Burgers say the USSR had almost nothing to do with the victory over the Germans and that the UK and US did more

>Burgers say the USSR had almost nothing to do with the victory over the Germans and that the UK and US did more

>Russiaboos say USSR did everything and saved Europe from the Germans

Which is true Veeky Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_aircraft_production
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_production_during_World_War_II
picshare.ru/uploads/140120/1R64qC6h2m.jpg
lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/geust/aircraft_deliveries.htm
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
uboat.net/fates/losses/
usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/connor.pdf
dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=100&year=1941
tothosewhoserved.org/usa/wd/usawd06/appendixg.html
scribd.com/document/270450475/United-States-Army-in-World-War-II-Statistics-LendLease
archive.org/stream/1942LendLeaseContribution/Lend-lease-wiki-8_djvu.txt
gazeta.ru/science/2016/03/11_a_8115965.shtml
scribd.com/document/51564619/INTERNATIONAL-AID-STATISTICS-WW2
ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/
tandfonline.com.sci-hub.cc/doi/abs/10.1080/13518049408430160
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Neither.

As a burger, i've never heard anyone saying the USSR did nothing

I was in a thread on /wsg/ and I saw someone say the US did more, and that they let the USSR take Berlin to "please their autistic dictator"

Also, I heard that the USSR had no tactical intelligence, even by the end of the war?

Latter.

80% of German forces died in the east.

>I will ONLY count kills and not wounded or captured as casualties because my head and my ass are interchangeable.
>I will completely ignore the allocation of Lutfwaffe assets because that gets in the way of my bias, or the bias that people have fed to me.

It actually is kind of amazing as to how effectively statistics can be made misleading.

>I will ONLY count kills and not wounded or captured as casualties because my head and my ass are interchangeable.

Go on, post allied PoW's

>I will completely ignore the allocation of Lutfwaffe assets because that gets in the way of my bias, or the bias that people have fed to me.

The airforce wouldn't have made the Germans win in the east.

Russians did significantly more damage to the Reich than the Western front, which was primarily fought on French soil.

Real question: If Hitler had not reneged on his promises to the Soviets, would they have held up their end of the bargain? If so, Germany probably would have crushed their way through Belgium to the North Sea and stopped there for a while. It would have given them leverage in future diplomacy. Instead Hitler understood war about as much as I understand the properties of caesium.

The truth is Germany defeated itself on both fronts with retarded offensives

>Go on, post allied PoW's

Rüdiger Overmans, Soldaten hinter Stacheldraht. Deutsche Kriegsgefangene des Zweiten Weltkriege. Page 246.

>Nation holding Prisoners of War Number captured Deaths
UK ca. 3,600,000
USA ca. 3,000,000
USSR ca. 3,000,000
rance ca.1,000,000
Yugoslavia ca.200,000
Poland ca.70,000

>The airforce wouldn't have made the Germans win in the east.
Very probably not, especially owing to the huge logistical tail that air assets require. However, considering that the Western Allies dealt with the overwhelming majority of Luftwaffe fighters (source don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm )
it speaks to the efficacy of Soviet counterattacks later in the war, if you had something on the order of triple the air assets for the Germans to defend themselves with; it's enormously hard to conduct good weather offensives without air advantage, which is not likely to happen without Western Allied efforts, not to mention the post Battle of Ruhr impact on German military production.

>Deaths

That's not the actual PoW captured number.

>it's enormously hard to conduct good weather offensives without air advantage, which is not likely to happen without Western Allied efforts, not to mention the post Battle of Ruhr impact on German military production.

Soviet production outpaced the Germans by D-Day 1944 anyway, so it would only be a matter of time until the Germans lost in the air to the Soviets anyway.

Allies were nicer to prisoners than Soviets, not to mention Soviets had very good reasons to treat Germans like shit so no they prefered to surrendered to Allies, especially it become massive thing near end when ti was clear for everybody.

They needed each other to BTFO the krauts.

>That's not the actual PoW captured number.
Yes, I mis-printed it.

If you want the deaths column added in (And mind you, this is deaths among PoWs, not overall deaths)
you get

UK, circa 2,000
USA, 5-10,000
USSR, 343,000-1,000,000
France 22,000
Yugoslavia, circa 80,000
Poland, circa 10,000

That still leaves the Western Allies with about 7.6 million prisoners taken, compared to the Soviets and allies 3.007 million, which is enough to completely reverse the kill tally.

