If the Americans hadn't supplied the Soviets with lend-lease...

If the Americans hadn't supplied the Soviets with lend-lease, would they have been able to liberate all of Germany and Poland before the Soviets occupied them?

Other urls found in this thread:

nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/72.pdf
io9.gizmodo.com/could-the-nazis-have-starved-britain-into-submission-1377975000
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Nah. The main thing allowing the Soviets to advance was the Germans wearing down their army with failed offensives and losing equipment. They'd still advance, they'd just have an army that didn't grow as quickly.

Lend lease is a meme.

>lend lease is a meme
Stalin himself said they would not have won without american aid

Lend lease really helped the Soviet in the early stages of the 1941 Invasion when the Soviets lost most of their heavy equipment and the factories capable of producing that equipment were all shifted east of the Urals ahead of the German Advance.

lend lease provided a stop gap for much of the equipment particularly in tanks and aircraft until the factories could be re-assembled.

The Soviets also made great use of American-made M3 half-tracks throughout the war.

You are aware Stalin does not have the same modern statistics available as today's historians do, or the knowledge on the strength of the German army?

Stalin also attempted to befriend the west following the war at first, so is biased in this regard.

You literally learn this level of basic historical analysis in high school.

Literally how could Germany have won on the Eastern Front?

Well in this case and many others he didn't know what he was talking about.

He probably uses this comment as a political tool.

>Lend lease really helped the Soviet in the early stages of the 1941 Invasion
no, British shipments did, not American ones

He said it once to Gorbachev, according to Gorbachev. In what way would that be a useful tool for him?

Possibly if we didnt supply them. Im also not OP btw.

But according to Gorbachev, Stalin said that

Lend lease includes British aid to the Soviets.

We all know the Germans were fucked from the start, I think what OP means is would the Soviets have been able to perform the giant offensive operations such as Operation Bagration without the massive amounts of trucks and other vehicles that were gotten from lend lease. And if the answer is no how much of Germany or perhaps even Poland would be under Western allied control as opposed to Soviet control.

Hopefully this thread does not turn into another generic "could Germany have won ww2" memefests

as long as the tankies in this thread know and understand the USSR would not have won without the US according to Stalin

Holy shit. I’ve already responded to this:
Stalin isn’t a professional military theorist, or had access to the statistics of the wehrmacht we have now,

as long as you know :)

fugg I can already see the thread turning to shit

These aren’t actual responses. There is no scenario where Germany wins in the East.

>you are aware
>literally x2

Would the U.S.A. have won without the U.S.S.R.? Of course, Germany declared war on both, not the other way round.

Yes. We would have just nuked them until they surrendered.

Well of course. As I said Germany was fucked from the start. I think what OP is asking is without the massive amounts of trucks and other vehicles they got from lend lease how much slower their advance against Germany would be, as inevitable as it is. How much more land would be under control of the Western Allies at the end of the war.

>we

I know. I’m only refuting the claim the Soviets wouldn’t have won.

Yes, there is no way Germany can match American production.

How would the US land in Europe with millions of Germans defending the coastline?

Nukes

Ok. The US drops a nuke. What next?

Destroying their infrastructure and making the troops unable to be resupplied effectively like they did historically

A transport plan on an even larger scale. It doesn't matter how many troops the Germans have if they can't supply them with food, ammo, POLs, etc.

We drop more nukes until they surrender.

>greentexting
>posting images
>his post ends with dubs
lmao plebbit

That's how retarded you sound.

>we

So 'you're' going to kill 80 million civilians until they surrender rather than a negotiated peace?

What's the fucking point?

The point is to win. Also to liberate Europe. We can reach Germany, so only German civilians need to die.

nuclear weapon was developed in 1945

They aren't going to kill 80 million civilians to liberate 40 million. They'd much sooner come to a negotiated peace.

>The Point is to win

REAL LIFE IS NOT HEARTS OF IRON 4

Yes, we would have bombed them conventionally until then.

>They aren't going to kill 80 million civilians to liberate 40 million
We were willing to kill every single person on Japan to win the war in the Pacific, I don't see why we wouldn't do so to win the war in Europe.

Firstly, stop saying 'We'. You didn't do anything.


Secondly, downfall wasn't going to kill every person in Japan. Japan also would've refused to surrender in any other way. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Your """""strategy"""""" would plunge the world straight into a recession so big that the usa would collapse, moron

>Secondly, downfall wasn't going to kill every person in Japan
There were 12 atomic bombs planned to be dropped on Japan, and this was before Operation Downfall which would have an additional 7 atomic bombs being dropped on Japan. Also all previous experience had shown the Japanese to be willing to fight to the death, so when we were going to land on Japan we were doing so with the expectation that we'd have to kill them all.

Holy shit, you still haven't expalined why you're saying 'We'.

YOU DID NOT FIGHT IN WW2, YOU SPERG.

Secondly, Britain also had a plan to infect all cattle with an infectious plague to wipe out Europe. It doesn't mean it was ever going to be carried out. The US had 2 nuclear bombs, and dropped them as posturing to the soviets. The Japanese were planning to surrender anyway.

