What happened to america

what happened to america

Other urls found in this thread:

rbth.com/business/2015/05/08/allies_gave_soviets_130_billion_under_lend-lease_45879.html
historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm
toptenz.net/top-10-american-companies-that-aided-the-nazis.php
wwiivehicles.com/world-war-ii/production.asp
encyclopedia.com/topic/lend-lease.aspx
orientalreview.org/2015/05/13/wwii-lend-lease-was-the-us-aid-that-helpful-ii/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I cannot understand why liberal politicians pander to Muslims so much. Islam opresses women, kills gays, kills adulteres and is also pro-slavery.

Why are liberals so stupid? Even here, a pro-LGBT congressman was calling for more mosques to come to Brazil or some shit like that, fucking retarded.

this b8 was posted yesterday

Wait a little longer, iphone poster

I legitimately cannot understand why bringing in Muslims is even done by leftists. Muslims are directly against their agenda inherently unless the Muslim is basically an atheist due to their beliefs (which are by doctrine uncompromising), and they commit terror attacks which directly contribute to far right-wing parties' rise

votes. demographics is destiny and they will vote for the people wiling to pander to them. trudeau dances around and prays at mosques with them.

Today is not June 6 you fucking retarded chink

>chink

Where the fuck did you get that?

Spotted the redditurd

Trump is so fucking based

Same reason we get haitians even tho we dont have jobs for ourselves
Votes

Pretty sure trump didn't even post this lmao

why do you greasy lotiondicked nerds care so much if someone uses an iphone for fucks sake

Keep crying redditard

christ, I wish I could beat you up and take your lunch money faggot

He did, you asswipe.

what happen to our leaf

>muh d-day
most of the troops weren't even from the US, why are Americans so prideful of it?

you wish it was that. It's a premeditated aggressive attack on civilization, to create destruction and suffering out of which they plan to form a global totalitarian order. The claimed un-intentional side effect, that is terrorism, is actually the intended effect, and the goal thereof

Because Islam is anti-West.

I'd beat the fuck out of you and leave you crying on the ground like the little bitch you are

An allied victory would have been impossible without our support

More like Shillary Clinton shilling mudslimes lol

more like Sup Forumsernie Sanders because he is retarded lol

Not even him, but just kill yourself already

underrated post

Not any of those anons but you should eat a bullet

you really believe that?
The Soviets would have won 100% without you

Not until you guzzle some bleach

And that would have been better for the rest of Europe?

TRUMP 2016

DEPORT ALL SJWS

>soviets mass import american boots/trucks/industrial supplies
>to the point where the possibility of Arkhangelsk being occupied by the Finns made the Western Allies shit themselves
>hurr they wuld haf wun without u :^)

Yeah, but we were the ones who had to take Omaha and Utah while the rest of you faggots had it easy.

It's because the first goal of the left is to bring down the current order in the west. This blinds them to the fact that they're seriously fucking over their cause in the long term.

Muslims (or immigrants in general) tend to vote left even if they don't support those ideologies at all, simply because leftist parties tend to be all about welfare and muh acceptance of foreigners. I believe that whole strategy will backfire once minorities start founding their own parties, though - a muslim party in an European country would probably draw tons of voters from the labor and green parties.

that's not what we're arguing
>the supply meme
kek the Soviets did all the fighting and even without your supplies they would have won although it would have been slower
>the rest of you faggots had it easy
yes, Finland had it so easy in WW2 having to fight against both sides :^)
says the country that has never had a real war on its own soil

>that's not what we're arguing
It is though

A Soviet controlled Europe would have been worse off than a Nazi controlled one so you have us to thank :^)

>and even without your supplies they would have won
>soviet industry running on American supplies for like 2 years
>huge percentage of soviet population in german occupation areas so no factory workers
>soviet infantry rely on American shipments so their feet don't fall off in the winter
>DEY WULD HAF WUN

VOTES
O
T
E
S

>A Soviet controlled Europe would have been worse off than a Nazi controlled one
That's just your uneducated opinion that is a result of American russophobia and paranoid anti-socialist propaganda.

I read that historians estimated it would've taken the Soviets at least 2 more years to defeat the Nazis but they would've finished the job anyway.
Not surprising given that they contributed more than all other cunts combined.

