Russians have already broken the Germany's back at Kursk a year later and annihilated entire German fighting capability...

>Russians have already broken the Germany's back at Kursk a year later and annihilated entire German fighting capability just 16 day's after D-Day was launched at Bagration
>b-but m-muh D-Day won the w-war

Other urls found in this thread:

usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/connor.pdf
globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-gustav.htm,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_t-34_production.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantokuen
myredditnudes.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>tfw Opa was badass enough to survive that and many more shitfests.

D-Day prevented the Russians from "liberating" Western Europe, which was just as important as keeping the Nazis from keeping it.

>b-but m-muh D-Day won the w-war
Who other than totally uneducated Amerimutts actually claims this?

Also this guy is right:

>Russians are enduring such a beating in the East that Stalin has to basically beg the Western Allies to open up a Second Front by May, 1944
>Western Allies open up a Second AND Third Front with the invasions of Italy in 1943 and Normandy a year later, thereby forcing the diversion of German troops who could've been used in the defensive war after Kursk failed
>70 years later Russiaboos claim they won the war all by themselves

>Russians are enduring such a beating in the East that Stalin has to basically beg the Western Allies to open up a Second Front by May, 1944
when the war was already won in the East? Western Front or no Western Front, what's the difference if you get to Berlin by 1945 or 1946
>Western Allies open up a Second AND Third Front with the invasions of Italy in 1943 and Normandy a year later, thereby forcing the diversion of German troops who could've been used in the defensive war after Kursk failed
Italy was manned by a skeleton force and the Allies still failed to manage a breakthrough (which speaks of their incompetence more than anything else) Doubt they'd be much of use anyway after Russians are pretty much destroying everything in the East
>70 years later Russiaboos claim they won the war all by themselves
they basically did
Lend Lease trucks contributed more to victory than all the Western Front together

>what's the difference if you get to Berlin by 1945 or 1946

Millions of dead bodies.

>Italy was manned by a skeleton force and the Allies still failed to manage a breakthrough (which speaks of their incompetence more than anything else)

That skeleton force was fortified behind a peninsula full of mountains and narrow passes. It was always going to be an uphill fight in Italy, literally.

>Doubt they'd be much of use anyway after Russians are pretty much destroying everything in the East

The Germans had to pull troops from Kursk at a critical point to try and stop the landing in Sicily.

>they basically did

t. Ivan Ivanovsky

>Millions of dead bodies.
do you think it mattered to the Russians who were out for German blood after they ravaged their country for 2 bloody years?
>The Germans had to pull troops from Kursk at a critical point to try and stop the landing in Sicily.
by that point they already failed to achieve a decisive breakthrough and the Soviets started their massive counterattack with their reserves
>t. Ivan Ivanovsky
I ain't Russian but I acknowledge that what they did dwarfed anything the Allies did and for good reason - the real war was fought and won in the East.
The rest - Atlantic, North Africa, Italy, France, was a sideshow so the Western Allies can feel they did something useful

>Italy was manned by a skeleton force
Since when is over a million men a "skeleton force"?

>Lend Lease trucks contributed more to victory than all the Western Front together
Are you retarded? Read this, page 71 of the PDF, to see how much the Germans were throwing onto the Western Front.

usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/connor.pdf

>Since when is over a million men a "skeleton force"?
German Strength during the most intensive part of the campaign (Operation Diadem) - 365,616 men. While it's certainly not a low number, it's quite irrelevant in the overall scheme of things in the East

First off, good job moving the goalposts for your claim. Because Diadem was neither the most intensive nor the length of the Italian campaign. (Fighting during Husky was more bloody)

Secondly, good job ignoring the non-German troops in the Italian theater; somehow I don't think you'd suddenly stop counting the Hungarians, Romanians, Finns, Hiwis, et al when computing Eastern Front strength.

And lastly, even if we do use your number, (which is wrong, by the way globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-gustav.htm, and that is before the large reinforcements sent) we have that force spread out over a Gustav line that's about 120 miles long. That makes roughly 3,046 soldiers per mile by your count, and significantly more by mine.

At the time of Operation Bagration, German forces on the Eastern Front were 3.13 million. This was spread out over a front line approximately 2,750 miles. That leaves you with 1,138 and a fraction soldiers per mile of front. Italy was more heavily defended per area fought over than the Eastern Front was.

>And lastly, even if we do use your number, (which is wrong, by the way globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-gustav.htm, and that is before the large reinforcements sent) we have that force spread out over a Gustav line that's about 120 miles long. That makes roughly 3,046 soldiers per mile by your count, and significantly more by mine.