>Soviet production outpaced the Germans by D-Day 1944 anyway, so it would only be a matter of time until the Germans lost in the air to the Soviets anyway.
With the Soviet lack of emphasis on high altitude flying, that is an incredibly dubious statement. You can't control the skies when your enemies can dive on you almost at will. At best you can contest them and get a preponderance of ground support in by throwing lots of bombers into the fray.

Furthermore, I direct you to actually look at airplane production statistics. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_aircraft_production
The Soviets had less than a 3:2 overall war advantage in production, and that had the Germans with roughly 50% of their aircraft production being single engine fighters
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_production_during_World_War_II
Whereas the Soviet aircraft production more emphasized bombers. (Albeit not much) picshare.ru/uploads/140120/1R64qC6h2m.jpg
If you compare just fighter to fighter, you're talking a 7:5 production advantage, which isn't nearly enough to overcome the much larger kill disparity in the air.

9 out of 10 German deaths were because of Russia. It's safe to say that they did more than Americans and British. The Lend-Lease did help though.

Soviet union took the brunt if the German military might, but at the same time would have been useless and probably overrun were it not for lend-lease

And the Western Allies were able to operationally move much more quickly, which lead to larger encirclements; they had more command over things like sea and air transport, which allowed for the formation of large isolated pockets, such as the garrisons of Bordeaux and St Nazaire, whereas the only sizeable pocket the Soviets didn't close was the Courland one. The Western Allies relied less on artillery, and it's kind of hard to surrender to incoming shells.

The point I was driving at is this "80% of all Heer kills were done by the Soviets" is misleading as all fuck. First off, it relies on OKH/OKW statistics, which break down in 1945 when the split of Heer forces was most definitely NOT 80/20. Secondly, it ignores all non-killed casualties, of which there was a disparity against the Soviets. It ignores all troops that were never engaged but guarding places that might have been attacked but never were, like Norway or Greece

An argument of
>The Soviets killed about 80% of the German forces, therefore contributed about 80% of the German defeat
Is deeply flawed.

The Western Front drained financial and industrial resources, the Eastern Front drained manpower and agricultural resources

The US did let the Russians take Berlin for political reasons.

WW2 was a joint effort between the USSR, UK, US, and the other minor powers. While the USSR did do most of the work it's still important to recognize the sacrifices made by everyone else. An interesting thing to read about is how the US didnt start serious lend-lease until after the Red Army successfully stopped the Wehrmacht in Barbarossa. Not only that, but the US provided significantly more lend-lease to the UK than they did to the USSR.

>Soviet Union
The Russians did most of the work. Yeah it sucks but if you look at it from an objective/historical standpoint its true. The vast majority of the Wehrmacht fought (and died) on the Eastern Front.

>UK
The UK was important for a number of reasons, mainly because they stood as a sovereign nation that was essentially unvonquerable by the Germans. They also fought very hard under the pressure put on them, and they served as a base in which larger American operations could be launched from

>America
People vastly overestimate the US's significance in the war (the European one at least) imo. Did the US provide significant aid to the UK and USSR? Yes. Did the US fight hard and well in Europe and North Africa? Yes. But Americans act like they were the main belligerent during the war and that just isn't true. I was amazed at how my AP Euro and AP world history classes taught about the US's involvement, since it was so inaccurate.

>US didnt start serious lend-lease until after the Red Army successfully stopped the Wehrmacht in Barbarossa.

This is a common myth.

You realize that your quotes don't actually imply the contrary, and that it is easy enough to fact-check this stuff, right?

It's quite simple, really:
>Russia saved Europe from Germany
>America saved Europe from Russia

Half of Europe

Then explain why the Allies launched operation Market Garden

My quotes in fact do imply that if you bothered to look up any of the quotes, but I will be explicit with how wrong you are about American lend lease.

"In addition to the aircraft deliveries American Lend-lease deliveries to Russia included also more than 400.000 trucks, over 12.000 tanks and other combat vehicles, 32.000 motorcycles, 13.000 locomotives and railway cars, 8.000 anti-aircraft cannons and machine-guns, 135.000 submachine guns, 300.000 tons of explosives, 40.000 field radios, some 400 radar systems, 400.000 metal cutting machi�ne tools, several million tons of foodstuff, steel, other metals, oil and gasoline, chemicals etc. A price tag was naturally attached to all deliveries, with following typical fighter prices."

