Why do tankies always lie about the significance of the Lend-Lease? I've seen these in pretty much every WW2 discussion

Lol not at all

youtube.com/watch?v=uNb54rwDQJM

It actually comes from leftist jargon. In the 1950s the Soviet Union lost a lot of credibility in the eyes of the international left when they sent in the tanks to crush the hungarian revolution, which wasn't even anti-communist in nature. They just had thoughts about how to go about communism in a not quite so moscow dictated, secret policey way. It was the kind of Revolution the USSR up until this point said they'd welcome (in a capitalist country) and was their ultimate goal, but they couldn't because the threat of Capitalism kept them on a constant war footing. Then we actually get this and the Soviets crush them with tanks.

Hence, the few remaining sympathizers at that point were deemed 'tankies'. A term of disparagement for people who unquestioningly follow the latest dictates of the largest country with a red flag as the definition of Socialism.

Pol has recently taken it up to mean 'anyone to the left of me.'

thanks

>Pol has recently taken it up to mean 'anyone to the left of me.'
no one uses it that way. It's used to refer to either Stalinsts or other "anti-revisionists" that pretend the Soviet Union dindu nuffin

>meme
It comes from more democratic type socialists opposed to the hardcore Soviet style marxists during the Hungarian uprising of 56.

It's literally used in OP to conflate people who disagree with him on the effect of the Lend Lease aid with Stalinists.

A tankie is a Stalinist you mong, its a term that existed long before Veeky Forums let alone /pol/

Pol, all these flavors and you chose salty

>ANOTHER lend lease shitflinging thread
You know, it takes a while for the accusations of pol/leftypol to be thrown around but it was here from the start
Are future threads like these going to be completely political and devoid of any discussion about the actual military history?

>XD commies wanted a communist uprising from the dissatisfied masses in Western Countries but couldn't aid these revolutions because those mean old capitalists kept trying to contain their dangerous and violent ideology
>oh no it happened in the USSR due to dissatisfied masses and the Soviets immediately swept in and crushed the dissenters
>XD those poor soviets. Those poor communists. Those poor leftists.
>NOT REAL COMMUNISM
Kys, statist thug.

I explained the origin of the word "tankie." It certainly didn't come from /pol/. It's decades old.

Sure is a lot of projecting there friend. You sure are mad about the origin of words.

It's a term for an apologist for communist dictatorships, especially Stalin and Mao. The name comes from the fact that they try to justify acts like "sending in the tanks" to violently put down popular revolts (see photos of Tienanmen Square, Prague Spring, Hungary in '56, etc.).

The word got created in 1956.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reg_Birch
>When I asked him how he could possibly have sided with the 'tankies', so called because of the use of Russian tanks to quell the revolt, he said 'they wanted a trade unionist who could stomach Hungary, and I fitted the bill'."

>those retard pics

>compares american ""war crimes"" (which were perfectly justified under circumstances) to soviet imperialism, genocide, ethnic deportations

>Why do tankies always lie about the significance of the Lend-Lease? I've seen these in pretty much every WW2 discussion.

Only a quarter of all lead-lease aid went to the USSR

Found the retard

>it's a "people think they understand the eastern front better than motherfucking Zhukov" thread
>Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic], we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of American deliveries.
>It is now said that the Allies never helped us. However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and could not have continued the war. We had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance.

>lose importance by new regime
>well the americans totally saved us he he

only a fool reads sources without criticism

Most of those aren't war crimes.
And the ones that were, were well deserved, such as Tokyo fire bombing.

These pics are hilarious. Do you have one for Germans? How about the British? No Italians or the Chinese for sure, you can't commit war crimes if you are always losing.

only for the germs

>Why do tankies always lie about the significance of the Lend-Lease?

Why do they lie about the impact of the bomber in Europe?

Why do they lie about the impact of Nuclear bombs? Side note the Japanese only folded in Manchuria over 11 days do to Kwangtung Army command having a crisis trying to find out what was going on back home.

Why do they lie about the impact of the Italian campaign?