Furthermore, Downfall would not have lead to every Japanese citizen fighting. Do you live in a fucking anime?

>The US had 2 nuclear bombs, and dropped them as posturing to the soviets
Is your knowledge of history based off memes and /pol/?

>Downfall would not have lead to every Japanese citizen fighting
Probably not, be we didn't know that at the time.

>le russian historian

>Lend lease really helped the Soviet in the early stages of the 1941 Invasion


Wrong LL kicked in in late42-43 the ussr basically defeated the Heeresgruppe Mitte in winter 41 in front of moscoe without significant LL or a 2nd front.

Barbarossa failed right there and then, german generals said after the war that they knew the war was lost in december 41.

>Is your knowledge of history based off memes and /pol/?
The Japanese were planning to surrender since the invasion of Manchuria. The US couldn't really make 12 atomic bombs.

>Probably not, be we didn't know that at the time.
Are you ever gonna explain why you're saying 'We' like a 14 year old?

And yes, 'We' did know. People had visited Japan prior to the war. The population weren't gonna die for a lost war. The army was indoctrinated, but not the entire civilian population.

Downfall wouldn't have killed the entire population even in your scenario, because not every soldier in a lost battle dies.

>The Japanese were planning to surrender since the invasion of Manchuria
Not him, but there is no diplomatic cabling information of this.

>The US couldn't really make 12 atomic bombs.
And this is just wrong.
nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/72.pdf

>The army was indoctrinated, but not the entire civilian population.
Would you care to explain how on the islands you had things like the mass suicides in Saipan, or the indoctrination of korean laborer conscripts to similar levels of fanaticism of the IJA regulars at Peleliu? Why exactly do you think they weren't going to die for a lost war? What makes them different from the saipan suicides?

>Not him, but there is no diplomatic cabling information of this.
The Japanese literally had no choice. The people were starving anyway and would soon all starve. the front in China was about to collapse after they lost Manchuria, and they were having every city relentlessly bombed. Surrendering to the west was Hirohito and the army's best bet of not being shot.

>nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/72.pdf
Good source, you win here.

>Would you care to explain how on the islands you had things like the mass suicides in Saipan, or the indoctrination of korean laborer conscripts to similar levels of fanaticism of the IJA regulars at Peleliu? Why exactly do you think they weren't going to die for a lost war?

The difference is that this is them killing themselves. The topic we're discussing here is whether the US would willingly murder the entire population of Germany to win in the West, (A Ridiculous notion), and comparing the willing murder of 80 million Germans to mass suicides of the Japanese willingly is obviously a false equivalence. Downfall wouldn't kill the entire population of Japan. Why didn't the population all collectively kill themselves at news of the surrender and the allies moving in to occupy the Island?

>The Japanese literally had no choice. The people were starving anyway and would soon all starve. the front in China was about to collapse after they lost Manchuria, and they were having every city relentlessly bombed. Surrendering to the west was Hirohito and the army's best bet of not being shot.
You can say the exact same things about the situation Germany was in post Bagration. The people were starving, their fronts were collapsing, and every city was being relentlessly bombed. You'll note that they didn't actually surrender until the entire country was occupied except for a little nub around Kiel and Hitler was dead.

>The difference is that this is them killing themselves
But you're starting off from a premise that the civilian population of Japan would not fight. I see no basis for that premise.

>The topic we're discussing here is whether the US would willingly murder the entire population of Germany to win in the West, (A Ridiculous notion)
The manhattan project was explicitly created with the intention of dropping the bomb on Germany. Why exactly do you think they would blink if it came to that?

> Why didn't the population all collectively kill themselves at news of the surrender and the allies moving in to occupy the Island?
In large part because they were ordered not to. If the emperor had given a broadcast similar to the one he gave the people of Saipan, do you really think they'd act any differently?

>You can say the exact same things about the situation Germany was in post Bagration. The people were starving, their fronts were collapsing, and every city was being relentlessly bombed. You'll note that they didn't actually surrender until the entire country was occupied except for a little nub around Kiel and Hitler was dead.
Ok, but why does this suddenly mean the Japanese will not surrender without occupation? Granted, the Geramns refused tom but Japan was not occupied by the time it surrendered. The German high command was also deluding themselves into believing the Western allies would join them. The Japanese had utterly no hope whatsoever.

>But you're starting off from a premise that the civilian population of Japan would not fight. I see no basis for that premise.

I'm not, you're misinterpreting me. I'm stating that it is a false equivalence to believe the US would've dropped nuclear bombs across all of Germany to liberate France, because Downfall was drawn up, since the German civilian populace aren't actually fighting in the former scenario, or have the opportunity to surrender. Suicide si a self inflicted death. Being burned alive by a nuke isn't.

>The manhattan project was explicitly created with the intention of dropping the bomb on Germany. Why exactly do you think they would blink if it came to that?
Not to wipe out the entire populace of Germany though.

>In large part because they were ordered not to. If the emperor had given a broadcast similar to the one he gave the people of Saipan, do you really think they'd act any differently?