- "pre Lend-lease" 22 June 1941 to 30 September 1941
- first protocol period from 1 October 1941 to 30 June 1942 (signed 1 October 1941)
- second protocol period from 1 July 1942 to 30 June 1943 (signed 6 October 1942)
- third protocol period from 1 July 1943 to 30 June 1944 (signed 19 October 1943)

"Regardless of Soviet cold-war attempts to forget (or at least diminish) the importance of Lend-lease, the total impact of the Lend-Lease shipment for the Soviet war effort and entire national economy can only be characterized as both dramatic and of decisive importance."

SOURCE : lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/geust/aircraft_deliveries.htm

In Moscow, the Caucuses, and Stalingrad the lend lease kept the Red Army in the fight against the well equipped, trained, and well fed Wehrmacht. Ultimately, it's not supplies for communications, transport, or food that BTFO the krauts, it was autistic slavic fury.

However, you'd be a liar and a fool to say American supplies didn't play a critical part in the eastern front.

Please learn some reading comprehension.

Barbarossa as an operation ended in December 5th, 1941 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
The enormous amount of American Lend Lease was sent after that dateThe overall amount sent is irrelevant to determine WHEN it was sent. The existence of agreements to send stuff does not imply each agreement sent equal quantities.
Pull your head out of your ass. Until you figure out how, leave, as we try to have standards here.

Neither, it was a team effort.

USSR had the manpower, USA provided the material

Why are you do focused on 1941 when the invasion was started (not decided) halfway through that year? Also your posting (unsourced... Ever wrote a paper bro) $$ values not numbers. Posting $$ values are confusing because of inflation also actual product cost vs what they told the American people they paid for it to sell the cost of lend lease. Just admit it the US played an integral role in winning WW2

Until the allies handed Germans to the Soviets themselves.

I read somewhere that like 80% of German casualties happened in the Eastern front.
Regardless of how much logistical assistance the USSR received from other Allied powers, they did most of the fighting if this is true

I fucking laughed when I learned that tidbit of history. So many Germans fought so hard to surrendered to the British and Americans thinking they could escape for what they'd done on the Eastern front, Only to be handed over to the Soviets.

Because people thought Monty shit gold

They did most of the dieing as well.

Stalin could have negotiated a truce with germany after 1941, but didnt because the west convinced him they would open a second european front in 1942

And America gave their new rival a whole shitload of slaves to work to death, directly aiding their biggest enemy and existential threat. What a bunch of fucking idiots.

>They did most of the dieing as well.
Yep, but that counts positively towards war effort IMO

The war was decided in 1941, there was no way Germany could take down the Soviets afterwards. So any lend-lease afterwards was just accelerating the war to it's end.

No one says either of those things, though. Quit trying to manufacture discord.

Without LL and Normandy, I doubt the Red army could take Berlin

>implying wwii happened
c'mon the holocaust was the only real part
everyone knows that

>Western Allies with about 7.6 million prisoners taken, compared to the Soviets and allies 3.007 million, which is enough to completely reverse the kill tally.

Doesn't Factor in that the Germans and Co actually wanted to get captured by the western allies compared to Soviets for obvious reasons

>Why are you do focused on 1941 when the invasion was started (not decided) halfway through that year?
Because I have the reading comprehension of an average 13 year old, and understood what is meant by

>US didnt start serious lend-lease until after the Red Army successfully stopped the Wehrmacht in BARBAROSSA
Barbarossa != the entire war in the east, as everyone knows.

>Also your posting (unsourced... Ever wrote a paper bro)
See, reading comprehension. It really, really fucking helps.

>Table LL-12--War Department Lend-Lease shipments to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics


>Posting $$ values are confusing because of inflation
Are you seriously arguing that there was significant inflation, such that it distorts the amount of Lend-Lease sent between 1941 and 1942-45? Because remember, that's what we're arguing.

>also actual product cost vs what they told the American people they paid for it to sell the cost of lend lease.
That sounds like a bizarre and baseless claim. Please provide evidence of it.

>Just admit it the US played an integral role in winning WW2
YOu know, before I thought you were just a fucking idiot. Now I realize you're an insecure butthurt /int/ poster. Here are some of my other postsNote the argument that the Western Allies (principally the U.S.) did quite a lot. You know what that doesn't mean? It doesn't mean that Lend-Lease arrived EARLY IN THE WAR IN THE EAST YOU FUCKING RETARD. LL to the USSR was most important in the later war, enabling counterattacks. That you feel a need to invent a strawman and imply or simply assert all sorts of malicious motives to my posts to defend your retarded inaccurate statements is pathetic.

