Did U.S.A Help To Win WW2?

By 20% and 21% I mean that's the total of supplies the soviet had that were given to them from the U.S.A. So U.S.A made up 20% of UK equipment.

Ah I see, well thank you anyways, I'll go tell him he's full of bullshit.

/thread

dishonest representation of the facts

soviet factories knew that they would be receiving large amounts of trucks and supplies (some of the most important lend lease goods) so they focused on weapons systems

Tanks and aircraft weren't the most significant parts of Lend-Lease, though they were very helpful. The most important aid was food and complicated and hard to produce objects like machine tools and aircraft fuel. But above even those: TRUCKS. Lend-Lease provided 2/3 of the Soviet trucks by the end of the war.

A list of shit provided is available here:

jrbooksonline.com/fdr-scandal-page/lend.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Forces

Pic related: the Soviet truck park during the war. Tan is domestic production, yellow is lend-lease, green is captured. By 1942 lend-lease trucks were 20% of the supply and by 1943 that number rose to 55%, eventually peaking at more than 80% of Soviet trucks being lend-lease in 1944. Half of the Soviet war production of trucks came from 1941, most of those were destroyed or lost during the disastrous first six months of the war.

fat-yankey.livejournal.com/32078.html

Yes, the US helped significantly by keeping Japan occupied off the Soviets and helping in the western front. The Soviet Union contributed the most in Europe, but it would be foolish to say the US didn't help, especially after the war.

Britain did absolutely nothing, France contributed more than them.
It was an almost equal US-Russian effort. And without US, Russia wouldn't have gotten 80% of the supplies they used on the push to Berlin.

Your friend is a historically illiterate retard.

Adding to this, the dominance of Lend-Lease trucks is even bigger than the graph suggests. Since American equipment, particularly trucks, was largely superior to what the Soviets were using. The GAZ-AA made up the huge chunk of the Soviet truck park, like 33% of the total. And it's actually a fair small and light two wheeled drive truck, with only 1.5 ton capacity, while almost all of the US trucks shipped were 2.5+ tons. The ZIS-5 was the only soviet produced truck with a decent load (3 tons) available in large numbers and it was still 2 wheeled drive. The most common US provided truck was the Studebaker US-6 which was in its base model a 6x6 2.5 ton truck, but a huge number the 6x4 5 ton model were also shipped in. And more then a few tractor trailer versions capable of pulling 15 or so tons.

So US trucks were more applicable for supplying forward units off roads, and could haul weight beyond what the numbers suggest. A single Studebaker 6x4 tractor with trailer could haul the same amount of cargo across much of the same terrain as 10 GAZ-AAs.

Britain did a fair amount, the French contribution on the other hand was in the negatives due to the massive boon occupied France was for Germany. Poland did more than France.

Americans assisted in the invasions and liberations of North Africa, Italy, Greece, and France.

These actions forced Germany to divert men and materials away from the Eastern Front...Hitler may have been able to win Stalingrad

The non stop American daylight bombing campaign crippled German industry much faster than the Brits could have one alone.

it IS a meme that America "won the war"…the Russians really put a hurt on German manpower and equipment.

>Americans assisted in the invasions and liberations of North Africa, Italy, Greece, and France.

The Americans had about twice as many troops on the Western Front as the other allies combined, and were 75% of combat casualties in the 1944-1945 operations.

>Greece

There was no American invasion of Greece.

>These actions forced Germany to divert men and materials away from the Eastern Front...Hitler may have been able to win Stalingrad

Battle of Stalingrad was over before the Americans and Brits set foot in Italy much less France.

>The non stop American daylight bombing campaign crippled German industry much faster than the Brits could have one alone.

Speer was actually specifically asked which raids did more damage, British or American, and he responded both times when asked (first by the Brits, then the Americans) that it wasn't a contest. American raids did far more. Also, the USAAF broke the Luftwaffe.

Your friend is a fucking retard. The Lend Lease Act helped the Soviets tremendously.

the one thing I hate abut this board is you have to be literal as fuck or risk being crucified.

I did not say British bombing was more effective...I said the American campaign greatly sped up the crippling of Germn industry.

I did not say Americans were not the predomint force on the western front...

