Could the Soviet Union have won World War 2 without America's help?

Could the Soviet Union have won World War 2 without America's help?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/I98P1AxQRUM
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Possibly, but probably not. If they did, it would drag on for years, maybe even a decade, and be even bloodier.

Had the allies never opened up a second front or gave shit to them they probably would've lost to Hitler.

Next time you commie fucks wank off to Stalin remember that it was us who won WW2 and liberated Europe, not that communist piece of shit.

Zhukov claimed the war could not have been won without the help of America.

No.

But not because of Normandy or Africa. It was lend-lease which saved the slav.

I would say they could survive, but any victory would have been a bloody and defensive one.
The Allies only contributed 25% of Germany's casualties but made up 50% of army deployments. They were responsible for the attrition of 50% of the Luftwaffe and 60% of its deployment, 50% of all guns, the massive logistical and production loss of the bombing campaign, as well as Lend Lease itself. Without the Allies the Germans would have about 30-40% more men to deploy on the East and would have had much more materiel to fight with, and much sounder logistics while Soviet logistics would not receive the steroid boost of LL.

>Stalin
>slav

They already did, comrade.

In this order.

Lend lease > Strategic bombing > Normandy > Africa

no one hates communism more than the people who lived under it. The second front only opened up after the soviets started advancing and the nazis retreating, the allied butt budies wanted berlin for themselves. Soviets took berlin, germany surrendered. No one in the soviet union, or post soviet nations would object to america and them contributing more and claiming victory all by themselves, because then the war could have ended sooner. But since you put it the way you did, we'll remember you for being a piece of shit nazi cocksucker and not any kind of winner or liberator.

>when your best weapon is winter

no they couldn't have won without help

It would be extreamly painful

Yes, with significantly more casualties, but yes nonetheless.

Memes aside, this is correct. It would have taken years, with the war maybe stretching on into the 1950s, and it would have seen Russia completely and utterly spent, but it would have been possible to do. Do not misunderstand, it would have been an ultimate in Pyrrhic Victories. The country would in all likelyhood have collapsed immediately after their "victory". European Russia would have likely been rendered uninhabitable, and their population would have taken unrecoverable losses. It would have been a horrific meatgrinder that they could only win if they bottled their spite and burned it as fuel to power their tanks. Germany would also likely have been just as spent, if not even more destroyed as it was in history if the Soviets managed to actually invade.

The Allied Victory in WW2 was very much a group effort. It is possible the Soviets could have done it on their own, but the price would have been so high they would question for centuries afterward if it was worth it.

*even more destroyed than it was in history

I think so, yeah, but it would have been a much more prolonged affair bordering on Pyrrhic. And just like in the original timeline, it would be down to Germany failing to secure their best chance of a victory - that is an early knock-out blow. You got the Moscow and Stalingrad victories done with literally no or absolutely minimal American L&L, and after that it's hard to imagine a German victory. Even without the US deliveries the Soviets had greater manpower reserves and more of some strategic resources, so they were in a better position for a war of attrition.

However, in the later years, the strategic mobility of the Red Army would be severely impaired. And, what is just as important, the required shift of resources into wartime-oriented production in order to at least partially make up for the military materiel supplied by the US would leave the Soviet homefront in shambles and millions starving - food deliveries were quite important in maintaining a precarious balance, in fact perhaps more important than any other single kind of supplies.

>the war maybe stretching on into the 1950s
>European Russia would have likely been rendered uninhabitable

Go away jack black, nobody likes you.

4 U S S R

Hold up.

Wouldn't Hitler winning be a good thing?

UK gave the time, USA gave the money, USSR gave the blood.

Probably, it certainly would have taken a lot longer

Maybe. Would depend on the strategic decisions made by each side's command staff. I think Germany has the advantage in the scenario, but there are so many variables in play that I don't think anyone can give you a definite answer

>European Russia would have likely been rendered uninhabitable

lolwut? There would have to have been massive infrastructure-rebuilding programs and the like and it would take a while for the population to recover, but it wouldn't have been some sort of nuclear wasteland

really so lend lease kicked in at 1941?

You know the moment when they launched the counterattacks in front of moscow.

you know the attacks that almost destroyed armygroup center ?

you americans are so pathetic ww2 was lost winter 41 in front of moscow.

not with lend lease and not with a 2nd front.

inb4 tankie

I am a german historian

Without LL the Soviets wouldn't have won the war, it would have ended in a stalemate.

>muh precious blood of thousands of peasants
yeah, all those soviet offensives would have worked without the american logistical trail.

prove it

1941 when they decided the war there was almost no ll.

Don't tell me you really think they lost the eastern front in stalingrad or kursk thats history channel tier bullshit.

god you american cucks are so pathetic.

1941
no ll
no 2nd front

Red army wins
almost destroys HgMitte

the war in the east was lost 1941 without a 2nd front and without ll

fuckin educate yourself.

logistical trail > 1941
L O L

> prove it

Simple, the Soviets wouldn't have had the logistics/supplies from LL to launch all of those offensives all the way to Berlin.

I never said neither would have won, but merely a stalemate.

They could have won without american blood, but they would have lost without american machinery & materials.

Without direct military help, yes.
Without resource help, fuck no.

not true

they won the most important battles alone without ll and a 2nd front.

It might have taken a lil longer but all numbers indicate that they would have won alone.

Look at the numbers ll kicked in at 1943-1944 at this time the soviet industry kicked in.

A lot of soviets would have starved without ll but it doesn't really impact the Ostfront in any significant way.

1941 Moscow was THE decisive battle of the Ostfront the soviets won it alone and without ll.

deal with it

>1941
>germany was defeated completely and utterly and never recovered and it's defeat was assured.
dumb russkie.

Probably, after another year or two.

exactly the Heeresgruppe Mitte never recovered.
They made little to no progress in the next 2 years.

Name one strategic goal the achieved after winter 1941.

yes the defeat was assured in 1941.

If you are on of the retards who think the Ostfront was lost in stalingrad or kursk you should probably stop watching history channel and go read a book or two.

They had some minor tactical victories but no significant strategical progress was made.

wait I guess a video would suit your mindset more


youtu.be/I98P1AxQRUM

Yes the "lend lease" was nowhere near as important as allied propaganda says.

and the russians would have been able to keep the germans on the defensive without having american trucks to supply or transport their men?
Or spam to feed their soldiers.
this. Zhukov was a liar.

>and the russians would have been able to keep the germans on the defensive without having american trucks to supply or transport their men?
Or spam to feed their soldiers.

Absolutely yes.
Look at the goddamn numbers ffs.
They won all important decisive battles without ll.

Depends how you define win.

With no heavy bombers and an insanely shit logistic system, the Nazis were fucked when it came to getting anything past the urals.

If Britain's involved too, even moreso. Possibly you might not end up with a march on Berlin, just a truce, but ultimately Germany was never winning.