Kills are not the totality of casualties. Please read the Overmans postRealize that not all deaths are equal. The Germans lost some 768 u-boats during the war, overwhelmingly to the Western Allies. uboat.net/fates/losses/ That, assuming an average 48 man crew, would yield 36,864 mariners dead, which is about 2 and a fraction infantry divisions. Do you really want to claim that 2-3 inf divs is worth the entire u-boat loss of the Kriegsmarine?

That's probably not true. There's a big deal of difference between "Germans roll victorious into Moscow" and "Soviets roll victorious into Berlin".

Yes, because 4-5 MILLION men (more than the Germans ever committed at one time to the Eastern Front!) just manage to run hundreds of miles without the Soviets completely rolling up past them because there's now fucking nothing guarding anything so they can surrender to the West. Those mass captures at Tunis, post Dragoon, taking western German cities like Stuttgart and Dusseldorf were just mass hallucinations!

The Allies faced quite a few troops themselves; usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/connor.pdf (skip to page 71); it's just that while the Soviets tended to inflict predominantly killed as their casualties, the Western Allies tended to capture a lot more.

>Yes, because 4-5 MILLION men (more than the Germans ever committed at one time to the Eastern Front!) just manage to run hundreds of miles without the Soviets completely rolling up past them because there's now fucking nothing guarding anything so they can surrender to the West

Maybe not millions but a large amount did exactly that.

Well, if it isn't about 4 million, then the Western Allies manage to capture more PoWs than the Soviets "legitimately". Given that the Germans didn't even have 4 million troops on the Eastern Front come 1945, this is a real stretch.

all sides contributed greatly to the ending the war, with no one of the allied powers fully capable of winning the entire war on their own. In a way each of the allies brought something essential to the table in order to defeat the Axis Powers

or to put it more simply:

WWII was won with American steel and money, British intelligence and naval power, and Russian manpower and armor.

My claim that you have no cited sources, is answered with ridicule at my alleged lack of reading comprehension, yet when I make a statement you cant attack as a lack of reading comprehension (for the Nth time) you call for a source.

The fact that you keep taking it to a highly insulting and personal level shows you know your argument holds no weight.

As to my statement regarding inflation
dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=100&year=1941

Your un-sourced jpg means next to nothing as is, but there is the current value of $100 in today's time. Not to mention the US had to sell lend-lease to a war weary American Voter and did so by understating the cost and the nature of arrangement (hence the name lend lease).

In 1941 the US shipped 340,000 tons of equipment and materials to the Soviet Union.

Hans-Adolf Jacobsen: 1939–1945, Der Zweite Weltkrieg in Chronik und Dokumenten. Darmstadt 1961, p. 568.

Thats 1941, by 1944 that number was 6.6 million tons. Keep in mind the Battle of Stalingrad (most historians agree this was the turning point of the war) took place in late 42 and early 43.

Quit being so butt hurt and calling people names.

>retard extreme
OR
>retard extreme

WHICH IS TRUE?!

OP, learn to actually think for your fucking self and consider that maybe both positions are fucking idiotic.

did he eat gold the night before? why would someone expect him to preform such a weird and unreasonable action?

>My claim that you have no cited sources
Is wrong, and as stupid as everything else you've said, becuase the document LITERALLY SAYS WHERE IT COMES FROM ON THE TOP. I can only conclude that your education is too poor to teach you how to read.
Here is more info that shows how wrong you are.
tothosewhoserved.org/usa/wd/usawd06/appendixg.html
scribd.com/document/270450475/United-States-Army-in-World-War-II-Statistics-LendLease


>The fact that you keep taking it to a highly insulting and personal level shows you know your argument holds no weight.
No, I'm being insulting because you're being a fucking moron who can't even comprehend why what you're saying doesn't support your argument.

See, like this
>As to my statement regarding inflation
dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=100&year=1941

Now go back ONE post. Just ONE post, to read

>Are you seriously arguing that there was significant inflation, such that it distorts the amount of Lend-Lease sent between 1941 and 1942-45?

