Were they doomed from day one?

Probably not, their entire ideology is based on war and they would've collapsed economically if they didn't go to war

There wouldn't be any room in Germany for another political party. The Nazis literally changed the flag and the name of the country to suit them. The Nazis were inextricable from the Third Reich.

>their entire ideology is based on war and they would've collapsed economically if they didn't go to war

when will this meme end?

it wont because its the truth

Yes.
>war was lost diplomatically, not militarily fucking Jews/communists/liberals REEEEEEEEEEE
>I have learned about fascism from memes

When the soviets counter attacked in winter 41 and almost destroyed armygroup center there was no lend lease.

Stop with this meme they did it alone, ll only madr the war end faster nothing else. The SU would have won the war alone as they showed in 41.

No. After the Munich conference, everyone in Europe took a big sign of relief and actually thought war had been avoided. Mussolini returned to Italy under the idea that he was a great peace maker for his people.

Hitlers autism ruined it all though

>bastardize a Mediterranean ideology and using it as justification for mass murder
Yes.

...

The soviets had massive famines even with land and lease. Without American aid their soldiers would have been starving and ineffective. Also funny that you bring up the Soviet winter counter offensive, the battle of Moscow had the soviet forces comprised of 50% of tanks from land and lease.

Kek, eurotards BTFO

t.

That was a cogent, well researched counterpoint.

It is a pleasure to meet a frog poster that contributes to the discussion and appears to be over the age of 18.

What people don't get is the difference between not being able to win the war and losing it. Lend lease played an important role in the big soviet offensives that won the war. It doesn't mean Germany would've conquered Russia without it.

source on the 50% tank amerifag

who cares about famine they were able to beat the germans alone

They were doomed once the SA got purged. So not day one.

>have less food
>instead of feeding soldiers and civilian support personnel, you can feed one or the other
>soldiers require support

You posted a meme and i posted a meme in return

Not my post brah.

>well, he posted sources supporting his historical position
>I posted a Pepe
>we're even

I understand that all the other kids in high school post here too, but please, just stop.

>European """""""education""""""""

historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm

so no point at all

the question was if they would be able to defeat germany on their own

the answer os yes who cares if 1 million starve to death?

you ameritards just don't like it when someone tells you that you didn't win ww2 in europe

The ">Soviets would have lost without lend-lease" meme has been debunked here on multiple occasions
I do not intend to do it once more
But here's an other pepe for you

The Soviets had no chance of winning without lend-lease.

Post proof.

>can't make an arguement
>not even a single source to back up his historical revision
"I-I-I swear I'm not getting BTFO"

Kek, why are eurotards so pathetic?

lol butthurt fag

"The tanks reached the front lines with extraordinary speed. Extrapolating from available statistics, researchers estimate that British-supplied tanks made up 30 to 40 percent of the entire heavy and medium tank strength of Soviet forces before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941, and certainly made up a significant proportion of tanks available as reinforcements at this critical point in the fighting. By the end of 1941 Britain had delivered 466 tanks out of the 750 promised."

If you really think these few tanks were essential to the counter offensive in 1941 you probably deserve getting shot right now.

SU could have done it alone look at the manpower ratio look how weak supplied the HGM was.

Look at the strategic progress the germans made after 1941 hint: you won't find any.

next time don't just link your emotional we wuz help bullshit and look at the obvious facts ll was not significant on the outcome, it helped but that was it.

I know your next move and it's going to be "the soviet counterattack in 1941-42 was successful". They knew they were getting resupplied and were only able to make such a gambit with the guarantee of lend lease.

you realize you are talking to 2 ppl now right?

god how pathetic, they only lead the offensive because we gave them spam.

no they would have done it anyway there was no other option for the SU.

Stalin accepted help by the allies but he never trusted them.

The SU would have stayed defensive if there would have been no ll?
mental?

>The ">Soviets would have lost without lend-lease" meme has been debunked here on multiple occasions

cool weasel words and moving the goal post.

you still have no argument other than le frog maymays

>god how pathetic, they only lead the offensive because we gave them spam.

This is true. You are aware that logistics play a very large role in warfare right?

>no they would have done it anyway there was no other option for the SU.

Their other option was to die, which would have definitely happened without lend-lease.

>Stalin accepted help by the allies but he never trusted them.

He accepted quite a bit of help actually.

Seeing as how those tanks came at a critical moment and made up almost half the Soviet tank force, yeah they were crucial. How fucking stupid do you have to be to just wave off 40% of your tank force as "non essential"?

This also doesn't even include all the food that was provided to the Soviet Union. After the loss of the Ukraine there was simply no way to feed all of their people. Only an absolute tard would think that the soviets could push all the way to Germany while their soldiers and citizens starve to death back home.

You sharters do realise that "X would have Y if Z" is a logical fallacy, right?
>I know your next move and it's going to be "the soviet counterattack in 1941-42 was successful"
I would have indeed. And even if there wasn't a counter attack, there is a big difference between not turning the tide and losing the war

>Memeing about tanks and not trucks

>moving the goal post.
kek the irony

>would have lost the war without it
>no i mean they used x amount on the counter offensive

>If you really think these few tanks were essential to the counter offensive in 1941 you probably deserve getting shot right now.

Go to bed Stalin.

>hes strawmanning again

lol you ruined the thread instead of just admitting you were wrong. stay mad LARPing faggot

youtu.be/56N9iPjQDIU

I am done with you.

Fucking boring amerifag educate yourself once, not going to waste more time.

If anything ruined the thread it was AMERICA #1 shitposting, but considering the time of the day i shouldn't really be surprised.

>strawmanning again
I'm not actually

>implying Russia would have lost otherwise

>Also funny that you bring up the Soviet winter counter offensive

>let me pull numbers completely out of my ass
>that'll show him!

Never ceases to amazes me how stupid Europeans can be.

>communists
>implying the error was purging commis and not everyone not fitting into an extremely narrow mold

Against the Jews you will lose.

They were golden if France and GB didn't want to die for Danzig.

Everything spiraled out of control and a small regional conflict went globa.

More like every instance of human civilisation.

Cultures, countries - these things are like organisms with a limited lifespan.

Know that this too shall pass.