>what are Anzio landings?

>what are Anzio landings?
A bunch of fuckers penned in a 20 mile perimeter. But fine, add them in, using your low troop count and we get 2,611.542 men per mile of contested area. Still enormously more than the Eastern Front.

I'll assume that you concede all of the points you aren't bothering to contest?

Dis, D-Day saved Western Europe, just not from the Nazis.

>the vast majority of the strategic bombing was done by the allies
>the destruction of most of the Luftwaffe and the air superiority that followed in both fronts was done by the allies
>the entire Italian military and roughly 20% of the German military was tied up fighting the allies instead of the USSR
>the Japanese were also unable to fight the USSR from the east thanks to allied intervention
>the USSR received vast amounts of supplies from lend lease because of the allies
>all of western Europe was conquered thanks to the allies, thus reducing the territory that the USSR would have had to conquer and the factories that the Germans would have been able to use

The USSR probably wouldn't have lost if they were by themselves, but they probably wouldn't have been able to win either. At best you're looking at a ceasefire after both sides exhaust their manpower and resources.

imagine unironically believing this

I believe it and I didn't post it. Find a flaw.

USSR would have easily lost Moscow if not for lend-lease. USA won the war.

those 60 000$ in signal equipment surely singlehandedly beated back all 3 panzer armies

Yes
A million dead russians is a lot of russians
When the war ends if a million more russians are dead the allies will be way stronger than the union when the next conflict comes around
Stalin could not let that happen

>1 000 000 dead soldiers is more important than controll over the Danmark, entire Germany, Benelux, France and maybe Italy and Norway

The United States gave them pretty much everything. Without lend lease the Russians are just a bunch of farmers with pitchforks. Which is why they lost so many soldiers.

Why can't people just agree that it was a combined effort?

It was a combined effort. The United States defeated both the Nazis and Japanese combined.

Because /int/ is even worse cancer than /pol/

What exactly do you think that Soviet GDP went into then? Bear in mind how it's comparable to the UK's and the Soviets got roughly 1/3 of what Lend-Lease provided to the British. Were the Brits also "a bunch of farmers with pitchforks"?

How are you going to occupy your vast lands in europe against the millions of fresh americans who are richer, have a better navy and air force, and not having to deal with rebellions from the people you currently rule over when such a large percentage of your men are dead and you have spent so much time and resources fighting a war that only ended a few months ago?

>Implying the Americans are just going to turn around and attack the USSR for no reason.
They dind't during Unthinkable. Why would they do it in this hypothetical scenario?

Because they occupy all of europe which stops the legitimate european, government,like free france,from retaking their homelands
Also they have a super weapon and a way more powerful army because the soviets sacrificed like half of their own army fighting the germans

So? The Soviets occupied half of Europe and ruthlessly suppressed local attempts at self-rule, and the Americans decided to look the other way, even with their superweapon. And that was with an actual presence on the continent, not having to do D-Day mark 2 against a force that is enormously stronger than what the Germans could field in 1944, promising to be a long, bloody slog.

The Americans are extremely unlikely to attack. If they were so interested in a confrontation, they would have gone to war in '45 or '46.

that would imply that the various participant countries made equivalent efforts, which isn't true at all.

Nobody with actual knowledge about history and even most normies do not believe that

that way Americans arent even in Europe

Because the soviet military was much stronger because they didn't sacrifoce half of it killing the germans you fuckimg brainlet
Almost all of europe(barring spain) is a lot of fucking land to occupy you troglodyte
Especially when half the population fucking hates you

>Bear in mind how it's comparable to the UK's and the Soviets got roughly 1/3 of what Lend-Lease provided to the British. Were the Brits also "a bunch of farmers with pitchforks"?

The Soviets having roughly the same GDP as the UK at the time is nothing to brag about. The had a population of over 170 million versus the UK's 47 million. Also the USSR controlled an area of over 8.5 million square miles compared to 93 thousand. The Soviets had an abundance of petroleum, natural gas, coal, timber, iron, nickle, lead, etc. you get the point. Even after all of that the U.S. opened the check book for the Soviets because they knew that the Nazis would roll over them without their help. Instead of jumping around pretending to be this strong man you should be more gracious and say thank you to good ole Uncle Sam.

>Not actually answering the question.
Please show ANYTHING at all to indicate America was interested with a war against the Soviet Union. Or that, you know, the losses sustained in another year or so of fighting would cripple the Soviet military, when after all it was 1941 and 42 when they really got hammered. Or that they were facing meaingingful levels of local resistance anywhere they conquered.