The USSR and its mouthpieces wanted to turn the war from a team effort to a story of "Russia did everything". By doing this it sets themselves in a light as being the natural power of mainland Europe. This is not the first time they had tried that plan. Imperial Russia has a long history of selling itself as "doing all the real work" in the military coalitions that it took part in. They did that in the Napoleonic Wars for example. Most European even believe that the Russians did in fact do all the hard work during that time. Even most of the Prussian and Austrians scholars took that view till the 1850s when the matter was reexamined.

>only $11.3 billion!
Slavs are some fucking moneygrabbers

>B17-Flying Warcrime

ahahaa

>going on about 'gunpowder and ammunition'
>calling British assistance minimal when they represented 25% of all Soviet medium/heavy tank production during Barbarossa, not to mention the dangerous delivery of all that materiel
>claiming that they were low on rifle bullets of all things

Calls the entire statement into question. I would go so far as to ask what context this quote was taken from and to say that it might have some pro-US bias.

>it's a /pol/ meme
>term predates the creation of the internet
Just fuck off /leftypol/

Teenagers who like the USSR because of COD

They're called tankies because of their love for the shittiest tank in the war, the T-34

Communism was literally Russian imperialism and nationalism after Lenin died.

That revisionism.

t. DPRK anti-imperialist

The British Empire managed to amass 3 million men throughout the commonwealth by the end of the war.
The problem is moving troops from Britain into Europe, that's why they had to go through that whole D-day business

>>calling British assistance minimal when they represented 25% of all Soviet medium/heavy tank production during Barbarossa, not to mention the dangerous delivery of all that materiel
This is bullshit. They were 25% of Soviet medium and heavy tanks in and around Moscow during the opening phases of the Vyzama counter-attack, not their overall production for the time period.

Justify this

Yes, he is wrong and over-exaggerating, but the interesting thing about the British lend-lease is that it started arriving right when the Russians were in the shit and while it was ultimately dwarfed by the size of the US lend-lease program it arguably played a more important role in the overall outcome of the war. US lend-lease was pretty much all after the USSR was already winning and while it helped them significantly probably didn't play much of a role in making or breaking the overall war effort.

It played an enormous role for switching the Red Army from something that could only really defend into an actual offensive force taking back all the territory the Germans overran and more besides. Those same logistical constraints which messed up the Germans so badly would have been just as harsh in reverse, and American efforts eased a lot of that pain.

that happens because at the end most of the casualties do happen in the Russian front and >muh Russian winter meme

I agree with most of that but the logistical constraints wouldn't have been as harsh as at least initially the Russians would have been operating from close to their own base and they also would have anywhere near the same level of partisan activity to deal with. Germany is basically in Western Europe, there's a long supply line before you even hit Russia.

While it's true that the Soviets wouldn't have to deal with partisans on the way back through their own territory (much, anyway), you're severely underselling the problem. At their "high water mark", the Germans had penetrated over 1,600 kilometers into Soviet territory. (Note, the advance was not evenly spread, they did not go this far all along the Soviet territory, only in the very south), and along the way, generally replaced the railroads to fit their own gauges and/or completely devastated the areas they took, either on advance, expropriating from the locals, or in scorched earth when the Soviets were retaking stuff. None of that becomes available for the Soviets to use without considerable effort fixing things up.

Add to this that the Soviet army was bigger, and had more vehicle support in both land and air, and their logistical demands were considerably larger than the Germans. A 1944 Soviet infantry division on advance was using about 275 metric tons of supply per day. usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/connor.pdf (Page 12)

A German infantry division on advance in 1941, on the other hand, was using more on the order of 100 tons a day. militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/sealionvsoverlord.aspx

That means the Soviets have almost 3 times as big of a footprint, in addition to throwing a larger force around, which means that their transport needs are something like 5 times as much, assuming a 1.75:1 overall ratio in the Soviets favor of troops, which was generally held throughout 43 and 44. Their logistical needs were colossal, and almost certainly could not have been filled by Soviet domestic efforts without enormously reducing their force totals.