>without American lend-lease
>no boots for infantry -> infantry can't fight for shit
>no machine parts for factories -> no guns, no tanks, no planes
>DEY WULD HAF WUN

Thank God America invented boots just in time for WWII, imagine all those cold feet in Stalingrad

Like I said, it would've taken at least 2 more years. American aid helped but yes DEY WULD HAF WUN.
Just accept it Johnnyboy

rbth.com/business/2015/05/08/allies_gave_soviets_130_billion_under_lend-lease_45879.html
historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm
>DEY WULD HAF WUN

Because
FIXING EUROPE AGAIN WASN'T OUR FUCKING PROBLEM IN THE FIRST GODDAMNED PLACE.

>LE BOOTS LE BOOTS
The boots send to the Soviets weren't even from USA, but from the UK. If they didn't get boots, they'd take them from dead Germans.

>no Yugoslavia
Shit graph.

the soviets might've won even earlier if US companies didn't supply the nazis too kek

toptenz.net/top-10-american-companies-that-aided-the-nazis.php

>again
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you think you "won" WW1 as well? You contributed almost nothing, like 2% of the troops were American IIRC
Also it's not like you were some benevolent protectors of the world, you did it because of your own interests. Yes, it was your problem and you gained from being on the winning side
wtf they're factories produced tanks like mad, they outproduced Germany by far
>rely
Kek, American supplies helped for sure but in no way were they absolutely necessary. Soviets would have won in the end without you no matter what. I can't believe you are so brainswashed to think that Germany was defeated because of the US
no, we're arguing whether or not Soviets could have won WW2 without American aid

15% of UK deaths in WWII were civilians though.

Didn't the significant part of the lend-lease arrive after Stalingrad?
aka when germany lost

>they outproduced Germany
yeah, after they started pushing back. You think they were making thousands of t-34s a day in january 1942?
Quote from second link
>For example, in the beginning of 1942, Western tanks fully replenished Soviet losses, and exceeded them by three times
Wow, those Soviets sure could mass produce tanks!

...

>no source

wwiivehicles.com/world-war-ii/production.asp
>sources at the bottom of the page:
1.Russian Tanks of World War II Stalin's Armored Might, by Tim Bean & Will Fowler, 2002
2.Russian Tanks and Armored Vehicles 1917-1945, by Wolfgang Fleischer, 1999
3.World War Two Tanks, George Forty, 1995
4.No Simple Victory - World War II In Europe, 1939-1945, 2006, Norman Davies
5.Atlas of Tank Warfare From 1916 to the Present Day, Dr. Stephen Hart, 2012

>USSR would have been able to keep fighting without the millions of boots, half million jeeps, trucks, train locomotives, telegraph lines, phones, etc.

I don't think you understand the importance of basic transport, communication, or fucking boots to an army ability to put up the smallest bit of resistance.

just let it happen

You're also completely ignoring the non-military aid sent to the Soviets
>he Allies supplied 1900 locomotives to the USSR, while only 446 locomotives were produced in the country itself during the same period, as well as 11,000 carriages, while only a few more than 1,000 were made in the USSR. It is impossible to imagine how the Soviet economy would have functioned without these supplies. For example, the telephone cable provided by the Allies could wrap the Earth at the equator.

>One of the main areas of cooperation was aviation fuel. The USSR could not produce gasoline with high octane. However, it was this fuel that was used by the equipment supplied by the Allies. In addition, the Achilles heel of the Soviet Army was communication and transport. The Soviet industry simply could not meet the demand either in number or in quality.

just... just allow it

they could have produced those themselves. Obviously they didn't and focused on tank, bullet and weapon production since they got the other supplies elsewhere
What could Germany have done if it took let's say 2 years longer? Literally nothing, they were losing already and America's contribution to the war is just a cherry on top of the cake and nothing more

And on the topic of tanks,
>At the end of November 1941, only 670 Soviet tanks were available to defend Moscow—that is, in the recently formed Kalinin, Western, and Southwestern Fronts. Only 205 of these tanks were heavy or medium types,
>researchers estimate that British-supplied tanks made up 30 to 40 percent of the entire heavy and medium tank strength of Soviet forces before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941, and certainly made up a significant proportion of tanks available as reinforcements at this critical point in the fighting.
>Soviet production of the T-34 (and to a lesser extent the KV series), was only just getting seriously underway in 1942, and Soviet production was well below plan targets. And though rapid increases in tank firepower would soon render the 40mm two-pounder main gun of the Matilda and Valentine suitable for use on light tanks only, the armor protection of these British models put them firmly in the heavy and medium categories, respectively. Both were superior to all but the Soviet KV-1 and T-34 in armor, and indeed even their much maligned winter cross-country performance was comparable to most Soviet tanks excluding the KV-1 and T-34.

