America Winning the War

>Germany also lost close to 4 million on the western front
If you're implying there were almost as many casualties on the Western front as in the East but within 1 year instead of 4, then the Western front must have been quite the bloodbath

You claimed that Germany "lost" 5 million soldiers on the eastern front. That's certainly not "Killed only", since I'm aware of no estimate, not even Rutiger Overmans' that goes that high. And why are you not counting captured and wounded but not returned to service, or people pocketed and kept out of the war indefinitely? They're every bit as out of the fight as the dead.

[spoiler] We both know it's because you're butthurt. Are you pro-Soviet or just anti-American?[/spoiler]

>listed only dead nazis

Why? A POW is just as incapable of resisting.

>getting your soldiers captured doesn't count as losing them

The overwhelming majority of German casualties on the Eastern Front were from 44-45, not the earlier portions of the war. Turns out that when you're losing, you tend to go through troops faster than when you're winning, when you have entire Soviet Fronts crashing through to your rear areas and chewing things up willy-nilly.

And again, a lot of it was maneuver, maneuver, surround, surrender, which doesn't quite fit the popular conception of "bloody", even if it was very rapidly eroding Wehrmacht capabilities in the region.

>The overwhelming majority of German casualties on the Eastern Front were from 44-45
wat

being efficient at dying does not a war win

slavshit

Try less infographics, and more actual scholarship.amazon.com/Deutsche-militärische-Verluste-Zweiten-Weltkrieg/dp/3486565311/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1493253677&sr=8-5&keywords=Rudiger overmans

Also, don't make the same mistake that the other user is making, that casualties=Killed in action.

Next time try using a source that i can actually find online without spending $100, in a language that i can read
Anyway, equating a captured German soldier who surrendered to the western allies because the war was ending anyway to a soldier killed in action from 40-44 sounds a bit questionable to be
Do you perhaps have any information of the amounts of deaths and surrenders of German soldier on each front, and also by year?

also i'm going to bed now

>Anyway, equating a captured German soldier who surrendered to the western allies because the war was ending anyway to a soldier killed in action from 40-44 sounds a bit questionable to be
What makes a PoW any less out of the war than a KIA? And what makes a 44 casualty on the western front less meaningful than a 44 one on the Eastern?

>Do you perhaps have any information of the amounts of deaths and surrenders of German soldier on each front, and also by year?
Not with both at once, I'd have to collate it from several sources, which is annoying at the best of times because not everyone uses the same standards (especially where wounded are concerned) to calculate casualties. If I had to do it, it would take hours, maybe even a day or two, and especially if you're going to bed, I doubt I'd have it done anytime soon.

>Anyway, equating a captured German soldier who surrendered to the western allies because the war was ending anyway

This is a meme. The majority of men who went this way surrendered after the war was over, and thus, are not counted on e.g. that Wikipedia table.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmed_Enemy_Forces

>Do you perhaps have any information of the amounts of deaths and surrenders of German soldier on each front, and also by year?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II#Statistical_study_by_R.C3.BCdiger_Overmans

For deaths. For POWs by month:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_prisoners_of_war_in_northwest_Europe#Western_Allies.27_figures

Don't forget Italy:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Campaign_(World_War_II)#cite_note-Ellis255-5

The Russians couldnt have fielded air power without the US and UK. They couldnt produce high octane gasoline, didnt have aluminum,etc...

The Luftwaffe would have skull fucked their ground troops without the US and UK propping them up. And thats not even talking about the massive amounts of food,supplies, raw materials,etc... provided.

The Soviets would have been fucked without the US and UK.

Unlikely. While large scale counterattacking would be enormously different if possible at all, the notion that the Soviets would be rolled up into the dirt and totally conquered without Lend-Lease isn't really backed up by the evidence, namely how so much of Lend-Lease arrived after the initial German attacks had mostly run out of steam.

This chart is shit for so many reasons not the least of which is that all it says is how much money was spent not how much material was sent for that that cost and what percentage of the Soviet war effort that material was.

Germany lost it's momentum before LL was a factor. LL only shortened the war by letting the Soviets keep momentum.

Germany didn't have the resources to continue and at most without LL Germany could muster one more big offensive (assuming the Soviets can't continue their momentum). The war would only be lengthened by a year and a half at most.

I'll agree America have more propaganda than most
But here in England we know we won the western front but not the war, that was Russia, all America did was be home to Jews and their loansharks

In Australia, both world wars are taught as 'lions led by donkeys', more focusing on individual units or people, rather than generals or politicians getting the praise.

(Different person)
Considering the Luftwaffe had been significantly damaged by Britain it's hard to tell if a complete German Army could have defeated Russia. If the weakening of Germany's air force was important to Stalin's success then it seems like Britain doesn't get the credit it deserves.

>'lions led by donkeys
This is just as much a meme as "America won the war" even for ww1

The new CoD will also have a British and French campaign.

Literally nobody in Britain believes they single-handedly won the war, just that they defended themselves alone, which they did.

