Where did the ''America won WW2 for the Allies'' myth come from?

Lend Lease was extremely useful, but its benefits were outweighed by the clusterfuck of German logistics.
True, up to 42% of the forces in the East were non-German like Hungarians, Finns, and Romanians, but these countries were in no better position than the Germans.

>Help us Germany, we're losing to Greece
>Help us Germany we're losing to the British
>Help us Germany we're losing to the British and the Americans
Italy didn't give very good returns on investment

I'm more interested in where the 'Soviets did it' meme comes from. Communist apologists?

Lol. Although to be fair, Russia should have a little arrow in Manchuria.

The Soviets did more against Germany than any other nation (after first allying with them then getting backstabbed), but won the war? Lolno.

>military success is measured in the number of miles your troops travel.
ok.

>military success is measured by popularity
Alright.

IT WAS A JOINT EFFORT YOU NIGGERFAGGOT

Sure thing commieboo.

poor china

...

Can this lend-lease causing soviet victory meme please stop
This is debated here approximately once a week, and has the same outcome every thread.
Someone posts the official US lend lease statistics per year, and it shows that 99% of american aid came after Stalingrad, and 95% came after Kursk. Therefore while the lend lease was naturally useful, the majority of which only arrived after soviet victory was near ensured, and thus only lead to the war ending 6 months earlier then otherwise.

Unironically, outright triggered by this image

Those percentages are a bit of an exaggeration but whatever

I consider the Brits to have done more for victory in Europe than the Americans did.

J O I N T E F F O R T

Except the British unironically couldn't get shit done until the Americans joined in.

Humans are a renewable resource.

meme

>kept 1/4 of german forces garrisoning atlantic coast during babarossa
>crippled the german airforce in 1940
>did 90% of the work in north africa
>held up the japanese in burma
>did 90% of the work in the mediterranean

because it is true

> crippled the german airforce in 1940

The Americans would shoot down more planes in a single quarter than Germany lost on the entire Western Front before Barbarossa.

>held up the japanese in burma

That was as much the Chinese and the Jungle as much as the British.

> did 90% of the work in the Mediterranean

> We beat up the fucking Italians, Rule Britannia.

Britain's naval performance in WW2 is not that much to be proud of. They fought the Japanese twice and lose both times. Only came back after the IJN was already smashed to pieces.

>Cutting off German trade to anywhere outside of Europe
>Sinking the Kriegsmarine
>Sinking the Regia Marina
>Defended North Africa
>Beating the Luftwaffe and beginning the bombing of German factories and towns
>Keeping the arctic lend-lease route open
>Forcing the Germans to station significant amounts of troops in France and away from the Eastern Front
>Forcing the Germans to station significant amounts of troops in the Mediterranean and away from the Eastern Front
>Developing the SOE to encourage partisans to waste the German resources throughout Europe
And last but not least,
>Developing the most effective intelligence framework in the entire war through the double-cross system and Bletchley park

This is all before the Americans truly joined the war.

When the Americans did join the war, the Brits made similar contributions in troop strength to both France and Italy despite being much smaller.

WWII was won with American muscle, British brains, and Russian blood.

Serious talk. Could Russia have won on their own without land-lease?
I see people arguing that Russia would have lost without it so Americans can still take credit. But it didn't really get going until after Stalingrad, and the war was decided by then.

So which is it?

>Serious talk. Could Russia have won on their own without land-lease?
Yes, but it would have been harder obviously. Iirc a lot of the lend lease stuff was shit that the Russians didn't really produce like rail cars and boots.

I believe Khrushchev, who was the political officer in charge at Stalingrad. He said in his autobiography that there was no way they could have pulled off what they did at Stalingrad, moving so many divisions so fast, without the American trucks.

>against german subs in atlantic
>italian and vichy navy in mediterranean
>nips in pacific
wow guys, i wonder why they couldnt defeat the third biggest navy in the world on the literal other side of the world
considering they couldnt keep full control of the mediterranean and atlantic until 1943, its no surprise they didnt prioritise defending colonies

muh trucks

There's a couple variations to this questions.