>British supplied tanks to the USSR
I only argued about Americans not the rest of the Allies

>the other supplies elsewhere
Yeah, from the fucking Americans and Brits.
The only reason they could afford to ignore so many vital components to their economy is because the gaps were covered by the Western Allies.

-tip-

>says the country that has never had a real war on its own soil

I just imagined 1861-65?

"We received many thousands of radios, trucks, shoes, and medical supplies from the United States. Really, victory would not have been possible without them. Yet it is now made to seem as if we ourselves had all these things in abundance."

-- Georgi Zhukov

Oh and don't forget to mention USA also supplied steel and fuel to Nazi Germany.

So?
Companies want to earn money, and the Germans were willing to pay straight gold. It's not like Congress commanded them to supply the Germans.

You have to remember, most of the fighting happened in Belarus/Ukraine which were economically important areas that contained a lot of the USSR's coal, iron ore, and grain and all of that was completely wrecked in the war.

I believe he's implying the Civil War wasn't a real war.

>U.S. aid constituted only about 7 percent of what the Soviet Union itself produced during the war, but it did allow the Soviets to concentrate their production in the most efficient manner. Lend-lease to Russia was, for Roosevelt, much more than just a wartime aid program. It could demonstrate the benefits of the American system and promote mutual trust, all key elements in Roosevelt's postwar plans. It was, therefore, presidential policy to promise to give the Russians almost everything they requested.
encyclopedia.com/topic/lend-lease.aspx

>In all, $31.4 billion went to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, $1.6 billion to China, and the remaining $2.6 billion to the other Allies.

>The U.S. received $2M in reverse Lend-Lease from the USSR. This was mostly in the form of landing, servicing, and refueling of transport aircraft; some industrial machinery and rare minerals were sent to the U.S. The U.S. asked for $1.3B at the cessation of hostilities to settle the debt, but was only offered $170M by the USSR. The dispute remained unresolved until 1972, when the U.S. accepted an offer from the USSR to repay $722M linked to grain shipments from the U.S., with the remainder being written off. During the war the USSR provided an unknown number of shipments of rare minerals to the US Treasury as a form of cashless repayment of Lend-Lease. This was agreed before the signing of the first protocol on 1 October 1941 and extension of credit. Some of these shipments were intercepted by the Germans. In May 1942, HMS Edinburgh was sunk while carrying 4.5 tonnes of Soviet gold intended for the U.S. Treasury. This gold was salvaged in 1981 and 1986.[citation needed] In June 1942, SS Port Nicholson was sunk en route from Halifax, Canada to New York, allegedly with Soviet platinum, gold, and industrial diamonds aboard.[57] However, none of this cargo has been salvaged, and no documentation of it has been produced.

What exactly is this supposed to imply? That the Soviets were relying on lend-lease to provide for non-military needs?

Muslims in America are actually more liberal (and accepting of things like gay marriage) than conservative/Evangelical Christians.

Before 9/11, republicans were actually planning on trying to appeal to Muslim voters more, though.

>U.S. aid constituted only about 7 percent of what the Soviet Union itself produced during the war
kek you didn't do shit

But without that 7% they would've had to pull production off of military goods.
You said so yourself
>they could have produced those themselves. Obviously they didn't and focused on tank, bullet and weapon production since they got the other supplies elsewhere

7% is nothing, they could have easily not produced as many tanks since they were outproducing Germany anyway and instead produced that 7% of supplies you provided

>only 7% of what the Soviet industry produced
>Britain took three times more aid
>Roosevelt just wanted to please the Soviet Union for friendship and trust
>Soviet Union paid for everything they used and returned everything that wasn't used

Harry Truman says this
>“If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible …”

Now the world sees that the real villain of WWII wasn't Hitler, The SS or Nazi Germany, it was the U.S all along.

>30-40% of Soviet tanks are imports
>homemade tanks are shit compared to imports
>except the 2 models that were barely being produced
>DEY WULD HAF WUN

>the russians would have won anyway

It doesn't matter, better being invaded by burgers than ivan le liberator.

Because Muslims are treated rather shit in the US, even though most of the ones here are nowhere near as conservative as Muslims in Europe

Lend-lease wasn't free, you know? As you see from the post above SU paid US in gold, platinum and rare minerals during the war itself and in dollars later on.

Also, Finnish poster is right. Surely, SU would lose more soldiers and it would take more time to finish the war, but soviets would still win even without the lend - lease. Cost of the victory would make it pyrrhic though.

