Well?

Complete bullshit.

In Stalingrad the Axis took 850,000 casualties total, mostly Romanians/Italians/Hungarians, including ~400,000 killed or captured. Most of those were not Germans. On the Western Front from 1944 to 1945 the Germans had 655,000 killed and 4,200,000 captured, plus another ~100,000 killed and ~1,400,000 captured in Italy, for a total of ~6.4 million irrecoverable losses. That's comparable to German irrecoverable losses for the entire Eastern Front.

This completely excludes Japan. In America-centric campaigns against Japan alone (i.e. excluding China and Burma) Japanese military deaths were about 1.5 million (there were very few POWs for obvious reasons).

ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/AJRP2.nsf/530e35f7e2ae7707ca2571e3001a112d/e7daa03b9084ad56ca257209000a85f7?OpenDocument

Also at the Americans sieged Japan, trapping and forcing the surrender of the Japanese army. At this point the Japanese forces on the Home Islands numbered over 4 million men, 5,400 tanks, 10,000+ artillery pieces, and 12,000+ aircraft.

Nice reading comprehension senpai

>if you can draw longer arrows on map you contributed more

Why are burgers so shameless? Is there really nothing that embarasses them?

>you can objectively measure "contribution"

>longer journey but none of the heavy lifting
>USA! USA!
But hey, they fought elite teenagers and pensioners

>But hey, they fought elite teenagers and pensioners
And they collected a bunch of prisoners when the war was basically over.

>4.200.000 captured elite hitlerjugend troops

6 Million actually

You forgot Soviet's invasion of Manchuria.

Sure USA is important but as Try putting soviet union into Antarctica and draw lines from it to east europe and manchuria then we can even it out

Ethiopian researchers have clearly shown that amharic insurgents' contribution to the African theater decided the outcome of WW2

The Hiterljugend were mostly fighting in the east with the rest of the dregs. Their most significant deployment, along with the Volkssturm, was Berlin.

Western front was filled with low quality divisions in 1944 then they defended berlin in 1945

> Western front was filled with low quality divisions in 1944

Again, a tankie assertion with no backing. The troops in the West were on average better equipped than those in the east.

>low quality conscripts were better equipped than elite SS divisions holding USSR agression in the east

>Market Garden was Not fought by Elite SS Tank Divisions

>we lost because they were ELITE SS SUPER NAZIS PLS BELIEVE ME

USA can have the Pacific, but Europe was won by the Reds.

Let's be honest here, the European front was the only front that mattered and the amount of soviet soldiers that died is huge compared to any other nation.

> Americans/Brits were facing low quality conscripts while Soviets were always facing elite SS divisions

Repeating uncited BS doesn't make it true you know. Most of the conscripts were sent east. Most of the worst forces period were sent east, mostly because they could actually have a chance of meaningfully effecting the outcome there. In the West, you had to go big or go home. Masses of light infantry divisions like those that were deployed in the east were effectively non-factors against the fully mechanized, very firepower heavy US Army (the average US infantry division had more firepower than a Panzer division).

P.S., SS divisions were on average worse than regular Heer divisions. They only got that reputation in the west because the SS divisions the Americans and Brits fought were the best ones. The Soviets were disdainful of the ones they fought, which largely consisted of foreign volunteers and men picked more for ideological purity than any ability.

> USSR agression

kek the Germans invaded them.

Yeah man, the European front totally decided the outcome of the Pacific War

How much aerial bombardment did the "reds" do? How much securing of the oil fields in the Middle East? What about in the Atlantic? Or through intelligence? Or through North Africa and Italy? How much financial support did the Soviets provide the Western Allies?

Incompetent tactics leading to unnessecary casualties does not equate

equate to a greater contribution*.

So the point of this thread?

>Incompetent tactics leading to unnecessary casualties does not equate

All I need to see to know that you know absolutely nothing about the subject. Good day.

...

>The USSR didn't have tactics which contributed to their own soldiers' deaths

this thread is there so Euros can watch flag waving.burgers. It's part of a field study comparing subtypes of "the Anglo". Brits are supposedly equally deluded when it comes to their contribution to WW2. They won it alone as well. But that's for another thread.

Epic paint skilz m8

So just how many Nazi cocks did your Opa collaborate into his mouth?

My Opa was the nazi cock, mate.

>we won ww2 all by ourselves and sheet, soviets were just a tag along who coattailed our success
>we didn't sell half of the europe to russians, soviets were just too stronk and operation unthinkable would had ended up with western allies being driven off from europe

No, but one type of measurement surely is how many enemies you've killed.