Because what I've been saying, and what you've been to fucking stupid to understand, is that most of the Lend-Lease was sent after operation Barbarossa, which concluded in December of 1941. Do you get how inflation to 2017 doesn't impact that? AT ALL?

>Your un-sourced jpg means next to nothing as is,
No, it doesn't. It shows the amount of value between shipments in say, 1941, and 1943. Because SURPRISE, 1 ton of expensive aviation fuel is not worth the same amount as 1 ton of cheap crude oil, and you really need a way to distinguish them.

>In 1941 the US shipped 340,000 tons of equipment and materials to the Soviet Union.
Want to go by weight? Let's go back to this link
tothosewhoserved.org/usa/wd/usawd06/appendixg.html
Oh look 5,672,000 tons shipped between July and December 1943! That's over 16 times as much! (I figured that out by a little something called "arithmetic", which isn't a source, but it's a skill that most people are expected to master as children.)
>Thats 1941, by 1944 that number was 6.6 million tons. Keep in mind the Battle of Stalingrad (most historians agree this was the turning point of the war) took place in late 42 and early 43.

Remember how you said, back in this post? that it's a "Common myth" that stuff didn't come in "serious amounts' Until AFTER Barbarossa? And now you're talking about Stalingrad? Which was almost a year AFTER Barbarossa ended? So tell me, how does ANY of this prove that the U.S. wasn't sending serious lend-lease until after Barbarossa?

Do you really think I haven't noticed how badly you're shifting the goalposts? How poorly you read?

>Quit being so butt hurt and calling people names.
You want me to stop calling you a fucking retard? Stop being fucking retarded! Actually address the counterarguments posted to you, which would only require you do something as simple as read them, and we can have an intelligent conversation. But if you're going to strawman and just make up random shit, I'm going to keep calling you a fucking idiot, because guess what? You're being a fucking idiot.

>Please learn some reading comprehension.

How can anyone comprehend anything you're trying to convey when you lack a basic understanding of sequential logic and the english language?

>after the Red Army successfully stopped the Wehrmacht in Barbarossa

But according to you

>Barbarossa as an operation ended in December 5th, 1941 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

I know you must be enraged right now at the very thought that America helped you in WW2, but the Red Army stopped the Wehrmacht in Case Blue, not Operation Barbarossa.

Btw I've looked around and I cannot find anything that references that document of yours.

USSR took on 75% of the axis forces
Western Allies helped on with the mopping up effort on the west, mainly against conscripts.

continued >The enormous amount of American Lend Lease was sent after that date

Since you know very little about WW2 on the eastern front let me cover some basic historical dates for you.

> Operation Barbarossa begins June 22, 1941
>- "pre Lend-lease" 22 June 1941 to 30 September 1941

SOURCE lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/geust/aircraft_deliveries.htm

>Between June 1941 and May 1945 3,000+ Hurricanes were delivered to the USSR along with 4,000+ other aircraft, 5,218 tanks, 5,000+ anti-tank guns, 4,020 ambulances and trucks, 323 machinery trucks, 2,560 bren carriers, 1,721 motorcycles, £1.15bn worth of air-craft engines and 15 million pairs of boots in total 4 million tonnes of war materials including food and medical supplies were delivered.

SOURCE archive.org/stream/1942LendLeaseContribution/Lend-lease-wiki-8_djvu.txt

> 290,000 encircled at Bialystok-Minsk Jun 22, 1941 – Jul 3, 1941
>310,000 Soviets encircled : July 6, 1941– August 5, 1941
>MORE ENCIRCLEMENTS MORE ENCIRCLEMENTS MORE ENCIRCLEMENTS
>700,000 Soviets encircled at Kiev : August 23, 1941 – September 26, 1941
>CONTINUED LEND LEASE : October 1st, 1941

>The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October
1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks,
13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ord-
nance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum
products (gasoline and oil), 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs
(canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,900 steam lo-
comotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000
dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars.

archive.org/stream/1942LendLeaseContribution/Lend-lease-wiki-8_djvu.txt

continued >Battle of Moscow Begins October 2, 1941 – January 7, 1942 : Krauts unable to take Moscow.

>August 23, 1942 : The Wehrmacht enters Stalingrad

>February 2, 1943 : The 6th Army surrenders, the Red Army achieves its first victory over the Wehrmacht.

*MORE LEND LEASE MORE LEND LEASE*

>July 5, 1943 : The battle of Kursk begins

>July 13, 1943 : Wehrmacht B L O W N T H E F U C K O U T , remain in retreat until the end of the war.