I will say you Brits definitely knocked out Italy and the combined German-Italian navy for sure. You guys were obliterating in the Atlantic and Operation Compass, and without the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe would've been in a much better position to bomb our asses to hell.

I honestly haven't heard anyone say that we (Britain) single-handedly won the war at all.

We take more pride in the fact that we could have just called for an armistice to stop being bombed to pieces every other day but we didn't, we chose to go on even though the odds were stacked against us.

Africa tends to be forgotten about a lot by normies too. We blown the fuck out of the Italians so hard that the Nazis had to divert men to save them, even with the German backup they struggled to make much progress. Whenever they did manage to capture territory it was normally retaken a short time later, they just couldn't keep up with the insane logistics of the Royal Navy.

Not to mention you won the North African front, beating the Germans, and were already winning begore Operation Torch

Before LL Britain already sent Stalin and the USSR crucial equipment. Trains and Trucks, foremost. Without them the redeployment of Siberian troops to the battle of moscow would have take too long.

I don't want to belittle the soviets contribution but taking down the third reich was team effort.
Usa paid the bill and smacked the japs, USSR killed the Wehrmacht and Britain kept the sea near Europe clear.
Missing one of the major allied players would have meant a far longer war and a possible defeat. It was already mindbogling how far the Wehrmacht came, despite their inferior position.

Hell the german army of the Kaiserreich was probably better in terms of organization and troop qualitiy compared to the Wehrmacht.

what is that?

German military deaths OVERALL on all fronts amounted to 5-6 million

>Italy isnt even in the second picture
Lel

>You also live in America.
This. Britbongs think they're the ones who saved the world from Hitler.

I think it's because without America joining the war, Germany would have taken all of Europe and then would have had only to fight on one front versus the Soviets instead of spreading itself too thin on multiple fronts

no we don't, though no doubt most parts of it that didn't involve us are understated

The funny thing is the fact that Trex was a giant chicken anyways

Modern chicken is evolved TRex

They were American though werent they? Its a failure of your education system. People with even a cursory knowledge of history dont think that.

>Despite having several posts on the subject in this very thread, I will STILL stupidly claim that the only sorts of casualties are Killed In Action.
Were your mother and father brother and sister? Were you dropped as a baby, or perhaps thrown? I don't get how anyone could possibly be this stupid.

1. the narrative happened in the Cold war where none of the other allies liked the USSR and probably weren't keen on giving them that much credit

2. other than USSR the US was the only one left that wasn't a collapsing wasteland so they quickly dominated all the other allies

3. Britain was kinda US's bitch throughout the Cold war

4. China is the same explanation as Russia but also have the added problem of not being white

5. Besides US, UK, USSR, and China all the other allies, though fought valiantly in resistance, all lost the war. They got their asses kicked so they don't get credit.

this
this

>Go to UK or anywhere else and listen to them talk about how they single-handedly won the war.
Literally no one in the UK believes this

>3. Britain was kinda US's bitch throughout the Cold war

Not really. Outside of the suez, Britain quite commonly disobeyed america, look at the Falklands and Vietnam.

Because we carried the team /thread/

probably confused WWII with WWI

>While America made a large contribution to WWII

>Dropping 2 bombs and fighting against an already losing team is a hard to Americans

>While America made a large contribution to WWII, why do so many people still think it was them going solo and toppling the Axis?

Because your maximum level of education is the high school level and you live in the United States. It turns out states have an interest in their state funded education and gear their education of history towards their own history.

North Africa was hilarious if you asked me.

Outnumbered 10/1 with outdated equipment (shitty crusader tanks that couldn't take the heat, hurricanes stiffer than a 4-engine bomber) against a country with a substantial military-industrial complex. And still get their asses kicked.

It's even funnier when you look at the initial Italian assault on Greece - they were actually losing even.

Because if the US stayed complete neutral Europe would just be Germany, and China wouldn't have billions of people.

>American troops just sat in the pacific until the bombs

If anything US involvment is underplayed, but then again im from europe.

>why do so many people still think it was them going solo and toppling the Axis?

"Amateurs think tactics, experts think logistics."

americans waltzed through comfy western europe fucking french and german women along the way

they bypassed german outposts and mostly just collected surrendering germans. not only that they were fighting conscripted old men and boys, the most inexperienced troops germany had.

it does not compare at all to the massive battles and millions of men killed on the eastern front. anyone who knows history or isn't a butthurt american knows who really won the war.

pic related, french citizens from 1945 compared to french citzens now asked who they thought helped the most in WW2,

>waltzing through confy western europe
>conscripted men and boys
>collected surrendering Germans
>the most inexperienced soldiers germany had

What are: SS Divisions
What is: A schwerer panzer abteilung
Where is: Hurtgen Forest

>Implying the Americans had no involvement in defeating Germany
>Implying the Western Allies in general had nothing to do with defeating Germany

Can't tell if Sovietboo or Brit. You sound an awful lot like Monty right before Market Garden.

