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.
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