>assisted in the invasion of Greece
In the same sense that we assisted the Russians on the Eastern Front..materials

The one point I cant defend is the Stalingrad comment. We were in North Africa at the time and it probably only pulled occupation forces and not any troops from the East

dont get me wrong, I'm not trying tt downplay American involvement. Without them, the Brits faced the very real threat of invasion. I'm just saying they didnt win the war alone like plenty of Americans believe

>Lend lease didn't do shit
What the fuck are you smoking

T. Ivan Ivanovich

Not him, but it's even less than that; the amount of force that the Gemrans deployed in North Africa was always more limited by what the local infrastructure could supply, which wasn't much, not by how much overall force there was to distribute through the various fronts.

Once North Africa collapsed, you had close to 4 times as many troops being dispatched to Italy, and more still to guard places that the Allies could have invaded but didn't, Yugo, Greece, parts of France and Corsica, etc.

I seem to remember some raw material figures that showed like 50% of soviet aluminum was American, could be wrong though

They didn't have to actually be in France to heave dozens of German divisions account for them. The Germans anticipated an invasion for years.

No you actually are.

ll kicked in in43 when the soviets already won the war in the east without a 2nd front or any help.

yes they get credit for maybe 20%

Not sure if tankie or Lindy

>ll kicked in in43 when the soviets already won the war

No they hadn't, the largest battles were yet to come and Germany was still in every way a more powerful country than the USSR. And Lend-Lease had already arrived in large numbers before that point. By mid 1943 55% of Soviet trucks were Lend-Lease.

Do americans overplay their role (or at the very least underplay the rest of the allies) in pop culture to an almost creepy/propagandaish level?
Yes

Did they still play a significant role in winning the war?
Yes

Why do we have such a either/or mindset in the west?

German old enough to know veterans. Yankees put up a good propaganda show after the war. That's what they get credit for. The heavy lifting was Russian >inb4 muh lend lease >inb4 muh pacific theater with like 3 dozen dead soldiers
The Wehrmacht actually fought months longer than it wanted or could just to enable you fucks getting as far as you did so a big part of Germany had a chance of getting into your gilded cages instead of a gulag.

It's not an either/or mindset in the west, it's a stupid, fight starting mindset on Veeky Forums. (And to a lesser extent, the rest of the internet.) I've never had trouble discussing nuance in military operations off-line.

But by portraying things in a black and white, either-or, binary setup, you can maximize the chance that someone's going to start a fight, and Veeky Forums thrives on fights.

Which is of course why some 50% of military assets the Germans had post-Normandy were facing against the Western Allies. Or are you suggesting we just ignore the Luftwaffe?

usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/connor.pdf

I am so not having this discussion. You can feel like the winner in this one if you want to. Oh wait...

Way to admit you're BTFO, kraut

(20%)

We also beat Japan single-handed, the Brits did fuck all in the Pacific.

>50% of military assets the Germans had post-Normandy were facing against the Western Allies
So you got 50 facing East and 50% facing West. 50% are facing the Russians, and 50% are facing the Western Allies. These are made up of Britain, France, the US and Canucks, right? Sounds like about 20%

...

>35 people killed in combat

>We
>dat zerg mindset
How old are you?

>it wasn't significant because it wasn't le epic meatgrinder

U.S. forces were something like 2/3 of both the Italian and Western Fronts, and supplying well more than that. This is also ignoring things like the USAAF strategic bombing and its impact on the war, or how American involvement lead to total air supremacy and its subsequent impacts on operations.

USA! USA! Never ceases to amaze how their unfounded chauvinism never even takes a break for a minute of introspection. The worst warmonger in history sooo wants credit for the one good thing they did in their history that even the tinydicks on Veeky Forums have to discuss it every 2nd day

>worst warmonger in history
That's Great Shitain

>These are made up of Britain, France, the US and Canucks, right? Sounds like about 20%

There were more Americans in Italy and France/Belgium/West Germany than all other Allied countries combined, by a country mile, and those others all largely depended on American materiel.

>worst warmonger in history

You rang?

Ma*x is a honorary Anglo

USA! USA!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

So you are shooting for 30% of the credit now?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_involving_the_United_Kingdom

The US have been at war for over 90% of their pitiful existence and account for 20-30 million dead people since 1945 through unjustified wars and sanctions. Yet the one thing they want to talk about from their high horse is how they and they alone won WW2.

I'm not gonna defend the USA, but Britain did literally less than nothing in WW2 and they boast just the same. Anglo race needs to perish.

I agree, let's not talk about Britain.