He Just Said there were no well equipped SS Divisions in the West and I Just wanted To Blow him The fuck out

Shitposting

>be NKVD officer in Eastern Front
>mass-execute retreating soldiers for cowardice
>Soviet contribution skyrockets due to increased bodycount
Russian logic everyone.

>t. a guy who saw Enemy at the Gates and now thinks that he's an expert on the Eastern Front

>The troops in the West were on average better equipped than those in the east.

Because logistics were easier and they didn't have to concern over taking losses like mad.

Source or gtfo

>and that the real overrated ones were the British

kek fucking this, the British were the biggest meme in WW2

Britain was the most important country in defeating Hitler during WW2

Drawing lines on a map really doesn't present a proper argument

The Red Army inflicted the most devastating blows to the Wehrmacht and caused them the most casualties.
Do you think all the 5.1 million German military dead were caused in France or Italy? Not even close.

>t. delusional britistani

Reminder that over half of the troops on the western front and italian front were commonwealth

Reminder that the British pushed the Japanese out of Burma, restoring the Burma road and preventing chinese frontlines from totally breaking down by being able to resupply them.

Reminder that if Britain didn't win the battle of Britain, they would've been forced into a peace with Germany and every single Axis troop would be on the Eastern Front, and an invasion of Europe from the west would've been totally impossible.

Reminder that if Stalin did face Hitler alone, the lack of Britain in the war would've meant no lend lease from Britain or America and the Eastern Front would break down.

Have you considered there may be more to warfare than casualty numbers?

Exactly this. USA contributed significantly with their industrial output and the Soviet contributed significantly on the battlefield. Brits did jack shit aside from turtling on their island, getting BTFO in the Pacifics and piggybacking Americans.

I mean we're talking about people who tried to spin Dunkirk and Market Garden into a success, nobody should ever take their delusions seriously.

What's red line and what's green line?

>no lend lease from Britain or America
>lend lease from Britain
Maximum kek, talk about completely irrelevant shit. If anything Britain survived only thanks to American lend lease.

Between June 1941 and May 1945, Britain delivered to the USSR:

3,000+ Hurricanes
4,000+ other aircraft
27 naval vessels
5,218 tanks
5,000+ anti-tank guns
4,020 ambulances and trucks
323 machinery trucks
2,560 Universal Carriers
1,721 motorcycles
£1.15bn worth of aircraft engines
600 radar and sonar sets
Hundreds of naval guns
15 million pairs of boots

them rushins sure are good at dying

>pacific theater
>relevant at all

does anyone unironically know why japan were even involved in this war

This. Japan had lost the moment they lost access to oil.

Failed landgrab attempt following Germany's success in Europe. Pretty much exact same thing that they did during WW1 but this time they were even more worthless as an ally and sided with the losing side.

The japanese are unironically the worst ally in military history

>Considered everyone else below them
>0 regard to human rights
>Rapists
>Bad at adapting to warfare
>Reliant on foreign resources
>Stabs you in the back and refuses to help you when you need it most

The irony is that if Japan had declared war on Russia, then the Eastern Siberian units woouldn't be able to support the troops defending moscow, and Russian administration may have collapsed.

In short, Japan's end was brought about by their own refusal to cooperate.

>everyone ignores the German casualties
ebin

>Reminder that over half of the troops on the western front and italian front were commonwealth

No they weren't. On March 1945, the peak of Allied strength in Western Europe, there were 4.5 million Wallies troops in 91 divisions. 61 were American. Italy had another 18 Wallied divisions. 7 were American. 99 divisions total inckuding 68 Amrrican, or about 70%. Something also reflected in Allied casualty numbers. In addition, all of the non-American divisions were using significant amounts of American supplies. OVER A QUARTER of Britain's whole war budget including irreplaceable goods came from Lend-Lease. This included a majority of their non-shit tanks.

Also desu it's pretty pathetic that the Brits have to lump Canadian and Australian war efforts into their's to make it look bigger and then just hope nobody notices.

"B-but they're honorary Aryans!"

What embarasses us most is when another burger makes us all look bad.

>implying the majority of those weren't on the eastern front eather

...

if it hadn't been for the shire the men would surely have failed

Lend lease.

If Elrond hadn't been a little bitch and had just thrown Isildur down to the Mount Doom the whole fucking war could had been avoided.

Only in the movie are they standing right next to each other inside Mt. Doom like that. In the book Elrond is like a mile away

>hey guys let me kill the heir of Elendil real quick
>what do you mean Gondor and Arnor declared war on us
Elven logic everyone

I'm nearly finished with the books, struggling to finish the parts after the ring is destroyed.

the part when they go back to the shire is an allegory for american isolationism

but Tolkien hated allegory and denied that there were any real-world parallels

It's so painful.

