Which of the two (US or UK) controbuted more to Allied Victory in WW2

Which of the two (US or UK) controbuted more to Allied Victory in WW2

>pic unrelated

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol
fat-yankey.livejournal.com/32078.html
www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ww2overview1998.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#GDP
www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ehr88postprint.pdf
ww2-weapons.com/german-arms-production/
chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2013/05/wwii-myths-german-war-economy-was.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

UK if we're only talking about the European theater. USA if we're talking about WORLD war 2.

Looking for sources and citations as well

This.

US. Whithout american supplies the USSR would not have been able to fight worth a damn.

Interesting that you would claim that given how the U.S. gave almost 3 times as much to the British as they did to the Soviets

Straya cunt

>U.S. gave almost 3 times as much to the British as they did to the Soviets
The British got more stuff from the US than the Soviets did.

This does not mean that the Soviets did not receive a hell of a lot.

Why does that tank have a penis?

by the time Lend-Lease went into effect the Soviets had already decisively crippled the European axis at Stalingrad and had already BTFO Japan long before the invasion began. I'm American too but its simply going to make us look bad if we take any of the credit for victory in World War II when the Soviets are almost entirely responsible

>btfo japan
Nigga what? The US was almost solely responsible for destroying the japanese fleet, air force, army and industry. I agree that russian intervention is the main reason why jaoan surrendered, but they would never have gotten to the point where they would surrender because of russia without four long years of american intervention in the pacific. Even then, they were just unprepared for a russian invasion because they had allocated all of their resources to defending against the americans and just werent prepared for the russians.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol

Considering that the US produced upwards of 70-80% of all war materiel produced by the Allies, that would be ALL of the Allies including the Sovs, and that's even before we get to the 16M the US put into uniform, I'd say the answer is more than obvious.

>khalkin gol had a role in bringing down the jaoanese empire
Nigger are you high

>Considering that the US produced upwards of 70-80% of all war materiel produced by the Allies, that would be ALL of the Allies including the Sovs, and that's even before we get to the 16M the US put into uniform, I'd say the answer is more than obvious.

no that's not what I'm saying. I'm just pointing out that Soviet Union dumpstered Japan with no effort way before Lend-Lease

>but its simply going to make us look bad if we take any of the credit for victory in World War II when the Soviets are almost entirely responsible
Not even Stalin was this delusional. He stated in private correspondence with Khruschev that the Soviets couldn't win the war without American aid.

ah yes we should take the word of a paranoid sandnigger over facts, reason, and evidence.

About 2/3 of the soldiers on the Western Front in 1944-1945 were Americans. Ditto for casualties, 586,000 out of 766,000 were Americans. In the air, the Americans dropped more bombs than the Brits and destroyed more enemy aircraft, and Speer specifically credited them with destroying Germany's industry while noting the ineffectiveness of Britain's area bombing efforts.

These amerimutt memes actually kill me ahahahahaa

I live in FL after living in rural New England and it's hard to admit but a lot of us look like this

>ah yes we should take the word of a paranoid sandnigger over facts, reason, and evidence.
And what "reason" would this be?

The Sovs provoked a minor border conflict with Japan as a means to extract a peace treaty with Japan, so that they could focus on the looming threats to their West. The Japanese had no interests or needs to their North and West beyond Manchuria, so they were also happy to sign that agreement. Japan had cucked Russia short decades previous, and if that's all they had to worry about, they likely would have done so again, if they'd wanted to do so. They didn't.

the war was already decided before Lend-Lease made a tangible difference.

>the war was already decided
No it wasn't.

>the Axis could have won after Stalingrad

I don't understand, are you saying that russia could have beat japan on its own? Because their fleet was fucking tiny and they were completely incapable of pulling off large-scale amphibious landings, as evidenced by the clusterfuck that was their landing in the kurills (which, by the way, was only accomplished by using ships provided by the americans).

Germany had four times the GDP and three to six times the production of every major resource (steel, aluminum, coal, etc.) as the Soviets, so yes, they could have. And Lend-Lease was already significant by Stalingrad. Lend-Lease trucks were 2/3 of the whole Soviet pool by early to mid 1943. See:
fat-yankey.livejournal.com/32078.html

>I don't understand, are you saying that russia could have beat japan on its own?

why would they have needed to? Soviet Union and Japan had a non-aggression pact. they only invaded to curtail American influence in East Asia

So then why did you bring up khalkhin gol in the first place if its not relevant to the discussion of who was responsible for the defeat of imperial japan?