WW2 was a team effort fyi.

gazeta.ru/science/2016/03/11_a_8115965.shtml

> know you must be enraged right now at the very thought that America helped you in WW2, but the Red Army stopped the Wehrmacht in Case Blue, not Operation Barbarossa.

Really? I must have missed all those advances the Wehrmacht made between December 1941 and late June 1942. Can you show me where they were?


>Btw I've looked around and I cannot find anything that references that document of yours.
Yes, you're profoundly stupid, I get that. Let me help you, again.

On THIS website
tothosewhoserved.org/usa/wd/usawd06/appendixg.html
You can find the source, which I will take a snip of so you can pretend to be blind next.

this is now a WW2 waifu thread

See, this is you being stupid again. Notice how NOTHING in your post references WHEN any of this kit was sent? How it's just "Between June 41 and may 1945"? Now, people like me, who actually read, look stuff up.

scribd.com/document/270450475/United-States-Army-in-World-War-II-Statistics-LendLease

Page 9, I'll include a picture.

Do you see how the numbers get much bigger as the war goes on later? And how by the end of "Barbarossa", which I want to repeat is not the whole war in the east, they are tiny?

>WW2 was a team effort fyi.
YES, I know that. Probably better than you. But the importance of Lend-Lease was primarily in 1943 and 1944, to enable Soviet offensives, not early in the war when they were desperately trying to survive. Pointing to the AMOUNT of Lend-Lease does not say anything about the TIME OF ARRIVAL of Lend-Lease.

...

...

...

...

...

Dunno about that.
Did you hear about "Other losses"?

...

...

...

...

So the burgers used rubber bullets and tazers, causing mass capitulation?

...

...

The truth is probably that Nazi Germany threw big time and that the Soviet union brought about the ultimate German defeat using American weapons.

>Because I have the reading comprehension of an average 13 year old, and understood what is meant by

Well that explains it then, you're just retarded.

>Table LL-12--War Department Lend-Lease shipments to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Link us the source then. You expect any of us to take you seriously when you tell us to google it and it turns up with no references?

>LL to the USSR was most important in the later war, enabling counterattacks.

It's clear at this point you don't care about Soviet history and only care about chest thumping Russian pride "hur dur w3 d1d i7 a11 by 0urselv3s! lend lease helped later th@t is true!!! h3h3 m0r3 russians died than americans we b3tt3r!!!!".

Go watch Stalingrad 2013 and fuck off Veeky Forums you mongoloid.

...

tfw you send the russians a couple of pairs of boots so that means anything they do from that point on was basically because of you

is Stalingrad 2013 the one where there's the super hot blonde Russian chick who fugs the German officer

>And now you're talking about Stalingrad

Do you read what you're posting?

>US didnt start serious lend-lease until after the Red Army successfully stopped the Wehrmacht in Barbarossa.

Which is called case blue btw, not Barbarossa. Stalingrad is where the Wehrmacht was finally defeated and they relied on lend lease food to not starve to death, american trucks to get to the city, and british planes to shoot down jerries.

Read a book, stop arguing just to argue when you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

>that it's a "Common myth" that stuff didn't come in "serious amounts' Until AFTER Barbarossa?

Ok retard, this shows you have fuck all clue about relative tonnage. By 1942-1943 it was up in the millions of tonnage, 300,000 tons in 1941 is game breaking.

>You want me to stop calling you a fucking retard?

No because anyone reading this thread can tell you're retarded.

Guys, now how about German material losses on the fronts? Do you know of any differences?

No. Surrenders usually happen to enveloped troops, which itself usually happens in one of two ways

A) Cities falling tend to lead to lots of men who are pockted and captured.
B) Rapid breakthroughs, where you catch rear-ecehlon forces and frontline troops who don't pull back fast enough.

With substantially greater mechanization and more "burst speed" the latter happened more frequently in the Western Front than the Eastern Front, and you have a lot of cities up by the western edge of Germany, which yielded mass surrenders.

>Link us the source then. You expect any of us to take you seriously when you tell us to google it and it turns up with no references?

Ok, scribd.com/document/51564619/INTERNATIONAL-AID-STATISTICS-WW2
page 43. It took me about 40 seconds to find, on google. So apparently you're really dumb in that regard too.

