203
The British talking about Russia and Ukraine
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2025
203 points (84.2% liked)
Memes
49371 readers
2282 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Because the US and UK did nothing else during the war except lend-lease of course. The bombing of German industry, blockades of their supply lines, the Africa-campaigns, extensive intelligence operations, no all of that definitely did nothing and didn't contribute to the war effort at all.
It's likely the Allies would have won the war without the US involved, though it's estimated it would have taken much longer. Without UK involvement, it's more probable that the Germans could have achieved a victory, though perhaps not a total capitulation of the Soviets. Without a western front to guard as heavily, they would probably have taken Moscow by the end of 41 (irl they were 20 miles out). Japan would also have a much freeer reign in the pacific theatre.
LOL this guy again
It's obvious to anyone who can do basic math that what the US and UK did was a pinprick to German army and industry. You simply have to look at the numbers of troops lost and it becomes very clear who was fighting this war. After many decades of propaganda westerners convinced themselves they were relevant in it.
https://www.les-crises.fr/the-successful-70-year-campaign-to-convince-people-the-usa-and-not-the-ussr-beat-hitler/
The Axis combined conscripted approximately 40 million men, whereas the Soviet Union conscripted approximately 34.5 million men. Without the Allies they would not have won just looking at the numbers.
The US conscripted 16 million, the British Commonwealth approximately 11 million. That's a combined 27 million, which isn't exactly insignificant compared to the USSRs 34.5 million (see https://www.statista.com/statistics/1342260/wwii-mobilization-by-country/).
The Soviets were forced to mobilize that many as they were essentially fighting an existential war at that time. They also suffered the brunt of the casualties, in no small part due to a lack of equipment.
Without the Allies, the USSR would have likely lost. Even Stalin knew and said as much. The US entry shortened the war but they certainly didn't "win the war for the rest of the Allies" or anything. But to minimize the contribution as a "pinprick" is ridiculous and not supported by historians east nor west.
Clearly the US army disagrees with you, but what do they know.
The US army says that lend-lease and the invasion of Europe shortened the war. It does not say that the Soviets would have won without the Allies being in the war. Even your source says that the lend-lease and the invasion, even if not the deciding factor, were "a great help".
Maybe read your sources a little better?
The source very clearly states that western effort shortened the war, but did not fundamentally change the dynamic of the war. Maybe work on your own reading comprehension?
No, it specifically talks about US lend-lease and the invasion of Europe. It's not talking about the entire western contribution to the war.
ok sure