this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
894 points (98.4% liked)
Greentext
4365 readers
2333 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The USSR lost more, spent more, and was more affected and effective than the USA in WWII.
Deleting the USSR from your history makes that history wrong and dumb.
Straight facts.
How can they "spend more" than the US? They were literally given materiel and money by the US. The money the USSR spent was from the West.
The European war was fought with Russian troops, British intelligence, and American money. Also, there was an entire other war in the Pacific that the US fought at the same time. It's not possible for the Soviets to have spent more, just based on that fact alone.
You know Russia was also involved in the east right? God American education is hopeless
We're talking about spending money on the war. The Soviets fought Japan for a period of 26 days:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War
Lend-Lease was absolutely important when it came to specific material (e.g. trucks, aviation fuel). But in total numbers it was still only 4% of Soviet War production. I don't know who spent more money in the war (and it is irrelevant really when you look at dozens of millions of deaths), but Lend-Lease alone does not answer that question.
The Soviets could not have won without the Lend Lease, even Stalin admitted this.
Of course, if Stalin hadn't murdered half of their officers and had an icepick put in the brains of the guy who built the Red Army in the first place it might have been a different story.
You still didn't say that USA would have won without UK, France and USSR
Would have? Who knows?
Could have? Yes.
America had an incredibly privileged strategic position compared to the Axis, and didn't share a land border with any of them.
The fears of an Axis invasion were simply impossible. The US Pacific fleet matched the Japanese and the Atlantic was stronger than Italy and Germany combined at the start of the war, just counting battleships and screens and ignoring that America was already moving towards a carrier based fleet unlike both of them. There is no world in which America falls to a naval invasion before it had time to mobilize.
And, unlike the Axis, America was and is the world's largest oil producer. It could afford to run its Navy day and night.
The only way the the Axis wins this hypothetical is if America was alone because it went full non-interventionist (like the Republican party wanted) and the Axis conquered the rest of the world first.
That all said, these circumstances would almost certainly lead to a stalemate rather than Axis capitulation. The Axis navies get destroyed (again), but America probably wouldn't be willing to pay the blood price to invade them, and the Manhattan Project was unlikely to succeed without the contributions of non-Americans.
From the American perspective, however, a stalemate is a victory. It's a defensive war and the goal is survival, not conquest.
Tl;Dr Stalin himself made a solo victory (survival) impossible for the USSR, the US Navy and the freaking Pacific and Atlantic Oceans made it impossible for America to lose.
No UK = no magnetron, no radars, no computers, no cracking Enigmas