Explanation
The losses of Germany on the eastern front are widely believed to be the most significant factor in defeating Nazi Germany and the USSR won the battle of Berlin, the final battle before the German capitulation. Thus Europe widely believed (for a good reason) that the USSR was the main contributor in defeating Germany. With the cold war the perception of the USSR became a lot worse in western countries like France and with increasing anti-USSR sentiment the view flipped to viewing the USA as the deciding factor. The USSR (and the Russian Federation today, even if its government is very anti USSR) viewed itself as the most important force in defeating Germany, especially because the USSR had the biggest amount of deaths. It is worth noting that the USSR was at least commercially allied with Nazi Germany until June 22, 1941 and there was an agreement between the nations on which parts of Europe each could invade and which where reserved for the other.
yes they rushed millions of tanks, ships, aircraft and artillery pieces to battle. we know, we sent them lol
The US sent a total of about 7 thousand tanks to the USSR, but the T-34 Soviet tank saw about 80k units built in total, so while lend lease was very significant, the vast majority of war material of the Soviets was of Soviet origin.
I don’t think you can only look at tanks alone since the main hardware sent was trucks/jeeps.
Also fuel and trains.
The fact that the Soviets didn't manufacture trucks is because they got them from the USA, not backwards. A truck is significantly cheaper to manufacture than a tank.
sure thing buddy, the sovs did it all themselves lol.
https://www.jrbooksonline.com/fdr-scandal-page/lend.html
there's dozens and dozens and dozens of line-items on that list that number in the MANY MILLIONS
now think for a moment: did it get there via UPS? FEDEX?
no it went via murmansk through throngs of fuckin' german subs.
such a silly, stupid argument to articulate - they would have died without the US's support. Period. Russia would not have survived. there's no win there, leningrad falls and moscow burns.
fuck man, the ally that sends you the 3,400 LATHES so you can build the fucking tanks deserves SOME recognition lol
hey and another thing: if stalin hadn't been a ribbentrop treaty signing idiot, he wouldn't have put the soviets in such a bad position they needed that kind of hail mary rescue effort huh?
pfft
I did recognize that lend-lease was very significant. However, Britain got 3 times as much aid from Lend-Lease and they weren't the ones who won the war.
got aid from who?
come on, you can make that leap....
Lend-lease, it's USA policy.
Answer my question: if lend-lease won the war, if Britain received $30bn and the USSR received $11bn, why didn't Britain win the war?
you do realize it's easier to get material to the UK than it is in russia?
maps not your thing huh sport?
and britain did win the war, all the allies won, the axis lost. pfft.
goddamn did any of your siblings pass 4th grade history? ask one of them.
You're not answering my question:
Britain got 3 times as much aid from Lend-Lease than the USSR. If Lend-Lease is the main factor behind the Soviets defeating the Nazis (as proven by Nazis suffering 80% of their dead soldiers in the Eastern Front), why didn't Britain kill many more Nazis?
I've answered your question, you're simply too dense to read. YOUR POORLY ARTICULATED QUERY:
(which, jfc, man, that's a terribly worded) - "why didn’t Britain win the war?"
they did. last I checked the allies won.
the axis lost. Russia also won. So did the US. So did France.
"If Lend-Lease is the main factor behind the Soviets defeating the Nazis (as proven by Nazis suffering 80% of their dead soldiers in the Eastern Front), why didn’t Britain kill many more Nazis?"
NOW THERE'S AN ACTUAL FUCKING QUERY!
anyone who understands history can explain: Russia was on death ground. Invaded, bombed, crushed by artillery, routed repeatedly, and suffering from Stalin's own purges happening constantly - Russia had to fight every moment of every day because the Nazis were THERE. They never made it to the coast of dover, much less trafalgar square.
In reality, this never happened to Britain. Operation Sea Lion never happened. Circumstances were different for each.
See it's really not the great gotcha query even when you take the time to write it in a legible manner.
wars are dictated largely by geography and logistics.
Not the rah-rah "oh the soviets saved freedom" - no. the allies, the soviets, the brits, the french, the yanks ANZAC etc.etc., saved freedom together. soviets primarily helping after they pulled their heads out of their asses and understood hitler was going to genocide most of them, which shouldn't have been a surprise but....Stalin things I guess. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
so how did stalin kill so very many nazis? proximity and necessity - because the nazis were in their living room, right there lol.
anyway, this is a very dumb argument and I don't want to deal with your poorly articulated mumblings. bye felicia
I already provided an extensive comment regarding the widely misconstrued Molotov-Ribbentrop in this comment section, you should check it out.
Thanks for agreeing with my point: yes, it was the Soviets that took the brunt of the war and did the most to destroy Nazism. Lend lease helped, but the main factor in the destruction of Nazism was the Soviet interwar industrialization push since 1929's first 5-year plan.
what part of bye felicia didn't you understand?
lol banned from the community