All things the same, could the Soviets beat Germany without L/L.

Definitely, because even without L/L, the Germans weren't would not be able to force a Soviet surrender. Once the second front opened up with D Day, the Germans would have to divert a lot of resources to the Western Front, which would cause their collapse in the East. Worst comes to worst, the Germans get nuked and surrender in late 45/46.

Without LL and without D-Day. This becomes a bit more dicey, because both the Soviet Union and Germany were running out of military aged males around 45.

Pic related is Soviet demographics from 1946, males are blue, dark blue are deaths. 2/3rds of the males aged 25-45 are dead. Even the Soviets don't have truly unlimited amounts of manpower to draw from, because you can't draft everyone, there are people in war critical fields that you can not press onto the front lines on the attack. I think this might seriously start becoming a problem when they try to push into Germany. Not to mention, without LL, their progress in 44 would likely not be as good, especially since American made trucks were critical in allowing rapid movement during Bagration.

Without the Western front or any American/British efforts against the Germans, the Soviets lose. I don't think there's any doubt of that. Germany diverted a ton of resources into not only garrisoning the western front, but also into the Kreigsmarine, flak, and the Luftwaffe. Without the Western Allies chewing up the Luftwaffe, the Germans might not lose air supremacy in the East, and that would make life for the Soviets much harder. The tens of thousands of 88mm AA tubes in the Ruhr valley instead go to the eastern front, and now the Soviets are facing many many more AT guns. While the Italians, are rightfully considered a joke in the field, they can free up more German formations from garrison duty and sent to the front.

Well said, one of the only nonbiased and factual posts here
While the threat of a landing from the British and later americans would draw german resources away from the eastern front(1/4 of total resources is what i often read), would that really be the tipping point that would cause a soviet defeat? An organised soviet resistence would have been likely up to the urals, and i am hesitant to conclude that even with these extra resources the german logistics could continue that far

Thanks bro

>2/3rds of the males aged 25-45 are dead.
looks more like 1/3

This also busts the myth that men need to chase pussy to gain the motivation to accomplish great things like go to space. The opposite is true, with their balls empty and free from the burden of women they enter a calm serene state and naturally accomplish great things.

Lmao nobody even remembers China participating in the war

Britain kept the Germans at bay until the Acronyms got involved, if Britain had capitulated there would've been no WWII as we know it. Hitler wouldn't have had to attack the USSR and America never would've gotten involved.

It's the same as saying Africa is 'the most historically important continent' just because humanity started there.

China's job was to push an occupation. Same as France.
Far less glorious, I'll give you that.

>Hitler wouldn't have had to attack the USSR
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum

This is a good post. But
Is being too open ended.

Without America there /would/ be no D-Day, maybe a rag-tag last ditch effort by Britain and her Empire to push a favorable surrender with Hitler but no America = no D-Day = no second front.

China held their own.

Soviets would not have won without allied lend lease, soviets drove american trucks, ate american and south american grain, had American and British strategic support, and in general were held up by imports. not to say it wasnt soviet men and women dying to defend their country, but they wernt doing well without help.

America won the pacific theater, Brits and Australians were on the backfoot without the US

>Lebensraum
The full extent of that was only realised after the declaration of war on the USSR. Originally it was just Poland, but then he expanded it into Russia as a propaganda device.

Hell, originally Hitler was taking ethnic Germans out of the USSR to resettle in Poland, before they were even at war. If he truly wished to settle Germans in Russia, land that was supposedly going to be conquered long term, why would he remove Germans from the region only to have to settle them again?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_ins_Reich

He only got on to the whole 'muh Germans in the Urals' thing later.