>Beat wops (clap clap wanna shiny medal?)
>Surrender en mass to Japs you outnumber
>Swear to defend an ally
>Enemy shows up
>Retreat all the way to the beaches and wait for civilian boats to come save you while the allied country falls
>Sail away as the allied country you instantly deserted is destroyed to save your entire military that's been saved by some fishermen
>Hide on an Island until America shows up
>Bomb some civilian targets, plan terrible disasters such as Operation Market Garden
>Your infantry is outperformed by fucking Canada
>America lets Russia take Berlin, America drops the bombs
>OI WE WON DA SECUND WALD WAR WE DID WE DID

reminder that the UK ran the most successful and devastating counter intelligence programme in modern history, effectively dominating the unseen war of espionage and subterfuge

Tolkien can huff and puff in his letters all he liked, it's impossible to write a living story without drawing off of real world experiences.

What Tolkien despised was retards inserting their own unique brand of bullshit politicizing into his works. "It's an allegory for nazis!" "it's an allegory for asians!" "it's an allegory for your mom's dog!" just shut the fuck up nigger.

Reminder that russians didn't do jack shit. Killing off your own army isn't an effective way to win wars

>none of the heavy lifting

Top kek. First rate laugh.

>muh its only heavy lifting if billions die

So yeah lets play out a scenario where America is completely uninvolved. No contribution to the allied war effort and Japan is focusing on Commonwealth stuff in the pacific and avoids starting a war with the burgers. Also no Embargo towards Japan. Basically Swiss neutrality.

>Nothing really changes up until Barbarossa

>GB/Commonwealth

War economy/home front:

>No lend and lease means britains war industry is far less effective

>casualties are hard er to replace and a more conservative defense oriented approach is likely

European/African theater

>GB isn't able to decide the war in Africa without Torch,the suez isn't going to fall but without the americans monty isn't able to smash the Heeresgruppe Afrika

>Afrika drags on far longer irl and considerable assets from navy,army and airforce are bound in africa for indefinite time

>constant casualties in Africa

>neither Italy nor france are in danger of being invaded

Pacific/India

>Japan will quickly reach naval superiority and threaten all of GBs colonial holdings there including India

>GBs naval assets in the pacific are completely smashed and ressources from the colonies that aren't lost are hard to transport to the home isles.

>Troops from India can't be used as effective irl. Most of the Indians divisions are needed there to defend India. It wouldn't have been politically feasible to deploy indian divisions abroad with a japanese threat looming.

>Given their Performance in China i think it is unlikely that Japan would have conquered India but an Invasion there would have drastic political effect and would massively hamper the flow of ressources to the home isles.

>Australia and New Zealand are also under constant threat.

>All of their military assets would have been used for home defence.
1/?

British are underrated in WW2 though.

In terms of casualties suffered and casualties inflicted the USSR contributed the most by far.

Conclusion:

>Fortress Europe is Safe. Invasion isn't possible with Britains capabilities in this timeline.

>Italy stays in the War.

>Considerable german assets are freed up elswhere (some would have been used in Africa but in general more troops would be available for the Ostfront).

>The British Empire crumbles in Asia. The RN isn't able to stop the IJN and Japan basically has free reign.

>The performance of the war industry would be far weaker in this timeline while the casualties would be at least the same or bigger.

>This casualties would achieve little and would be harder to replace.

>In my oppinion Britain would either seek a political solution with both Japan and Germany/Italy or make peace with at least one to focus on the other. Here a ceasefire/peace deal with the European Axis is more likely. Hitler was open to the continued existence of the british colonial Empire and there was less to lose on the European front.
I will write the soviet one after a break.

The only campaign the British didn't fuck up was Africa everything else was a shit show. They are shitty soldiers who can't follow orders from real leaders worth a damn.

Sorry mate. How many Russian cocks did your Opa collaborate into his mouth.

He wasn't the collaborating type. He peened a lot of scythes in Siberia though. Now have fun with your homonazi fantasies.

>dude just run towards their machine gun fire, they'll have to reload soon lmao

The absolute state of the red army.

>I will write the soviet one after a break.

I'll do it for you:

>Soviets lose a few more soldiers and civilians because America doesn't send them a few token obsolete trucks
>tide still turns on the eastern front, Soviets advance towards Berlin
>eastern front plays out exactly the same as it did in reality except about six months later
>Britain maintains that it won the war

SU/Eastern Front:

War Economy/Home front:

>Russiaboos don't want to hear this but the absence of lend and lease influences the soviet war industry and strategy from the start.