>USSR
>Slavs
End yourself you Anglo nigger.

What a great post, thanks user. You have influenced my opinion and restored my faith in Veeky Forums

>M-R Pact saved communism
Tankies seriously believe this shit?

Achtung, Tsiganeer!

Go back to /pol/

Because of decisions made by the Allies during the war about what got shipped. By the end of 1942 the Soviets were profoundly negative about the usefulness of Western weapons in their theater and requested a massive shift toward raw materials (like 60% of their aluminum came from overseas during the war, along with a huge fraction of the food) and trucks. American trucks were objectively better than local versions, and sucking in hundreds of thousands of them meant that truck factories could focus on other things. Armchair generals consistently fail to grasp the importance of this.

On a side note, lend-lease had a small but real impact on Soviet designs during the Cold War. The Churchill's periscope was incorporated into basically everything for decades for example. They wanted samples of pretty much every Western vehicle, even the ones they had zero desire to ever use.

What caused the 175 ton difference?

Because sometimes the tankies have a point. The German advance at Kursk which was pretty much before any significant amount of lend lease arrived. Lend lease was important but not essential.

I will even give you a source. The fantastic book "Stalin's Wars" by Geoffrey Roberts.

Now, I'm not a tankie, but if there is anything more pernicious it must be an American boasting that without Lend Lease the Germans would have won. Guess what, even if Lend Lease was essential, sending boots and biscuits over does not compare to spilling blood. So just shut up about it already.

>The German advance at Kursk

edit: was halted at Kursk

The Soviets loved their mortars and artillery, and their ammunition weighed a lot.
This was their maximum first issue of munitions for the first two to three days in combat before more supplies were sent forward.

yeah, figured it had something to do with that.

>They're called tankies because of their love for the shittiest tank in the war, the T-34

no they're not

Why are Russians always the bad guys? I always give them the benefit of the doubt and they still always end up being comic book tier villains with their atrocities and brutal repression.

Make a Turk one. Please.

If communism is inevitable can you name one communist state in the world today ?

Sure, Rojava.

Marxist-Leninism is dead. Communism, and libertarian socialism isn't.

but the fifth column WAS a real threat....

>gets BTFO
>lol why u salty though :^)
leftypol pls go

>Heydrich wasn't a legitimate military target
unironically laughed out loud

>state

Except even Stalin himself, the #1 tankie of all time, admitted at the Tehran conference, right in front of Churchill and Roosovelt, that lend-lease was vital to winning the war. Maybe he was just trying to brown nose his allies, but still he wouldn't have said it if there was no truth to it.

Also worth mentioning that Lend Lease was met with ferocious opposition from both US and British elites, who generally sympathized with the Nazis.

They never forgave FDR for his betrayal of the global elite that he himself was part of. FDR's son claims FDR was poisoned by the British for this reason.

Quote from the book "Roosevelt and Stalin: Portrait of a Partnership" by Susan Butler:

At some point Roosevelt raised his glass and toasted Sir Alan Brooke, the British chief of staff. Stalin said he wasnted to add something to FDR's toast and proceeded to say he regretted that Sir Alan had adopted a grim and distristful attitude toward the Russians and that he drank to the general's health in the hope that Sir Alan "would come to know us better and find we are not so bad after all."

The result of this was disastrous...Brooke dapped his knife against his glass and in his toast declared, in effect, that the British had suffered more, lost more, and fought more in the war than either of the other nations.

In the face of this appalling remark... "Stalin became gloomy," observed Berezhkov. "He looked as though a storm was about to burst." But controlling himself, he calmly said,

"I want to tell you, from the Russian point of view, what the President and the United States have done to win the war. The most important thing in this war are machines. The United States had proven that it can turn out from 8,000 to 10,000 airplanes per month. Russia can only turn out, at most, 3,000 airplanes a month. England turns out 3,000 to 3,500, which are principally heavy bombers. The United States, therefore, is a country of machines. Without the use of these machines, through lend-lease, we would have lost this war."