>The US have been at war for over 90% of their pitiful existence and account for 20-30 million dead people since 1945 through unjustified wars and sanctions.

Defeating communism was not only justifiable, it was, and remains, a highly moral course of action.

International Law sees that differently. Your Ministry of Truth will be pleased by your answer though.

Laws are arbitrary and meaningless without the ability to enforce them.

In short, "might is right"?

Right is subjective. Might is effective.

Law is not subjective.

It's imagined.

No, Laws are agreed upon. Right and Law are not the same thing.
But I see you are actually agreeing that the US are an imperialistic menace, so we can stop now.
>we don't have to follow laws, because the others are EVIL

Agreements are imaginary too, and when only a few people are making those agreements that isn't really fair now is it.

>laws are agreed upon
By whom? Chances are that most of the people alive today had no say in the majority of the laws on the books in any 100+ year old country.

>vast majority of the conflicts are defensive wars or wars involving the defense of an ally
>warmonger
What

muh social contract user.

from which agreement were the US excluded again?
They actually set the whole thing in motion. With Nuremburg they ex post facto conjured a bunch of laws from thin air that they now refuse to follow. >war of aggression >crimes against humanity
The nazis argued the VERY SAME thing. They were just stopping communism which was the moral thing to do.

It would be unwise for us to follow laws that get in the way of our national interests and security when there's no realistic chance of anyone else being able to enforce those laws. As for the US being an imperialistic menace, that would largely depend on your point of view. If you're a communist or an agitator of our national interests, then yes, we'll probably impose upon you and be mean and you won't like it. But then again, fuck you.

Good boy

>If you're a communist or an agitator of our national interests, then yes, we'll probably impose upon you and be mean and you won't like it.

Just for shits and gigs, would you care to name some of the incredibly benevolent states with large amounts of power that have existed throughout history?

It's true, though. The U.S. has not had many offensive foreign wars. I can count 6 total.

No. I totally agree that power corrupts. Empires were all equally deluded. The Soviets brought equality, the Brits civilized the black man. I don't remeber the French's motives. Germany wanted to have a part of the cake with her colonies.
That constant pointing at the shortcomings of others is typically American though. They are not an iota better than empires before but style themselves the saviours of mankind. And the fucks on this board actually belive that propaganda.

Nukes can makeup for quite a lot.

To be fair, that's mostly because actually going to war hasn't been necessary a lot of times. We've attempted to exert influence in pretty much every country on earth since World War II, both diplomatically and through more underhanded means.

post the list, I'll comment on that if you want to.

>The Soviets brought equality

For a lot of people this was actually true.

>They are not an iota better than empires before

Objectively untrue, the USA's people and government through both direct and indirect action have contributed massively to creating the greatest standard of living in human history for the developed world. Along with the USSR they also were one of the main pushers for decolonization. And, much unlike the European empires, actually gave autonomy to their only real overseas colony after a short while and promised it independence soon after, which it granted on schedule despite having the ability to hold onto it.

>inb4 muh sweatshops

Sweatshops are a sign of economic progress, South Korea, Taiwan, and China had these during their booms and American-run sweatshops pay far better than local jobs and sustinence farming. Hence why locals want to work those jobs so bad. Don't believe the limousine liberals, Americans trading with them and buying their shit is massively beneficial to 3rd world countries.

Not even getting into the massive ramifications of stuff like the Green Revolution of the 60s, primarily the work of Americans.

The U.S. has had 30+ foreign wars, though.

>WWI
>Panama
>Grenada
>Iraq II
>Afghanistan
>Libya
You can theoretically add the Spanish-American War, but it was perceived as a defensive war for the U.S. and studies to the contrary have been inconclusive.

See, I don't believe I'm delusional in saying that the U.S. has been "better" than many previous empires. For instance, it would be pretty hard to conclude that Japan, South Korea, Western Europe etc. didn't benefit from our influence and world position significantly more than the eastern bloc did from the Soviets. It would probably be fair to say that we were fairly good to them because we thought it was in our best interests to do so, but the results are the same regardless, and you'd still have to admit that we were at least smarter or more capable than some of the other empires. Things don't have to be one extreme or the other. There's room for nuance and mixed feelings.

