mrstickball said:
Very wrong. The US was integral in winning the war for the allies. No allied nation provided more than the other. If it weren't for US involvment with giving the Soviets supplies through lend-lease, the Soviets would have lost quickly. That is not opinion. That is substantiated fact from the mouth of the Soviet General Gregory Zhukov. Had it not been for that, the Soviets would have lost to the Germans, ending the war. Additionally, you have the US which singlehandedly turned the tide of the Pacific theater. Remember that one? The war on that front consumed a significant amount of men and materiel for the British, as they were defending their colonies. Had we not of interviened there, the Japanese would have likely been able to crush the Chinese, and turn their attention west to India and possibly Siberia, creating a two-front war for the Soviets, allowing them to lose in yet another scenario. Do some people overstate what the US did? Probably. Every side turned the tide. Every major allied player contributed significantly to the effort. Remove any one from the picture, and the Axis would have won. |
yes that is true each nation played a big role in ww2, British were the ones who opposed nazism ever since ww2 had started. Stalin was an idiot for trusting Hitler. But you got something wrong, Americans did not ship enough supplies for the Soviets. Yes it helped but not by much. T-34 Russian tank was made in Russia, Machine Guns/rifles were made in Russia, Aircrafts were produced in Russia, and Katyusha artilery was also made in Russia. Americans did however provide lots of Jeeps and trucks.








I trust no one, not even myself.