>It's clear at this point you don't care about Soviet history and only care about chest thumping Russian pride
How is that clear? Find one thing in my posts that states that it was unimportant, or that the Soviets "didn't need it", or that the U.S. contribution to the war was minimal. In fact, I've argued that the U.S. and Britain have contributed more to the war in Europe directly than is generally realized, and yes, that it was very important for the LATE part of the war in the east, not the early part.

For reference, here are my posts.

>Do you read what you're posting?
Yes, I even read what you're posting too. See, when claiming that most of the lend-lease to the Soviet union arrived after Barbarossa, talking about the battle of Stalingrad doesn't actually impact that point. At all.

As a side point

> and british planes to shoot down jerries.
British aircraft deliveries to the USSR through Lend-Lease totaled a bit under 18,000 planes.
ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/
I currenlty have no information as to how they were spread out, but if oyu could provide me some, that would be great. Still, in 1942 alone, the Soviets built 25,000 i.e., more than the British sent them the entire war.
So you're wrong, again, unless you can prove that the relatively small smattering of planes that did get through before Stalingrad were what the VVS was really relying on and not their own stuff.


>Which is called case blue btw, not Barbarossa.
That is a separate argument, and not related either to the claim made. Furthermore, there was a close to 6 month halt between Blau and the end of Barbarossa, in which the Soviets gained ground, not lost it further. The Wehrmacht stopped advancing anywhere by December 5th, 1941.

>Read a book, stop arguing just to argue when you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
Pot, meet kettle.

>Ok retard, this shows you have fuck all clue about relative tonnage. By 1942-1943 it was up in the millions of tonnage, 300,000 tons in 1941 is game breaking.
So you're agreeing with me? And being retarded while you're at it? Because that's what you seem to be doing.

Let me explain something, really really simple.

I'm making an argument that most of Lend-Lease arrived far after "Barbarossa", for that, I only need to prove that more tonnage arrived LATE in the war than EARLY in the war.

You, in attempting to "rebut" me, are making a completely different argument, namley that Lend-Lease was very IMPORTANT. Which has absolutely FUCKALL to do with when the Lend-Lease arrived.

By the way, how is that 300,000 tons of material even relevant without comparisons to Soviet domestic production? Why is the fact that millions of tons later mean that the 300,000 stuff earlier magically war-saving?

Soviets were propped up and kept alive by Allied aid, and German forces diverted to defend against the Allies and German factories supply lines etc were bombed to shit by the Allies.

The Allies and the Germans would never have been able to successfully invade one another I don't think though.

>On THIS website

Oh that obscure website that doesn't show up in the google index because it's THAT reliable.

You had shit presentation on your sources, give attitude when people question it, finally when I look into the source myself it includes raw monetary value....

>See, this is you being stupid again.

Stop projecting, we get it you don't like reading books, go watch a movie and cool off or something.

>Notice how NOTHING in your post references WHEN any of this kit was sent?

They do, you're just that retarded. I'd write it out in crayon for you if Veeky Forums allowed it, but instead I'll green text.

>The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945

>the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil), 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,900 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars.

>It took me about 40 seconds to find, on google.

If you didn't even know that image's reference yourself, why the fuck would any of us know or care to look beyond 5 seconds of searching?

Also, your shitty source has a paywall download it yourself and screen cap exactly where LL-12 is.

>So apparently you're really dumb in that regard too.

I know you get tired of people calling you a retard, but they're calling you that for a good reason as evidenced by your post history.

It's been fun bantering about this subject, but I'm off. I'll let the readers make up their own minds about the effectiveness of lendlease, the early part.

Yes it is!

I only really know about air losses.
don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

At a very crude guess though, I would think that most land material, artillery, tanks, SPGs, etc., would be more or less in line with Heer personnel losses. Naval stuff is obviously predominantly against the western Allies, the Soviets not really having a fleet worth mentioning.

>>Burgers say the USSR had almost nothing to do with the victory over the Germans and that the UK and US did more
as a burger I've never been told this, usually the story I got in highschool was "then we got pissed off over pearl harbor and just kinda swept through everyone in the end"

>Oh that obscure website that doesn't show up in the google index because it's THAT reliable.
Why do you have to lie? Pic related

>You had shit presentation on your sources, give attitude when people question it, finally when I look into the source myself it includes raw monetary value....
Yes, because as I explained upthread, and you completely ignored like a fucking retard, when comparing the amount of stuff the U.S. sent in 1941 to the amount of stuff they were sending in 1943-44, the amount of inflation is tiny and irrelevant, as the U.S. wasn't having tons of inflation during that period. Thus, it is a good gauge of value of wartime supplies sent.