I really doubt UK could have taken on the European theatre by themselves user.

I never claimed Soviet Union was responsible for the defeat of Imperial Japan.

>UK if we're only talking about the European theater
Not remotely true.

>the NVA is in the streets of Saigon? Impossible. We have four times the GDP and six times the production of every resource.

>an insurgency is comparable to a total war of extermination between peer powers
>a war in which the leaders of one side outright admitted that the resource imbalance meant they would have lost if not for their allies
neighboring each other
It's amazing how tankies can consistently fall below even my pitiful expectations for them.

>ignoring the fact that the NVA was getting raped while the US was still in the war
Are you retarded

>Germany had four times the GDP and three to six times the production of every major resource
Why do you lie?

www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ww2overview1998.pdf

Germany did not have a larger GDP, pre-war and you can only get excess in primary resource production by counting what they were garnering from occupied territories while simultaneously pretending they didn't also incur costs in running and occupying them (you think that suddenly they stopped supplying power to places like France?)

You're also overlooking how inefficient the German system of military production was. That's how they managed such wonderful feats as producing less tanks out of more steel allocated to tank production than the Soviets did.

USSR. Literally could've won without the rest, and p much did post 42

While I'd say the US posited more of a contribution, the lend lease sent to Russia was mostly AFTER Russia began to turn the war around and its debatable how much it actually helped (from "it saved them" to it was "negligible")
The best argument the British have is that the Normandy invasion wasn't super necesary because the Russians were already making gains. The British did most of the work in North Africa where some well trained german soldiers and lots of equipment were....and distracted the Germans up on the western front for a little....
The Americans can claim massive lend lease and finance, most of the credit for post-normandy western front success, most allied bombing, and almost entirely account for defeating Japan.

USA.
The UK did what it did best throughout history, sit on it's island while it's allies died doing the actual fighting. Then once the war is won, they claim victory.

Not sure if it's inefficiency or just the simple fact of having to divert resources to other projects like land fortifications, air defenses, naval vessels, industrial investments, etc while the Soviets could focus everything they had on land-based weapons against Germany.

From page 27 of your own retarded source:
>GDPs 1943:
>Germany+Austria: 454 billion
>USSR: 305 billion
>GDPs 1941:
>Germany: 441 billion
>USSR: 359 billion
This conveniently excludes a lot of occupied territories.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#GDP
The peak of relative German superiority was 1942, when they had $1,150 billion GDP to USSR's $274 billion.
>and you can only get excess in primary resource production by counting what they were garnering from occupied territories while simultaneously pretending they didn't also incur costs in running and occupying them
The costs did not remotely compare to the benefits they extracted. The entirety of northern France's industrial capacity, for instance, was at the disposal of the Germans.
>That's how they managed such wonderful feats as producing less tanks out of more steel allocated to tank production than the Soviets did.
Because they produced more ammo. This is in fact far more important than producing more vehicles.

The Germans had far more resources than the Soviets in general, they were forced to spend it on different things. The Soviets got to play easy mode by focusing their entire economy on the production of a few specific goods because Lend-Lease covered the rest. Trucks for instance.

The bongs were getting their ass handed to them by a few poorly equipped and thirsty Germans in North Africa, before the Americans came along, resupplying them and invading and once again saving the bongs from defeat.

USSR

>Not sure if it's inefficiency or just the simple fact of having to divert resources to other projects like land fortifications, air defenses, naval vessels, industrial investments, etc while the Soviets could focus everything they had on land-based weapons against Germany.
Speaking of which, the air defense systems alone of the Reich expended millions of tons of artillery shells (an average of 16,000 88mm shells per bomber shot down; 22,000 were shot down, some 80% by by flak). And people seriously underestimate the cost of Germany's massive submarine fleet, and how much that drained them compared to the Soviets basically having no navy. One Type VII costed as much to build as an entire company of Panzer IVs.

*get raped by Nips*
*wait for Americans to save them*
Ayyysturalia alright

>1943 was the whole war!

Also, seriously? Calling Mark Harrison retarded? Can you name anyone more respected about the macroeconomics of the military economies of WW2?

>The costs did not remotely compare to the benefits they extracted. The entirety of northern France's industrial capacity, for instance, was at the disposal of the Germans.
True, but you're deluding yourself if you think that either all of that primary resource production went into armaments, or even could be put into armaments; which is why a comparison of primary resource production is disingenous at best.