>Industry has to produce a lot of things which were delievered via lend and lease.

>Especially the production of trains and trucks for logistical purposes seriously hampers the production of tanks and other equipment.

>A lot of machine parts have to be domestically produced, its likely that the soviets wouldn't have been able to fully compensate the absence of these further reducing their industrial output.

>The same goes for ressources delivered under the l and l agreement.

>Starvation becomes a serious problem. The Ukraine provided 40% of the Soviet agrarian capabilities and food wasn't available in surplus even in peacetime.

>Soviet logistical system would never reach the efficiency it did in our timeline. It is unlikely that the large scale offensives of the later war would have been possible for the red army. This meme of muh a few trucks is quite simply false. Despite numerous attempts to obfuscate this tankies/russiaboos fail to explain why large scale counteroffensives offensives prior to 43 (when l and l failed) overwhelmingly failed and only succeded when the germans were really overstretched (Stalingrad essentially).

Changes for Germany:

>More troops and equipment is available in the mid and late war period. Because the african front requires fewer troops than our timelines western front.

>Not subjected to the heavy aerial warfare of our timeline. The BoB would fail as it did historically but GB wouldn't be able to wage an air campaign as devastating as in our timeline. Especially considering their reduced capabilities.

>Instead of time running out like in our timeline (in 42/43 it became clearly that the western allies would invade) the germans wouldn't be subjected to the same strategical pressures.

1/2

Even as a troll post that is just embarassing. The Soviets won both Germany and Japan. Isn't there some bait rule on this board?

>result of American propaganda

"hurr why don't you appreciate us more"

41/42:

>Essentially the same battles as in our timeline but the soviets would be hard pressed to replace the losses to the same extent they did in our timeline.

43:

>Questionable if Kursk or a similiar event would have happened.

>If something similiar would have occured the soviets wouldn't have been able to capitalize it to the same extent they did irl.

>At this point the Red Army of this timeline and the Red Army of our timeline are starting to really diverge. Starvation and the reduced industrial output are taking their toll. There are fewer formations, the logistical system isn't up to the task and there is a considerably less equipment than in our timeline.

>Further german gains are unlikely aswell. The logistical situation is a nightmare and the Axis troops are already overextended. Also the losses of heavy fighting are taking their toll.

1944/1945:

>The big offensives of our timeline aren't possible.

>The germans have more reserves and equipment available.

>The Red army isn't capable of amassing the same troop and equipment superiority it did irl. Their logistical system also wouldn't be able to sustain the kind of warfare they used irl.

>Also they wouldn't be able to stomach the gigantic casualties they endured in our timeline because their industry couldn't just replace the equipment losses.

>Offensives from both side are likely to run out of steam quick with no crucial gains.

>Starvation is still rampant in the government controlled territory of the UDSSR.

>A german peace Deal in the west becomes more and more likely. So a better flow of ressources and even more troops available for the eastern front is likely.

>German manpower losses aren't nearly as harsh as in our timeline (less drastic soviet offensives, no big encirclements or overruning large troop bodies, no western front in europe).

Conclusion:

>The eastern front comes to a grinding halt.

>Large territories are under german control.

Conclusion:

>Eastern front comes to a grinding halt.

>No side has the capabilities to conduct war deciding offensives.

>War of Attrition is likely.

>Axis actually has a better ressource and industry situation.

>Manpower is an issue for Germany (losses aren't as big as in our timeline though). The soviet one is also hampered by starvation that is reducing the able-bodied population.

>A peace deal/ceasefire with following low intensity warfare is a likely outcome.

>Oh and we haven't talked about the higher possibility of Japanese attacks against the SU. Due to being bogged down in China and being busy with GB an early participation isn't going to happen. At some point Japan would have 'won' in the Pacific and could decide to grab some soviet territories diverting soviet troops from the german front.
>tl, dr: Despite the claims of tankies American industry did the heavy lifting of WW2. Without american industry and the American Navy both GB and SU would have been fucked.

Britain was a diplomatic powerhouse. The USA needed somewhere to stay, for instance, before they bore the majority of the re-invasion of France (& al). And they did a hell of a lot with spies.

But yeah, otherwise they didn't do much.

>get killed the most
>"THIS PROVES WE WON THE WAR FOR THE ALLIES"

Look at the German numbers dumbass

>m-muh pacific!

Americans need to pretend that the Pacific theatre mattered because otherwise their contribution to WW2 would look even more feeble.