I'm American you dickweasel. But I've cracked open a history book or two in my time and learned that Lend-Lease was mostly important for managing the fungibility of the Soviet war economy; and was hardly propping it up wholesale. The Soviets were not some peasant mob with pitchforks, and even at the very outset of the war, were more mechanized and more aviated than the Germans, who were the ones who attacked with the initial manpower advantage.

>very outset of the war, were more mechanized and more aviated than the Germans

Citation?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
And before (((wiki))) check the embedded citations; while they almost all get obliterated at the outset of the invasion, look how many things like tanks and planes and guns the Soviets have compared to the Germans.

Do you really expect anyone to believe that one Soviet tank = one German tank?

In terms of cost? Yes, they're roughly similar. The enormously poor state of the Soviets at the outset of the war was due to poor tactics, poor doctrine, poor leadership, and poor communications, but a tank is a tank; a plane is a plane. When you compare how much stuff the economy of the Soviet union kitted its army out compared to the Germans, they did more at peacetime than the Wehrmacht did under a war economy. The Soviets had more tanks per man on June 21st, 1941 than the Germans did.

Germany's successes in WW2 had very little to do with technology and a hell of a lot to do with amazing C&C, as well as a VERY good junior officer corps. They fought on the cheap for the most part.

The tank-gap closed remarkably quickly with the T-34 (obviously not something that was lend-leased) it penetrated almost all the PzKw's and was mass-produced.
historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_t-34_production.html
just look at the level of production.

I would be careful with articles like that. The Soviets had some weird statistics when it came to production figures, some of it outright lying, and others of it having to do with how they would consider repairs that had to be done at the factory new units (This makes the factory look good). "Zombie tanks" were very much a thing when looking at T-34 production.

That's why I thought it would be better to focus on the number of tanks on hand pre-war; since that is both before any effect of Lend-lease and you can't fudge things in the same way.

We're talking about the start of the war though, a T-26 isn't a T-34.

And yet it still outweighs a Panzer 2, and is comparable in weight with the czech 35(t) and 38(t) which between them made up about a third of the German tank pool in Barbarossa. Don't pretend that the Germans didn't have a ton of obsolescant equipment as well.

Whatever Vlad.

I don't think I have ever heard a single person on Veeky Forums or Veeky Forums claim that. This forum is very central on the importance of Ostfront.

this is pretty spot on

also:
>UK supplied USSR with valuable intelligence

>legitimate european, government,like free france
Free France wasn't legitimate.

>>the Japanese were also unable to fight the USSR from the east thanks to allied intervention
Are you by chance retarded?

The 35 and 38 made up only 22% of the total German tank force in the east of 3,648 on June 22, 1941.
If anything below III (I, II, 35, 38) is counted as obsolete, then there are 1,673 modern tanks versus 1,832 obsolete tanks in the eastern army in 1941. In comparison, tanks like the T-26, BT-5, T-27, T-40, etc, made up 18,088 out of the 25850 total tanks the Red Army had on June 1, 1941.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantokuen
>Consequently, in April 1941 Japan felt free to conclude its own Neutrality Pact with the Soviets, as tension with the West, particularly the United States, began to mount over the Japanese occupation of (Vichy) French Indochina the previous year. As American economic sanctions began to pummel Japan, the growing threat of war in the south and the sense of "tranquility" in the north tended to divert Japanese attention away from their long-planned campaign in Siberia

>b-but m-muh D-Day won the w-war
Nobody in his right mind says that. 3% casualties, it's hardly a battle.

Regardless of Japanese delusions, they were bleeding dry in China and opening a new front up north in a frozen wasteland of no infrastructure and one (ONE) railroad against an army larger than their entire Chinese invasion force wasn't a viable option.
Japanese were not able to fight USSR from the east.

And then add in the 700 Panzer 2s to get to what I actually said instead of what you want it to be?

>If anything below III (I, II, 35, 38) is counted as obsolete, then there are 1,673 modern tanks versus 1,832 obsolete tanks in the eastern army in 1941. In comparison, tanks like the T-26, BT-5, T-27, T-40, etc, made up 18,088 out of the 25850 total tanks the Red Army had on June 1, 1941.
Which means that by your count, the USSR had about 7,700 non-obsolete tanks, more than double the entire German tank pool.