>creating the greatest standard of living in human history
That is true for a good portion of you rpopulation. How many are homeless, how many are incarcerated, there's no health care. YOu're either born into a decent standard of living or you're fucked. The capitalist promise that the next generation would have it better has been broken already.
>Along with the USSR they also were one of the main pushers for decolonization.
Yeah that was philanthropy right. Had nothing to do with propping up your won sphere of influence at the cost of other parties.
>actually gave autonomy to their only real overseas colony after a short while and promised it independence soon after,
Puerto Rico, these people cannot even vote on their president

>>WWI

The Germans sank American ships and tried to provoke a war between the USA and Mexico.

>>Panama

Deposing an unpopular dictator after he was proven to have been running drugs into the USA and his troops shot and killed American soldiers.

>>Grenada

Deposing an unpopular military dictator after he forcibly removed a friendly democratic government. Handed control to the next elected government and then left.

>>Iraq II

True.

>>Afghanistan

Aiding one faction in a civil war after the opposing faction was proven to have given shelter and aid to a faction that had directly attacked the USA numerous times, and this intervention only went forward when they refused to hand over the leader of said faction.

>>Libya

Kinda-maybe; again, backing one faction over the other in a civil war rather than attacking a country in general, and the intervention was primarily pushed by the French and also approved by the UN.

>That is true for a good portion of you rpopulation. How many are homeless, how many are incarcerated, there's no health care. YOu're either born into a decent standard of living or you're fucked. The capitalist promise that the next generation would have it better has been broken already.
Some of this is patently untrue, some is just very exaggerated. What is it about Marxists and a total refusal to live in reality?

>The Germans sank American ships
Germany never sank an American ship. Only British ships which happened to be carrying Americans. The infamous Lusitania was British.

>Panama
Still an offensive war. Operation Just Cause was unprovoked despite your claims.

>Grenada
Then why did the U.S. go in to defend "students" which were not being harmed in any way? The students in question were amazed that U.S. troops invaded a country on their behalf while themselves seeing no need for an intervention.

>Afghanistan
Still an offensive war

>Libya
Definitely an offensive war.

>That is true for a good portion of you rpopulation. How many are homeless, how many are incarcerated, there's no health care

A very slim minority that is nonetheless far too many. Despite that, median income in the USA is among the highest in the world. Americans are very well-off overall.

Also, that passage was referring to the impact of US policy on other countries. What used to be the European colonies are much better off under US hegemony in both relative and absolute terms than they ever were under European control.

>Yeah that was philanthropy right.

No one said it was philanthropy (it wasn't, at least mostly; it was primarily to assert an economic ideology), for either the Americans or Soviets. But what it was, was beneficial. Same how American trade deals giving preference to part of the developed worlds are pragmatism rather than philanthropy, yet still objectively result in enormous improvements to those country's economies.

>Puerto Rico, these people cannot even vote on their president

Puerto Rico was given a chance to become a state in 1998, they voted no due to the variety of benefits of economic benefits being a Commonwealth/territory like lower taxes. They recently voted in favor by a slim margin, but it was a non-binding referendum. How this goes forward remains to be seen.

Also, Puerto Ricans are US citizens and enjoy probably the highest standard of living in Latin America. And there are more Puerto Ricans in the USA than Puerto Rico right now. If this is all you can offer for American colonies, then it seems pretty nice.

Germany killed American citizens then. Also ignoring the Mexico issue.

No it wasn't, Panama fired the first shots and killed American soldiers first.

Stated reasoning is different from actual reasoning in politics, news at 11.

Neither Afghanistan or Libya were offensive wars in countries, they were backing one side in a civil war against another. In Afghanistan's case, directly after one of those factions had aided and abetted a paramilitary group that had repeatedly attacked the US, and refused to stop giving them shelter.