>Because they produced more ammo
No, ammo production was entirely separate. I'm talking direct allocations of steel for purposes of producing tanks in both powers, the Soviets managed to make more tanks out of less steel, because they weren't doing retarded shit like decentralizing production into dozens of different facilities none of which had the same models.

>Trucks for instance.
The Soviets produced more trucks. It's just that they originally produced a bunch for civilian usage and then absorbed them by the Red Army instead of counting them from the start the way the Germans did. That's why you have 150,000 "new" production between 41-45, but 221,500 drafted from industrial and agricultural use; add those up and you'll find it's more than the roughly 305,000 that the Germans made.

The Soviets also built more combat munitions

www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ehr88postprint.pdf (page 2)

>private correspondence with kruschev
You fucking what, Brainlet? Stalin hated kruschev, zhukov and voroshilov were his only real friends who were military officials. He was grooming Zhukov to be the next Secretary, it was only through a coup that kruschev gained power

was the whole war!
I cited 1943 because the claim was made that Lend-Lease was not significant by that time.
>True, but you're deluding yourself if you think that either all of that primary resource production went into armaments, or even could be put into armaments; which is why a comparison of primary resource production is disingenous at best.
It's not disingenuous, it gets the point across much better than nitpicking metrics of weaponry like tankies do, without taking into account the cost of actually running and supplying that weaponry, or the cost of 'soft' factors like shipbuilding and automobile production that the Soviets never got into.
>No, ammo production was entirely separate. I'm talking direct allocations of steel for purposes of producing tanks in both powers, the Soviets managed to make more tanks out of less steel, because they weren't doing retarded shit like decentralizing production into dozens of different facilities none of which had the same models.
How much more? Accounting for weight and German production of other types of armored vehicles? From what source?
>The Soviets produced more trucks. It's just that they originally produced a bunch for civilian usage and then absorbed them by the Red Army instead of counting them from the start the way the Germans did.
No, even if you're talking about the whole country German motor vehicle production dwarfed Soviet motor vehicle production. In any case total Soviet truck production, not just for the army, totaled 205,000 in the war years. Germans produced more. The ones drafted were ones that already existed prior to the war breaking out (and of questionable quality). Out of the 205k trucks in total that were produced 1941-1945, only 150,000 were diverted for military use.
fat-yankey.livejournal.com/32078.html

ww2-weapons.com/german-arms-production/
You're also ignoring the fact that bombing curtailed German production, which otherwise would have been higher.

Looking at Harrison's book which that article cites, there's a mismatch in numbers here.
>The costs did not remotely compare to the benefits they extracted. The entirety of northern France's industrial capacity, for instance, was at the disposal of the Germans
Yes, but he didn't mention trade balances, where in many cases Germany had barely broke even in trade surpluses with occupied territories or in some cases even ran a deficit due to them being import-dependent countries being cut off from the rest of the world; Wages of Destruction shows this through French oil consumption dropping dramatically, industry production never recovering, herds in occupied territories being culled, coal distribution being very uneven, and GDP growth remaining stagnant throughout the war. There's also a chart from another book showing that production from the occupied territories made a small contribution to overall German production, if I can find it.

>You fucking what, Brainlet?
>"Stalin remarked on several occasions that 'if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war'. I will state here that several times in private conversations with me he noted these were the actual circumstances. When I listed to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so."
-"Memoirs of Nikita Krushchev", Volume 1, page 639.

>I cited 1943 because the claim was made that Lend-Lease was not significant by that time.
I made no such claim. was my first post in the thread, and was my second. 1943 is in fact when Lend-Lease really gets huge.

>It's not disingenuous,
It's not disingenuous, it gets the point across much better than nitpicking metrics of weaponry like tankies do, without taking into account the cost of actually running and supplying that weaponry, or the cost of 'soft' factors like shipbuilding and automobile production that the Soviets never got into.
When did I ever do that? In fact, I've been saying basically the same thing; the occupation costs of Europe consumed almost 1/3 of their steel production and I'm not sure how much of their coal production. But those are costs that you have on a more or less fixed basis if you want to fight this war; and they're something that the Germans are going to have to deal with. They do not help them prosecute further conflict.

>How much more? Accounting for weight and German production of other types of armored vehicles? From what source?
Journal of Slavic Military studies, Volume 27, issue 4, article by Alexander lovelace. I used to have a link from sci-hub, but ever since they got taken down, I'm not sure how to access it for free.

>. Germans produced more. The ones drafted were ones that already existed prior to the war breaking out (and of questionable quality).
So, in other words, Soviet truck production did eclipse German truck production, just not on the years you're focused on, but actually so if you include things in a longer time frame. Could it be that the large stock of trucks they could draw upon had something to do with their priorities?