To provide another perspective, American divisions on the attack consumed some 750 tons of supplies per day.

While American divisions tend to be quite big (US infantry divisions had 14,253 people, while a Red Army divisions was 12,000 nominal, but usually 9000 or so), they still guzzled supplies like Americans guzzle soft drinks.

The bulk came primarily from 2 sources; rations and fuel. Americans rations were canned and contained lots of meat as well as other "luxury" foods, which made the rations much heavier. The bulk of a Soviet soldier's ration was dry grain that was boiled, or bread that was considerably lighter.

>US and British elites, who generally sympathized with the Nazis.
Wow, is this true?

My grandfather fought against the japs in WW2 and told me he'd desert if he had to fight the germans

>mfw Tankies claim that the opening months of Operation Barbarossa weren't a disaster for the Soviets
Yeah losing tens of thousands of men due to shitty logistics totally isn't a massive lost.

>through lend-lease, we would have lost this war
p.s. gib marshal plan money

>Tankies claim that the opening months of Operation Barbarossa weren't a disaster for the Soviets
I've never heard anyone say this

What?

I've never heard anyone say such a thing. It was an absolute clusterfuck for the soviets. The most I've ever heard arguing the other way were arguments making it out as if it wasn't as big of a clusterfuck.

>le leftypol boogeyman

Nah dude, even for the Americans, it was mostly artillery ammo. The Americans would be firing those field guns 200 times a day, sometimes more on the offensive. A single 105mm gun firing HE-M1 shells would be 3.8 metric tons of ammo with 200 shots. That's one gun, a typical 1944 American infantry division usually fielded 48 field guns of various calibers, in addition to things like anti-tank weapons. dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/697844.pdf (page 47 of the pdf) The amount of rations and extra packaging doesn't come close, and fuel, while more expansive than what the Soviets used, still lagged well behind ammunition, especially heavy ammunition.

LL went into effect after Stalingrad, hence the turning point of the war was already eclipsed

>all those nothing burger "crimes"

Communists who say "STALIN DID NOTHING WRONG". You thought one had to be stupid (a la the Horses in animal farm), or painfully incompetent in life these dumbasses go a step further and go full retard.

Im serious when I say this, but Mao worshippers are objectively the worst sort of retarded edgy teenager. Even more so than stormfags.

Yes.

Henry Ford shipped a lot of Ford designs to Germany. Preston Scott Bush (GW Bush's grandfather) held German gold and gave some money to Nazi Germany. Charles Lindbergh was a supporter of Nazi Germany. The leadership of the Silver Legion weren't poor.

In England it was known that a portion of the nobility and the monarch himself (Edward VIII) supported Nazi Germany (Could be a reason why Edward VIII was forced out). Sir Oswald Mosley was of Noble blood.

Their fuel consumption was still pretty sizable, although mostly due to their large amount of support troops compared to Soviet divisions who were relatively barebones in comparison and relied on their armies for resupply.

has anyone found a source for this image?
according to it, 74% of Lend Lease in total and 77% of its vehicles (at least in dollar values) came after Kursk

Britain stopped Germans from taking Suez canal, and Japanese from taking India. Also it was the only country to represent Allied cause from june 1940 to june 1941

>implying stalin did something wrong

>tankie
>/pol/ meme
Kill yourself

Sure is /leftypol/ all up in here. How is it a pol meme when communists are actively calling themselves tankies?

>not understanding greentext
I was disagreeing with that idea, you flaming newfag.

>No Italians or the Chinese for sure, you can't commit war crimes if you are always losing.

>when poltards so retarded they get at eachother throat

get lost from here with your ideological bullshit

this seems pretty lacking in text compared to the others
i guess pastaboos aren't common

these strawmen are trash baka

scribd.com/document/51564619/INTERNATIONAL-AID-STATISTICS-WW2

Skip on down to page 40.

And yes, most LL arrived late in the war. This is pretty common knowledge.

Ford being antisemitic is a war crime?