>riginally it was just Poland, but then he expanded it into Russia as a propaganda device.
That's simply not twoo

Glantz says that without Lend-Lease the Soviets would have a harder time initiating offensives and encirclements, because American trucks and trains were very vital to keeping the supplies moving quickly. It would have taken perhaps 12-18 months more and at a greater cost to lives on both sides, but with a Soviet victory nonetheless.
A German victory seemed slim after 1941 either way. They had simply lost too many vehicles and used up too much oil. Only 39,000 lorries were produced in 1941, compared to the 121,529 total vehicles lost during Barbarossa. The Germans could requisition enemy vehicles, which is what they did; in fact many formations at the start of Barbarossa contained large amounts of vehicles taken after the campaign in the West, but this created even more logistical problems due to all the different spare parts needed. Over 2,000 types of vehicles were used by the Wehrmacht in 1941, and Army Group Center alone required a million different spare parts. Fuel supplies were exhausted despite the hounding of Romania to increase production - Germany's department of war economy could only allocate 48,000 tons of oil to the army in the east in early 1942, despite a monthly need of 100,000 to 120,000 tons. There's a reason the summer offensive of 1942 was only conducted along one axis unlike the front-wide assault in Barbarossa - there wasn't enough fuel. The Wehrmacht would go on to lose even more vehicles in 1942, a staggering 240,000. Even if the Germans managed to take the Caucasus oilfields, it could take years for them to be operational again, and a German advance all the way to Grozny would be woefully overextended.
Really, unless the Germans had more vehicles, oil, and training of their drivers to prepare in the conditions of Russia, I don't see much chance of winning. They had to make up for their lackluster railroads somehow, to supply an offensive that would defeat the USSR.

*48,000 tons of fuel, vehicles don't run on crude.

...

>did 90% of the work in the mediterranean

considering they were the idiots who made that into a pointless theater of war they should have done 100%

>literally get BTFO on every continent
>surrender to more people, more often than France
>still have some insane superiority complex despite more or less endless failure

the british were a fucking meme

>its no surprise they didnt prioritise defending colonies

literally what they did though, we were only farting about in the Med because of Churchill's MUH EMPIRE delusion

Yea I made a typo, it's 1/3rd.

But that it still levels of casualties that the US/UK has never experienced in modern history. If you go much father than that, there wouldn't be many military age men left to draft. You can give a rifle to Grandfathers and teenagers, but don't expect them to do much besides die where they stand. To conduct the kinds of offensive operations needed to win WW2, you need fit men of fighting age. The sheer act of marching grandfathers and teenagers to the front would kill or cripple many of them, and once engaged in combat, they wouldn't last long before fatigue takes it's toll.

The key to military success is an endless supply of 18 year olds who think themselves invulnerable to bullets. Germany already ran out in mid 44, the Soviets still had a couple million in reserve, but that reserve is getting very thin by late 45.

Attached picture is Germany's demographics from 1939 and 1950, overlaid so that each horizontal bar is for people born in the same year. The light blue shows how many were counted in 1939, the slightly darker blue shows how many were counted in 1950. Keep in mind that the 39 number includes Austria, the Sudetenland, and Memel.

Khruschev was just butthurt at stalin and wanted to downplay him. Soviets would win either way.

>Where did the ''America won WW2 for the Allies'' myth come from?
People who don't read books.

"History knows no greater display of courage than that shown by the people of Soviet Russia..."
Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of War

"We and our allies owe and acknowledge an everlasting debt of gratitude to the armies and people of the Soviet Union."
Frank Knox, Secretary of the Navy

"...the scale and grandeur of the Russian effort mark it as the greatest military achievement in all history."
Gen Douglas MacArthur, Commander Southwest Pacific

I agree, the greatest achievement of the United States during world war 2 is acknowledging that the Soviet Union did everything.

The first aid offered by the US and UK were both in loans, £10 million (16 August 1941), $1 billion (30 October 1941) an addition $1 billion (18 February 1942).

t. burger
dont let your inflated sense of nationalism get in the way of facts

>wwii was only in europe

All the Anglos did in WW2 that was worthwhile was acting as a jump pad for d-day and this it
Dont even get me started on shitshow that was western front before America got involved

For me it's when I actually looked at the dates. That's when the Soviet meme got me.