>You're also ignoring the fact that bombing curtailed German production, which otherwise would have been higher.
That is actually profoundly unlikely.
chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2013/05/wwii-myths-german-war-economy-was.html

>Soviets managed to make more tanks out of less steel, because they weren't doing retarded shit like decentralizing production into dozens of different facilities
When you're on the wrong end of a strategic bombing campaign from legitimate wartime powers in the West, you have to do that. When you're a subhuman slav and fortunate enough to be warring with an enemy with no strategic bombing capability, and you yourself are a subhuman slav and have no strategic bombing capability yourself, you just slam a glass of vodka and shoot another dozen kulaks and give thanks for the good life.

move aside shitlords, France did all the work

>When you're on the wrong end of a strategic bombing campaign from legitimate wartime powers in the West, you have to do that.
Again, please read this chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2013/05/wwii-myths-german-war-economy-was.html

Strategic bombing did not change the fundamental correlation of steel allocation to German military production, it just provided overall decreases (theoretical decreases compared to what might have been produced in absence of strat bombing).

Plus, if we're going into wartime vissictisudes on the production line, you've got a tough case to make that the effects of strategic bombing are worse than overrunning roughly 1/5th of the country, forcing a disassembly of the factories and often shipping them, brick by brick, hundreds if not thousands of miles away, often starting over production with brand new labor forces who have little if any training.

>believing Khr*schev's lies
lol

>chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2013/05/wwii-myths-german-war-economy-was.html
This link cites Tooze's book - isn't there a graph in there that shows the increase in armaments production up to 1943 was halted by the battle of the Ruhr?

The steady 8% increases did halt at around that time, but that is irrelevant to the point I was making: Steel was the primary bottleneck of German production, and one of the limitations of their arms industry was inefficient uses of steel. That doesn't change with the intensifying of strategic bombing, it just creates overall shortages in transportation and production. The Soviets (and just about everyone) were using their steel more efficiently than the Germans were, which is why direct comparisons of steel production are disingenuous for determining some sort of overall war production.

>Norway is the only country other than the UK that thinks the UK was the most helpful
what the fuck is their problem?

The UK was the only allied major power to do fighting inside Norway. Plus, Norway's own biggest contribution to the overall war was merchant marine activity alongside the British fleet. At a very weak guess, public education in Norway probably pays attention to what was going on in their country and what their countrymen were doing, which happened to be mostly inter-meshed with the British, which leaves someone who doesn't know that much of history would tend to remember that and distort their views accordingly.

What exact criticisms do you have of khrushchevs son’s biography of his father? Or are you just another tankie who thinks any criticism of the soviet union is “american propoganda”?

The Greeks won the war - by fucking up Mussolini and thus detracting from Operation Barbarossa. This delayed Hitler and screwed up the Russia offensive and thus weakened the Wehrmacht and thus the UK and USA disputing the laurels is laughable. The Pacific War, however, is another thing. USA dominated that theater.

>believing anyone
t. historiography

Barbarossa was not delayed because of Greek actions; there's a reason why other German offensives on the Eastern Front begin at around the same time, Blau on June 24th of 1942, and Zitadelle on July 5th of 43. Go earlier and you risk the whole "oh shit oceans of mud" problem mucking up your attacks.

Just to play along with the hypothetical though, wouldn't absence of strategic bombing imply no western Allied military presence, or at least a lessened one, and therefore greater allocations of steel to the Army against the Soviets instead of going to other areas?

criticism of Stalin by the son of the guy who spent his entire career attempting to destroy Stalin's legacy? Surly a reliable source

Presumably, but that isn't the point. The Germans were not efficient with their steel usage. I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept, I thought pretty much everyone knew of the wacky disharmony between the zillion different types and the decentralization of production centers.

All you're really saying is that the Germans are in a better position if the Western Allies aren't doing anything, which is certainly something I'd agree with, but I hardly think it's a controversial claim. It's not really relevant to an analysis of who had the more efficient and effective war economy between the Soviets and the Germans, nor of the previous user's rather ridiculous reasoning that because the Germans produced more of some things they must have had the stronger economy. (The Soviets had more oil, and a claim that more oil=more overall production is every bit as reductionist as saying more coal= more production.)

Oh no, your pic is VERY related to this thread

>bongs are this asshurt that we actually helped our allies
wew

>The man responsible for most successful time in soviet history is destroying Stalin's legacy
lel