>>WWI
>>Panama
>>Grenada
>>Iraq II
>>Afghanistan
>>Libya
Now that's an arbitrary list, pre-sorted to make the US look good. I'll have a shot anyway
WW1: The US are still unimportant on the world stage and use a pretext to gain influence. They declared war on Germany. It's only logical, too. The US have pushed Spain out of the Philippines, rule over the Carribean and now have the Panama Canal. As your Admiral Mahan said, a strong navy is necessary for world dominance. Same imperialistic shit as all others
>Panama:
We're talking 1989/90 here, right? There were treaties in place that gave back the canal to Panama in 1999. The climate between Panama and the US became worse. The US exerted their power and subdued Panama. Noriega was a CIA agent financed from drug money. These drugs were later used as an excuse to oust him. The US even planted a bunch of flour to be presented as cocaine. Fucking amateurs. Imperialistic shenanigans nonetheless.
>Grenada:
The uS are 280 times larger than Grenada. Still the small country had to be raped to compensate for their wounded pride (rice farmers anyone?) Also it cannot be that a population in their backyard decides to drive out their own dicatator and try to develop their own country without US interference.
>Iraq II
That's a classic. I have posted several times how this came to be and will do this in a speparate post.
>Afghanistan:
Since when does a crime justify an invasion? It's all fine that the WTC guys may have had something to do with Afghanistan. But they certainly had more to do with Saudi Arabia. But Saudi Arabia has oil and is not at Russia's soft belly.
>Libya:
Yeah, Arab spring. Kicked in motion to weaken Russia and Iran at the same time. Got a little out of control. Since US politicians are generally not very far sighted it looked like a good propaganda job to get rid of the Colonel. Thanks for the mess. t. Europe. Now we have to deal with all the fuckin fugees he used to deal with.

>But they certainly had more to do with Saudi Arabia. But Saudi Arabia has oil and is not at Russia's soft belly.

Russia supported and aided the invasion of Afghanistan, it couldn't have been done without their cooperation. You're a retard.

>Since when does a crime justify an invasion?
When the criminals are beig sheltered by the group presuming to be the acting government of said state.
>It's all fine that the WTC guys may have had something to do with Afghanistan. But they certainly had more to do with Saudi Arabia
Being a Saudi national does not mean that the Saudi government directly condones your actions, or even that you actually live in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia's position is quite complicated, and it would be perfectly fair to blame them, in part, for Islamic extremism, but patently untrue to claim that the acting government of Saudi purposely funds attacks against the U.S. If they harbored an active terrorist and we told them not to, it would be done.

Iraq II:
In the 50s Iran was a nice and developed democracy. Their president Mossadegh decided it would be a good idea to use their oil wells for their own benefit and kicked the Brits out. Since GB lost all international relevance with WW2 (2 world wars and one world cup though, you're great, Britain. Should call yourself Awesome Britain, really) they turned to their now grown up child, the US, for help.
Operation Ajax commenced. The democratically elected president was toppled and replaced with the Shah. His reign heavily relied on secret police work and was such a burden on his people that they actually preferred a radical priest. Thus the mullah regime came to happen.
This again was not in the best interest of the US or their now lapdog, Awesome Britain, because muh oil is till in Iranian hands. Shit what do.
In the neighborhood there was this promising guy Saddam. He got all the help he needed to build one of the largest militaries in the world and set loose on Iran.
Didn't work so well and took ages. meanwhile the US secretely traded weapons with both sides. Too bad that the war bled Iraq completely dry. As Iran, Iraq was a well developed country with good standard of education and a broad middle class before that war. Western, you could say.
Afte that war, as said, Iraq was bled dry. What do? Er, there's that meme country that's actually a county of ours. Let's just take it. He acted in his country's interest ad exactly as before. In one case the US love it and help him, in the other case he's literally Hitler.

It's about oil and influence, nothing more. Imperialistic shenanigans.

OJOJO OJOJOJO OJOJOJOJOJOJOJO

That was a good move of Russia. After all it was the US who baited the USSR into Afghanistan a while back. There was a little hope they'd help clean up after themselves.

>When the criminals are beig sheltered by the group presuming to be the acting government of said state.
Funny how this is the first time the NATO "defence" was activated. The very NATO that was founded against the red menace is put to use right after the threat has vanished.
The UN actually asked her members to bring the criminals to justice not to invade a country.
>Being a Saudi national does not mean that the Saudi government directly condones your actions, or even that you actually live in Saudi Arabia.
Thank god, I was worried the US would also bomb Hamburg because of that.
Islamic extremism must be blamed on Britain though, they brought House Saud to power to weaken the Ottoman Empire. But actually it doesn't make much of a difference. Britain, the US, both anglos with the same agenda.

>pre-sorted to make the US look good
How does a list of self-admitted offensive wars make the U.S. look good exactly?

wrong assumption, my bad.

>it was the US who baited the USSR into Afghanistan
Are you literally retarded?

no, I can read. What about you?
The Soviet-Afghan War starting in 1979 ringing a bell? Who funded the Mujaheddin, fighters of Freedom again?

>giving money to the enemy of your enemy is the same as baiting the enemy into attacking them