The way the movies talk about it, D-Day was in the middle of the conflict and an epic battle for civilization under the humble but brilliant leadership of Eisenhower ensued, with U.S. gumption pulling through in the end. But then you notice it actually happened at the very end of the war. What the hell was going on before then?

If Germany ever had a hope of winning they would have made critical successes before mid 1944. When the initial push stalled we can now, with the help of hindsight, say that the doom had already set. When Nazi Germany actually started retreating lines back people even contemporary should have been able to tell Germany was double fucked. The USSR out gunned Germany in manpower and production on pretty much every front, meaning even a stalemate is guaranteed death by attrition alone.

I don't see how anyone can think the amazingly delayed second front critically mattered after that point, knowing those basic facts.

the real red pill was there was no way for Germany to win the war.
Once they let loose the dogs of war with poland, there is no math that ends with them winning.
maybe, maybeee in a alt timeline if they found a way to keep France and England from honoring their pact with Poland, Germany could have held on to Poland, but thats it. but in any timeline once they invaded france, there was no way to win

That photo is bullshit
This is more accurate
>b-but muh D-Day!!!
most troops were empire troops, despite the attempts to Yankwash this by Hollywood
>b-but Japan!
Yes, that is true. HOWEVER, Britain did far more to harm Germany (the main threat) than America.

I'm not a burger, and I precisely said that the United States did nothing. I just didn't understand the quotes of the other guy.

>Once the second front opened up with D Day, the Germans would have to divert a lot of resources to the Western Front, which would cause their collapse in the East
they had a fuckton of resources there even before 1944.

Hows that movie on Dunkirk coming along?
You must be real heroes running away.

Japan was a threat of its own. And apart from diverting the luftwaffe and the kriegsmarine and a lot of ressources on the western front (which indeed helped the soviets), the British waited until 1944 to move their ass.
My point is : the Soviet Union (with help from Britain) did everything to crush Germany, while the United States did everything to crush Japan.

What you all are missing is America's and Roosevelt's deep suspicion of European and English colonialism and territory ambitions post war.
Which is the exact reason England's landlease were kept on such a sort lease. America might not have won the war by themselves but the fucking won the peace by setting the groundwork. And all the land they asked for was enough space to bury their dead.

The war was a stupid ponzi scheme from Germany, no one talks about it only took a year into the war for Germany to start feeling privation back home, which led to more forced labor in the collaborating countries, the only way to keep this going was with a ponzai sceme style escalation of more slave labor and expansion and yet more hard handness in the occupied countries. Which only had one end, overexertion and ruin.
Hilter was a war idiot. He fell for the same trap Napoleon did when Britannia blockaded them. Either run out of food or expand and expand, till you have to extend into Russia and run out of food anyways.

strategic retreat ≠ running away

>What the hell was going on before then?
The western front was opened at Stalin's insistence. The US wanted to land as early as 1943 but the Brits wished to secure Africa first, given the inexperience of American troops, this was probably a good decision. Still, in 1944 the US wanted a far larger operation, with Patton actually landing at Pas-de-Calais and simultaneous landings in Southern France (later Operation Dragoon), but neither were possible due to lack of landing craft. To their credit, the Allies did eventually have to sit on the Elbe for a month waiting on the Soviets. They'd have been waiting a lot longer with an earlier invasion. Whether the allies could have taken Berlin or not is an old debate, but there are accounts of journalists in American jeeps driving into Berlin's suburbs unopposed.

You're also overlooking the air war and the role it played as a much earlier "second front" diverting significant resources and manpower.

It was a strange war.

Industrial output.

>HOWEVER, Britain did far more to harm Germany (the main threat) than America.
I have a hard time believing this considering the British weren't able to take any strategic initiative against Germany before the US joined besides bumming around in North Africa and weren't even able to pierce continental Europe until the US joined them.

The Royal Navy pretty much pleaded for the US to give them more ships before the US joined and then asked for the USN to help them out with the Battle of the Atlantic after they joined as as well(while the USN was fighting the IJN simultaneously in the Pacific too).