>They do, you're just that retarded. I'd write it out in crayon for you if Veeky Forums allowed it, but instead I'll green text.
Yes, now suppose I want to know if that stuff was sent when the Soviets were trying to stop German advances, or when the Soviets were trying to counterattack. How does ANY of the information you just provided help me?

1/2 so I can screencap part 2 and attach it to the post.

>If you didn't even know that image's reference yourself, why the fuck would any of us know or care to look beyond 5 seconds of searching?
I knew where it came from, a DOD report. YOU wanted to know where it could be found on the internet, and that apparently google gave you nothing.
>Also, your shitty source has a paywall download it yourself and screen cap exactly where LL-12 is.
What the FUCK are you talking about? LL 12 IS THE FUCKING REPORT YOU GODDAMN MORON.

Finished reading all the posts in this thread and decided it's a good idea to give you a tip on english and basic manners.

When you're on a board called Veeky Forums and you say the following.

>US didnt start serious lend-lease until after the Red Army successfully stopped the Wehrmacht in Barbarossa.

First off, using the word "serious" to describe lend-lease isn't proper english, at all. It'd be like saying, "Bob didn't start serious mortgaging until after x y z."

Second, the very nature of your comment is underhanded. Veeky Forums isn't the place where you make comments subtly undermining other groups while promoting your own. It's a place to discuss things in a civil manner, keep that in mind before you post.

You claim
And that's fine, but this simple misunderstanding is something you could've cleared up in your next post by saying something like, "What I meant was the majority of supplies came after the Red Army beat the Wehrmacht." You wouldn't even have to mention how the early LL supplies contributed to that first victory either.

Instead you went on name calling like a child for the world to see.

LL had no effect on the outcome of the war.

>First off, using the word "serious" to describe lend-lease isn't proper english, at all. It'd be like saying, "Bob didn't start serious mortgaging until after x y z."

See, I didn't think someone would be so autistic that I needed to posit actual rates of LL over certain time periods to indicate that some 85% of it was sent post end of 1942, and 99+% post 1941.

>It's a place to discuss things in a civil manner, keep that in mind before you post.
Civility has nothing to do with it. The strength or weakness of an argument has jack shit to do with how nicely it's presented.

>And that's fine, but this simple misunderstanding is something you could've cleared up in your next post by saying something like, "What I meant was the majority of supplies came after the Red Army beat the Wehrmacht."
You mean, like I implied in my very first post on the matter by posting a charge with delivery dates and value enormously tilted towards late war? Or maybe the second one in the chain>The overall amount sent is irrelevant to determine WHEN it was sent. The existence of agreements to send stuff does not imply each agreement sent equal quantities.

I went on "name calling" because the person I was arguing with in posts made literally irrelevant comparisons, and strawmanned to hell and back, with statements like

>However, you'd be a liar and a fool to say American supplies didn't play a critical part in the eastern front.

When your argument isn't being addressed, you call the other guy a retard. It's that simple.

Find one thing in my posts that states that it was unimportant, or that the Soviets "didn't need it", or that the U.S. contribution to the war was minimal. In fact, I've argued that the U.S. and Britain have contributed more to the war in Europe directly than is generally realized, and yes, that it was very important for the LATE part of the war in the east, not the early part.

>People vastly overestimate the US's significance in the war (the European one at least) imo. Did the US provide significant aid to the UK and USSR? Yes. Did the US fight hard and well in Europe and North Africa? Yes.

Oh cool, it's the Tankies vs Burgers thread again

Not something I stated. That was someone else's post entirely. Good try though. Screenshot incoming.

>Arguing with vatniks online
/his pls
tandfonline.com.sci-hub.cc/doi/abs/10.1080/13518049408430160

The U.S. propaganda machine is real.

>that anglo delusion

>this thread

I wonder how would the results look for Russia

allies helped but without them the russian would have won anyway, just more costly

germany was balancing on the edge the whole time, their might was fragile
i cba to put all the numbers in now, im sorry, i had this discussion so many time

anglos are just dishonest as usual, they wanted russians and others to bleed for them, then invented the cruical lend lease fairtytale