The main reason the Japanese killed themselves on saipan was they believed the Americans would rape them and torture them. Are you trying to imply the Japanese suddenly decided they'd willingly accept it because the emperor told them to, directly after he tells them he isn't divine?

It's 10.30 and I have work tomorrow so that's my last reply. Good discussion though user.

>Ok, but why does this suddenly mean the Japanese will not surrender without occupation?
That is not the argument I am making; you are the one claiming that it is because of the Soviet intervention that the Japanese surrendered, while tendering no proof of this, other than that their strategic situation "forced" them too, while not even forcing a similar power in the same war to the bargaining table.

My position, on the other hand, is quite a different one, the atomic bomb is what frightened them into surrendering, and it probably would have done the same for Germany, (albeit likely with a coup rather than Hitler deciding to throw in the towel)

>'m not, you're misinterpreting me. I'm stating that it is a false equivalence to believe the US would've dropped nuclear bombs across all of Germany to liberate France,
What exactly do you think the Manhattan project was designed for? You really think they're going to create this ultimate bomb and then sit back and not use it?

>Not to wipe out the entire populace of Germany though.
And if they use it to supplement their already extant strategic bombing program until Germany surrenders?

>Are you trying to imply the Japanese suddenly decided they'd willingly accept it because the emperor told them to, directly after he tells them he isn't divine?
The Gyokuon-hōsō makes no mention of the emperor renouncing his divinity. It actually only obliquely refers to the surrender itself. Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about?

>I'm stating that it is a false equivalence to believe the US would've dropped nuclear bombs across all of Germany to liberate France
The point of making the atom bomb was to drop it on Germany.

>You are aware Stalin does not have the same modern statistics available as today's historians do, or the knowledge on the strength of the German army?
Are you aware that Stalin had the most comprehensive worldwide espionage network in all of human history, and that you are a massive faggot?

The bongs were starving themselves, so their aid wasn't of consequence.

>The bongs were starving themselves
[citation badly needed]

>The Japanese were planning to surrender anyways
>There's a literal military coup attempt the night before the emperor actually surrendered.

>citation not needed for historical realities

>I know more about the Russian perspective in WW2 than Stalin

Without Lend-lease, it's hard to say if soviet would advance post-kursk tbqh.
Germans wouldn't be able to win anything after failure at Moscow and especially Stalingrad but they would be able to withstand much less equipped soviet army and it create a massive stalemate on Ukrainian border.

Giant offensives like Bagration is out of question without Allied shipment of resources and equipment.

It's not a historical reality. Go on, cite something. Reconcile it with this io9.gizmodo.com/could-the-nazis-have-starved-britain-into-submission-1377975000 a wartime study demonstrating that in extremis, Britiain could feed itself on what was being grown locally

Zhukov himself also said 20 years after the war ended that they would have not been able to equip their reserves without LL

Food Aid was the only crucial thing received.

t. Russia

> Britiain could feed itself on what was being grown locally
Which is clearly why food rationing was in force until 1954, being able to subsist is true enough but I'd hardly call it a great diet

A large part of the post-war rationing was a Labour government attempting to use it to ram through what actually were healthier diets.

>healthier diets
Yes, that's what Stalin always said, too.

I don't understand. I would argue that the definitive battle of the Eastern Front was the Battle of Moscow since from that point on there was really no realistic way for the Germans to launch a campaign-ending offensive. But lend lease didn't really start until after the Battle of Moscow. And it didn't start in any significant amount until after the Battle of Stalingrad. To imply that the Soviets would have lost without Lend Lease is also implying that the Germans still could've won after the Battle of Moscow or the Battle of Stalingrad. If you believe Lend Lease was a definitive factor in the Soviet victory, can you explain how the Germans could have won after either of these battles?

>Germany
Possibly, except for Eastern Prussia
>Poland
Doubtful

The Nazis would have simply held the territory they'd conquered to that point, absent Lend Lease. Stalemate would be the outcome, as the Sovs were incapable of driving them off on their own.

Lend and lease was absoluetely crucial for both UK and SU. Obviously, nobody can say what the outcome of the war would have been had the Americans not helped, but it definetely helped the SU big time during that crucial time when they were re-building their industries east of the Ural. My guess is Germany would have won the war in the beggining of '42 were it not for lend and lease.

>food rationing is starving
next time you tell me that there was starving until the 1950s

Without lend-lease, Russia would have either been beaten or it would have resulted in a stalemate.

>anglos trying to take away the glory then come up with human waves

what a disgusting creature is the angloturd, never winning a war themselfs and always parrotting they did alone

How exactly? I can believe in stalemate, but winning? This is just insane.

t. Ivan Ivanovich

To ruin other nations so that the USA remains global hegemon.

>poland would be prosperous if the allies liberated you
but
>you get muslims, globalists and commies in your country
this is a tough one

>Implying there were no communists after the soviets took over
:^)

>You are aware Stalin does not have the same modern statistics available as today's historians do

Wait a fucking second. Someone is actually arguing that modern historians know more about Stalins USSR than Stalin?

This has to be bait.