ANy way you slice it, you come up with the same conclusion: The soviets built a hell of a lot more things like tanks and planes than the Germans did, long before Lend-Lease became a thing. Positing that the Soviets only had equipment because of American industry and Lend-Lease and its ripple effects is simply incorrect.

Fuck off leftypolack bolsheboo, it was capitalist american allied lend lease that saved the soviets' asses and everyone knows it

I can’t believe the allies ever thought they’d lose. The game was rigged when Russia joined. The game was fucking already won when America joined.

A future lesson: when fighting a war, make sure you’re not the only one worth a fuck.

The Russians were not recieving any significant lend-lease during the Battle of Moscow

No, but British tanks helped.

>Russians are enduring such a beating in the East that Stalin has to basically beg the Western Allies to open up a Second Front by May, 1944
If you actually believe that the Russians were losing on the Eastern Front in 1944 than you are delusional.

>Western Allies open up a Second AND Third Front with the invasions of Italy in 1943 and Normandy a year later, thereby forcing the diversion of German troops who could've been used in the defensive war after Kursk failed
Kursk was the final nail in the coffin, no amount of troop relocation could have salvaged it.

>70 years later Russiaboos claim they won the war all by themselves
The war would have dragged on much longer if it wasn't for the other Allies, no one denies this. But if you look at the hsitorical evidence it's very clear that the Russians were perfectly capable of winning the war without them, 1941 is probably the best example.

Not even going to reply, explain how the Russians would've lost Moscow without Allied support even though they literally didn't???

see Im pretty sure this is bait but if it isn't please consider suicide and getting information from somewhere other than German propaganda

>But if you look at the hsitorical evidence it's very clear that the Russians were perfectly capable of winning the war without them, 1941 is probably the best example.
Not any of the people you're responding to, but this is not clear. There is a colossal difference between a defensive war and an offensive one, especially as you start gaining massive amounts of ground and need something to help resupply your advancing forces; while use of slow, organic (horse and mule) supply works well enough for moving stuff away from your railheads when you're on the defensive, if you try to do the same on the attack, you can advance no further than your non-motorized supply chain. Some of this was because of Lend-Lease, but the Soviets didn't really invest much at all in a motorized logistical system.

The ability to do massive, sweeping, along the entirety of a 2,000+ mile wide front offensives owes a lot to Lend-Lease. While it's pretty clear that Germany would not be able to subdue the Soviets even without aid, I'm not convinced that the necessary corollary of that is "Soviets roll through all opposition and parade in the streets of Berlin, eventually". The war petering out from mutual exhaustion and food supplies on both sides collapsing seems a very plausible scneario.

If nothing else, this is certainly true. But I also believe that the western allies pinned down a fair number of German soldiers and a great deal of equipment, all of which may have been used to greater benefit in the east. Germans may not have won the war with those men on the eastern front, but it certainly would have changed things, and made life for the Russians more difficult. This, in addition to the air campaign which tore the luftwaffe to bits, we're important contributions the western allies made to the war effort.

That all said, I would never argue that the most important land battles of the war were fought and won in the east.

>explain how the Russians would've lost Moscow without Allied support even though they literally didn't???
I never said that you retard.

>explain how the Russians would've lost Moscow without Allied support even though they literally didn't???
he didn't claim that they would have

*were NOT fought and won in the east

>air campaign which tore the luftwaffe to bits
Also disrupted German production. I think one of the biggest memes out there is the idea that strategic bombing wasn't effective.

> Some historians estimate that Bletchley Park's massive codebreaking operation, especially the breaking of U-boat Enigma, shortened the war in Europe by as many as two to four years.
>If Turing and his group had not weakened the U-boats' hold on the North Atlantic, the 1944 Allied invasion of Europe - the D-Day landings - could have been delayed, perhaps by about a year or even longer, since the North Atlantic was the route that ammunition, fuel, food and troops had to travel in order to reach Britain from America.

there's a lot of talk about lend lease. But the Royal Navy supremacy and intelligence never gets mentioned

>Also disrupted German production. I think one of the biggest memes out there is the idea that strategic bombing wasn't effective.
It's really hard to measure its actual impact; German production did rather steadily rise all throughout the war. You can only really project strat bombing's direct effectiveness against whatever hypothetical increases would have happened in its absence.

While he doesn't go into it at enormous length, Tooze is quite interesting about this, and he tends to adopt a minimalist view: Germany's biggest constraint was labor, especially skilled labor, and secondarily raw material.

Most of the targeting in strategic bombing was dehousing (minimal economic impact), or attacking plant, which often wasn't the bottleneck anyway. The bigger impact really does seem to be the resources necessitated in defending against it, much like the u-boat campaign against Britain.