For the air war, while the British like to tote the Battle of Britain as them beating the Luftwaffe, the numbers show that the Americans practically dismantled the Luftwaffe in 1944. And for joining the war much later, the USAAF dropped way more ordnance from strategic bombers on Germany than the RAF.

>USAAF dropped way more ordnance from strategic bombers on Germany than the RAF.
no shit. It's easy to do that when you don't have to worry about building fuck loads of interceptors and fighters (thanks Britain)

>no shit. It's easy to do that when you don't have to worry about building fuck loads of interceptors and fighters (thanks Britain)
Except the fact that the US built a shit load of planes too. The real reason why they were able to drop more were because US fighters had a vastly superior range and were able to escort their bombers deep into Germany, hence why you see that German aircraft losses piled up in 1943-1944.

Brits had the best intelligence work of the war, the germans were the worst

Its true that Germany would had lost eventually, but the US interference did fast up it by maybe even half a decade.
Defending only one front, with heavily populated regions and with the alliance of Hungary, Romania and the Finns would had been way more easier. You also forget that the Finns and the Romanians (and Hungarians but they failed) gave up the war when the sovjets reached their borders because they knew that the Germans were totally fucked between the US and the sovjets.

Good post

Germany got crushed

Oh fuck, that makes sense. The Americans decided to send absurd amounts of LL to the soviets who were going to defeat the Germans regardless, because they wanted their authoritarian, murderous, hostile empire to pose more of a challenge afterwards and they thought berlin would be better Russian anyway. Really activates all of the almonds.

It's not a myth. Without American economic support the Soviet Union would have lost.

You need a Pteranadon in there bombing the shit out of Germanisaurus Rex and dropping a nuke on Japanasaurus Rex

I think David Glantz can be blamed/credited with that.

>Britain was literally the only ally worth a damn for the first third of the war
>Britain nothing in WWII

lmao are those Chinese soldiers in Stahlhelms?

While I'll grant that the German intelligence network was shit, I'd argue the Soviets, rather than the British, had the best spy network. Just because Stalin ignored his spies early on doesn't mean they gathered bad information.

Where's the Canadasaur?

That Italian Dino, makes my day everytime.

>USSR was popular in 1945s France
Got it.

>downplay the role of the Soviets so as to hinder admiration of their ideology.

ameritards created this role themselves

>Uncle Joe is benevolent dictator and our greatest ally! lmao

>What you all are missing is America's and Roosevelt's deep suspicion of European and English colonialism and territory ambitions post war.
crippled, schizophrenical loon somewhat was okay with commie expansionism
>but the fucking won the peace by setting the groundwork.
Yeah, glorious peace in Korea and Nam. Once again what were ameritard losses in these conflicts against their best comrades?

Those numbers all presuppose a US/UK blockade of oil and material into Germany though and use production numbers based on a Germany and Italy subject to heavy strategic bombing from the Western allies.

Realistically, there is no way Hitler invades the USSR and everyone stays out, but in some weird parallel world where they have access to the US oil and material market, they likely win.

when are we getting a movie on kiska?

On one hand, peace with Britain would have given the Germans time to consolidate their gains and reorganize their military. On the other hand, the whole Winter War debacle encouraged Germany to attack the USSR as soon as possible. World War II was a train that was already well underway by then; Britain's premature exit would have deterred American involvement to some degree, but it's likely that the British would have gotten back in somehow, probably after Pearl Harbour.

Germany trained and equipped the GMD in the 1920's and 1930's due to similar political alignments and because money. They left after signing the Tripartite Pact with Japan. Intermittently, the GMD also drew support from the Soviet Union during the brief period of cooperation with the communists, as well as shortly after the Germans left; USSR then left the GMD to fend for itself after it was invaded by Germany. From thereon, the United States stepped in.

Well of course, if they had access to the US market and had the money they could buy all the oil, rubber, and Studebakers they needed, instead of using French trucks like these.

Well, considering that a large proportion of the French resistance was communist, yes, they probably were popular.

>muh eastern front
literally babbys first 'what you didnt lern in highskool'