed the commies to conquer most of eastern Europe.

The Hitler pact was the first time Stalin had shown any interest in territory expansion. "Not one foot of foreign soil." was a major communist tenant from Lenin that he echoed, so much so that he himself went to Helsinki in 1917 to declare the independence of Finland from Russia.

In 1925 he announced that any effort on the part of the Soviet Union to acquire spheres of influence abroad would be "the road to nationalism and degeneration, the road of full liquidation of the international policy of the proletariat."

>I'm pretty sure that was the plan and this observable truth has simply been demphasized in the post-war narrative for reasons of political convenience and sensitivity.

In 1941 then-U. S. Senator Harry Truman's statement regarding the Nazi invasion of Russia; "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible." But we know that didn't happen.

>Namely in the stark difference between the Normandy invasion (June 1944)

America wanted to invade in 1943. And they were fighting the air "front" well before D-Day. There were more military personnel dedicated to anti-air in Germany than on the ground in Italy, eating up an absurd amount of munitions, artillery, and signals equipment that would have otherwise have been in the east.

>Just wait until next year. Promise :^) Have some trucks, you can do it.

30-40% of the heavy and medium tanks fighting in -defense- of Moscow in November/December 1941 were British lend-lease.

>There were more military personnel dedicated to anti-air in Germany than on the ground in Italy, eating up an absurd amount of munitions, artillery, and signals equipment that would have otherwise have been in the east.

Not him, but that doesn't sound quite right on a number of issues.

1) German deployment to Italy totaled roughly a million men. If you count all the men that weren't deployed to Italy, but to areas dispatched to guard against invasions that never materialized that could be launched from Italy, it's even bigger. As far as I'm aware, you don't get anything close to those numbers for Reich Defense unless you count civilian efforts in cleanup, firefighters, shelter builders, and the like.

2) Even if those resources had been freed up, it's far from clear that they could have been deployed east. German logistical systems were quite frankly a mess, and especially where unmotorized/unmechanized flak is concerned, moving all that shit around in the vastness of the eastern front is going to be nearly impossible. Add in that the Germans never had enough fuel and munitions, nor the ability to move them as fast as the tactical and operational demands required, and that means that just because the Germans could field X number of planes or guns over Berlin, doesn't mean they can field them near wherever the front line is in that moment.

>30-40% of the heavy and medium tanks fighting in -defense- of Moscow in November/December 1941 were British lend-lease.

To be fair, the heavily wooded areas around Vyzama and Rzhev where most of Typhoon (and counterattacks) were fought isn't exactly premier tank country. I've not gone through line by line of all the actions going on up there, but I know guys like Glantz are pretty dismissive of all armor contributions for those particular battles, German, Soviet built Soviet, and Soviet import alike.

Because the Nazis started posing a threat to US interests.

>German deployment to Italy totaled roughly a million men

I guess it would depend on what month you're sampling, since German strength in Italy was fluctuating between 21-29 divisions in just 1944. My source clarifies the 800k as being a standing force separate from civilians, which should total more than the sum of 21 German divisions circa 1944:

>By early 1944, the German air defense forces deployed against the western Allied air offensive exceeded German ground forces fighting the Allies in Italy. A standing force of over 800,000 was engaged in air defense, including the crews of over 14,000 heavy and 40,000 light anti-aircraft guns. Another million Luftwaffe troops were on clean-up duty, and hundreds of thousands of civilians were involved in rebuilding.
>The air offensive placed myriad burdens on German industry, over half of which worked to meet Luftwaffe needs by 1944. Redirecting artillery production to anti-aircraft needs cut anti-tank gun production by half. Thirty per cent of German artillery, twenty per cent of ammunition production, a third of the optical industry's output and over half of electronics production were involved in air defence
-Roger Beaumont, 'The Bomber Offensive as a Second Front', Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Jan., 1987)

>Even if those resources had been freed up, it's far from clear that they could have been deployed east

It's still a resource drain that started began in 1942/43, regardless of deployability in late 1944, and those fuel and logistics issues themselves could also be attributable to the air war.

=
>To be fair, the heavily wooded areas around Vyzama and Rzhev where most of Typhoon (and counterattacks) were fought isn't exactly premier tank country.

My sources have them north in November in action against Third and Fourth Panzer Groups.

>The first of these units to have been in action seems to have been 138 Independent Tank Battalion, which as part of 30 Army of the Western Front along with 24 and 145 Tank Brigades and 126 Independent Tank Battalion was involved in stemming the advance of German units in the region of the Volga Reservoir to the north of Moscow in late November.
-Alexander Hill (2006) British “Lend-Lease” Tanks and the Battle for Moscow, November–December 1941, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies

Of course it is. The Jews created Marxism to destroy anything good on this Earth, and the Germans, that evil subhuman race, fanatical destroyers of Europe, used this ideology to weaken their enemy, to try to destroy the Russian Christ. It just worked better than they expected, and then bite them in the ass. Twice.

Those men in OP's pic aren't officers

>30-40% of the heavy and medium tanks fighting in -defense- of Moscow in November/December 1941 were British lend-lease.
Which is not as impressive as it might sound, as it makes for some 10 percent of all tanks in that area. At a time when the Pz2/short barrelled 3/38 are the mainstay of the German force, meaning the ninety percent remaining (which would also include some Soviet med-hvy tanks) were not outmatched.

because the dumbfuck nips forced the americans onto the allies. the us could have just aided britain and france and perhaps they wouldn't have committed it all to the allies idk

Lend-lease to the Soviets started before Japan declared war on the US.

It's a US tradition to arm enemies and have it backfire on them.

>Which is not as impressive as it might sound, as it makes for some 10 percent of all tanks in that area.

Not even that. The figures come out to only ~6.5% of total. But if they're still 30-40% of medium/heavy strength, that means 85% of total Soviet tank strength defending Moscow were Red Army light tanks.

And it's not their numbers or their quality that I'm arguing is impressive, just the fact that British LL tanks were on the front, defending Moscow against German Panzer groups in November 1941 is relatively new information that contradicts a lot of what was considered established history.