Ehh, I've heard the quote, but I've always been a little doubtful. The Brits and Americans made enormous more direct contributions to keeping the atlantic safe, and ultimately they won the sub war not by intercepting and destroying subs with superior sigint, but by simply protecting every single convoy with scads of small ships and planes.

Soviets never expected that.

>the Japanese were also unable to fight the USSR from the east thanks to allied intervention

SIGINT was huge in ww2

>submarine ordered to be at x location at y time
>gets bombed by waiting aircraft

The MI6 official history books have a lot of detail about this.

Also the train spotter networks in occupied france/poland. A LOT of people died getting valuable info.

>Also some madman stole a soviet mortar shell and give it to the brits to study

I wish russians that think like that would choke on their nuclear missile parades

>Veeky Forums is still falling for the "Russians won the second world war" meme
Is there a more brainlet interpretation of history?

The Americans won the second world war

a good and quick PR and a post war rework on the promotion is all you need for a successful establishment of your message ...

... and the russians didn´t have John Wayne

>RN supremacy is never mentioned
maybe because they were absolutely 90% absent on the primary naval theater, the pacific?
it isn't hard to be the best naval power when your competitors are either landlocked or Germany, Italy being the exception, but with their political and ground force incompetence it might as well have been landlocked.

>Who other than totally uneducated Amerimutts actually claims this?
I was thought pretty much that in school actually. The focus was on the western front and north africa. The eastern front was just given token attention. We learnt next to nothing about the italian front.
t. Swede.

I see alot of what if WW2 threads but I rarely see this question.

What would have happened if America stayed neutral and instead gave all their lend lease and supplies to Germany.
Do you think USSR would still beat a financially and industrially backed Germany?

I highly fucking doubt it

>What would have happened if America stayed neutral and instead gave all their lend lease and supplies to Germany.
why the fuck would they do that?
It's a "what if aliens landed and helped Germany" tier question

Why would a Jew-controlled great power give free gibs to Hitler? Are you completely retarded?

at the rate the Russians were losing troops on their march to Berlin had there not been a western front, the Nazis could have fallen back over their territory and let Ruskies eventually bleed themselves dry in a scorched earth Germany

Why would America give free shit to USSR. America hates communism?

American policy has been simply pro-British since before WW1, they joined the war mostly because of Britain. USSR was just cannon fodder.

Their goal was to stop Nazi Germany first and foremost.

ever heard of the saying, enemy of my enemy is my friend?
Nazis did everything to piss the Americans off with their unrestricted submarine warfare and bombing innocent civilians at Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, etc.

For get about the Pacific euro cuck?

What is lend lease?

>Pacific
totally irrelevant theater, but sure whatever, take credit for it, it's not like anyone outside of some shithole like Phillippines or murrica cares about it

Is that including civilians also? Jesus you euros hate that America was the only ones who won on two fronts

Two fronts faggot, your ignorance is making my morning

In 1944, Hitler assigned all armor production to the Western front, ultimately put to use in the Ardennes offensive in December. I guess the Germans weren't as smart as you, in that they stripped the Eastern front to fight in the West against the more dangerous enemy.

desu the Ardennes offensive is less about who were most dangerous more about Hitler's dumbassery on thinking that pushing the allies back to Rotterdam was enough to somehow break them apart

Yes, the bongs were basically farmers with pitchforks, LARPing as an "empire". Absent US support they would have submitted.

bong tanks were junk throughout that war, not even the bong overlords thought otherwise

What if i told you that if the americans and brittish werent in the war the 50 divisions kept in the west would murder rape fuck the russians in the ass

The plan was also to surround the allied armies wiping them out and forcing them to sign a peace treaty which they likely would have

The Soviets literally complained about British tanks due to their low-caliber weapons and speed. They mainly used the British tanks for reconnaisance, guard duty or training new tank crews, similiar situation for U.S M3 Lees.
t. Hubert P. Van Tuyll in "Feeding the bear : American aid to the Soviet Union, 1941-1945"

it was still superbly naive
there was that nano sized chance that they managed to complete their objective but what the hell are they going to do after winter cleared up
continue on with bodenplatte and nordwind?
seems unlikely that the allied would go this far and conclude peace on a dime

It may have been dumbass, but the fact is the Nazis sent all 1944 armor production to the Western front, to fight the most dangerous enemy, rather than the subhuman Sovs.

yes we did

Ardennes wasn't the last German offensive

>free shit
It wasn't free though.