>only 7% of Soviet production
>Even aid that might seem like a drop in the bucket in the larger context of Soviet production for the war played a crucial role in filling gaps at important moments during this period. At a time when Soviet industry was in disarray—many of their industrial plants were destroyed or captured by the advancing Nazi troops or in the process of evacuation east—battlefield losses of specific equipment approached or even exceeded the rate at which Soviet domestic production could replace them during this crucial period. Under these circumstances even small quantities of aid took on far greater significance.

The USSR would have won regardless of American Intervention. The price in human lives abd materiel would be staggering, however.

>30-40% of Soviet tanks were provided by THE BRITISH
I never argued they could have won completely alone. I argued that they could have easily won without the aid of the US.
As an American you have an agenda on this issue unlike me so of course you're going to argue and probably never going to change your opinion
>7
>%
>fucking 7%
>i-it was still so important that USSR would have lost without it even though they were steamrolling Germany!
come on now

>barely being produced
T34 of all models was the most produced tank of WWII. Even with losing half of our industry in Ukraine and having to move tank production to Ural.

>unlike me
t. Ivan Ivanovich

This is true. The sheer size of the country made it impossible for Germany to win, though it would have been considerably more protracted and bloody, perhaps taking an entire decade instead of 4 years.

>the Soviets were steamrolling Germany in 1941
What kind of drugs are you taking

You underestimate how close the Soviets came to losing. That 7% of Lend lease was vital for big name items like field supplies, tanks and artillery, without which the Soviets would have had a much tougher time simply holding against and ultimately stopping the German advance.

Literally every historian recognizes the U.S.'s importance in the war effort.

30-40% were imports only at that specific moment in time, which happened to be exactly the transition phase for Soviet armor where their pre- and early war models became too shit to deal with German tanks, while the production of the much better T-34 was only just beginning.

>most produced tank of WWII
By the end of the war, yeah. Not when soldiers were marching straight from Red Square to the frontlines.

we have more reason than you to hate the USSR but even still I'm not denying factsme behind because of Russians
my grandmother had to abandon her home in Karelia as a child because of the USSR
Again, I never claimed the US didn't do anything but you can't seriously think the Allies won the war because of the US and fucking 7%

And had the Soviets not had those imports at that critical time, they wouldn't have been able to seriously switch over the mass producing t-34s.
That's the entire point I'm making. The Soviets were totally fucked in 1941, and without outside assistance they never would have survived long enough to rebound.

>That 7% of Lend lease was vital for big name items like field supplies, tanks and artillery, without which the Soviets would have had a much tougher time simply holding against and ultimately stopping the German advance.

The only thing lend-lease was vital for the Soviet Union was: trucks. That's right, Ford trucks to be more specific. Nothing else.

Food? Guns?
>the Allied aid to the USSR was equal to no more than 1/10 of the Soviets’ own arms production, and the total quantity of lend-lease supplies, including the familiar cans of Spam sarcastically referred to by the Russians as the “Second Front,” made up about 10-11%.

>the famous American historian Robert Sherwood, in his landmark book, Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History (New York: Grossett & Dunlap, 1948), quoted Harry Hopkins as claiming the Americans “had never believed that our Lend Lease help had been the chief factor in the Soviet defeat of Hitler on the eastern front. That this had been done by the heroism and blood of the Russian Army.”

>British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once called lend-lease “the most unselfish and unsordid financial act of any country in all history.” However, the Americans themselves admitted that lend-lease brought in considerable income for the US. In particular, former US Secretary of Commerce Jesse Jones stated that the US had not only gotten its money back via supplies shipped from the USSR, but the US had even made a profit, which he claimed was not uncommon in trade relations regulated by American state agencies.
>His fellow American, the historian George Herring just as candidly wrote that lend-lease was not actually the most unselfish act in the history of mankind, but rather an act of prudent egotism, with the Americans fully aware of how they could benefit from it.
orientalreview.org/2015/05/13/wwii-lend-lease-was-the-us-aid-that-helpful-ii/

That's cherry picking Canada.
I don't give a shit about politics, but both of the democratic candidates had a D-Day post as well.

only a closet red would be this obsessed with discrediting the soviets

>The only thing lend-lease was vital for the Soviet Union was: trucks. That's right, Ford trucks to be more specific

And I suppose you think dragging shit by horse all the way to Berlin would have been acceptable?

Hillary is such a hypocritical fake cunt, fucking disgusting

>The Soviets were totally fucked in 1941, and without outside assistance they never would have survived long enough to rebound.
source? One where it says they would have fallen without the US

>nothing else
>it's not a big deal to be able to provide food to your people who would starve otherwise