Yeah we did win ww1 with French help, but could have won it by ourselves, once the convoy system was developed Germany was doomed and they wouldn't be willing to continue the war like Napoleon did
But yeah ww2 you definetly need Russia to win, and Britain to keep Germany at war so it hasn't properly recovered in time for Barbarossa

>Britain was a collapsing wasteland
Sorry honey who still gets the most from their colonies and with no running fees

>Implying the Americans had no involvement in defeating Germany
>Implying the Western Allies in general had nothing to do with defeating Germany

In terms of material, sure. In terms of spilling blood, no. Hell, the UK lost more than the US in the war.

Reminder the soviets would have completely collapsed without American aid, and I don't mean troops, I mean the resources to actually fight the Germans. Russia would have starved.

You can try to change the story as much as you want, but without america
A. All of Europe falls to Germany
B. All of Europe falls to the soviets after Germany is defeated

>americans waltzed through comfy western europe fucking french and german women along the way

stop

why do americans always post this creepy shit. its cringey as fuck.

Because it's literally true and most of our grandmothers are german war brides

SS divisions were the firefigthers of the reich, whereever there was a gap in the frontline or a planned counterattack, they moved there
between operations they were refitted, and stationed somewhere in western europe

hurtgen forest is not a major battle
the heavy tank battalions were independant and were assigned to different divisions depending on where they were needed apart

Probably because the French were salty all the Americans were shit talking them for surrendering like the bitches they were and are.

eh, apart from the grossdeutchland panzergrenadiers, they had their own

>The amount of your people that die in a war is a good measure of how positively you contributed to said war
Those Carthaginians lost WAY more more people in the 3rd Punic War than Romans, Scipio BTFO amirite

no it isn't

stop fetishising ww2 you autist

Whilst deathes aren't an accumulative measure of war contribution, they are an indicator on which nations gave up the most.

>all these europoors in this thread

>America has so much propaganda!
Coming from the country with the state-run media corporation
>America didn't help out significantly in the war
Churchill disagrees. Also, if they didn't help, why did the allies name an American "Supreme Commander of Allied Forces"? Can you get any more cucked?

Well if you're equating "giving up" to "contributing", Viva la France!

>Coming from the country with the state-run media corporation
Almost every developed country has one

>Can you get any more cucked
Considering Anerica had 5 x the population of the UK and 5x the industry, how about capturing the same number of beaches on D-Day?

>Deathes
>Giving up

Kill yourself immature shit

this is true.

Considering it's a stones throw away from your shores and an ocean away from theirs, sounds like it was your fucking problem, and you should be thankful

If you ignore the fact the American trucks kept the red army supplied and moving, well into the cold war with how much equipment the Russians were given, or the two divisions of tanks or all the food.
The Soviets may have done the Lions share of the combat, but the Americans made it possible, all well helping bomb German industry to dirt and keep them from producing more equipment then they did.
Speer actually had production go up in spite of allied bombing.
Imagine it without it, the Soviets did not have the tactical bombing capabilities of the United states.
Also let's not forget the US and brits doing the Lions share of Africa, Italy, and Japan.
Even if the Soviets had surrendered Germany had lost the war before they invaded the ussr. They did not have the capabilities to keep Africa, and that left them cut off with their much weaker navy then the allies. They would have been largely starved out.
All Russia did was hasten the process.

American education. No memes, and i'm not saying their education is bad, everyone just pays lip service to themselves. In the former Yugoslavia the same amount of time in high school is dedicated to muh partisans as is to the rest of the war.

>You win wars by dieing for your county.
No wonder everyone says America is shitty at fighting.

American history class is propaganda followed with regugitation, pure and simple
I struggled so hard in my college history courses because I had no idea what actual historians do or how to write a paper or the value of primary sources

It's a joke. There is a lot of right-wing influence on what our schools teach

...

>In terms of material, sure. In terms of spilling blood, no. Hell, the UK lost more than the US in the war.

Poland lost more people in two months of the 1944 Warsaw Uprising then the U.S. lost in the entire war.

Russians would've simply had less momentum to counterattack, and they actually had lots of domestic aluminum

Haha
Tankies will try to refute it but they can't

Not really. Germany declared war on the USA.

Hitler was also done for peace with the UK at any time.

> Reminder the soviets would have completely collapsed without American aid

Agreed.

> You can try to change the story as much as you want, but without america

No U.S. Lend-Lease to the Soviets (and earlier Cash & Carry) would more than likely result in the cease fire with the Germans, (and Stalin’s “retirement”) as the Germans couldn’t conquer all of the U.S.S.R., with a kinda Nazi-Soviet Cold War until the Soviets (with British help) eventually invade Nazi Germany.

>deathes
Do I detect an ESL vatnik?

...

Its in the lower right corner, hiding

>And what makes a 44 casualty on the western front less meaningful than a 44 one on the Eastern?

He didn't say that, he said that there is a difference between a german casualty on the east front in 43 and a german casualty on the western front in 45.

And he is right, there is a adifference

The only thing that matters is who got the most Naxi scalps. It was just a game guys, chill.