Did the Soviet Union win WW2 alone?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2024
- The official Russian narrative appears to be that the Soviet Union won the Second World War alone, or did the vast majority of the fighting. But is this really the case?
This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.
Follow me on Instagram / tikhistory
⏲️ Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
The thumbnail for this video was created by Terri Young. Need awesome graphics? Check out her website www.terriyoung...
Photo by Thirdman: www.pexels.com...
Photo by Anamul Rezwan: www.pexels.com...
Photo by Lukas: www.pexels.com...
Photo by Arvid Knutsen: www.pexels.com...
- - - -
📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚
Articles from the video
Washington Post www.washington...
Independent www.independen...
Vox www.vox.com/20...
Reuters reutersinstitu...
The National www.thenationa...
HistoryExtra www.historyext...
Davis Center daviscenter.fa...
Full list of all my sources docs.google.co...
- - - -
⭐ SUPPORT TIK ⭐
This video isn't sponsored. My income comes purely from my Patreons and SubscribeStars, and from UA-cam ad revenue. So, if you'd like to support this channel and make these videos possible, please consider becoming a Patreon or SubscribeStar. All supporters who pledge $1 or more will have their names listed in the videos. There are higher tiers too with additional perks, so check out the links below for more details.
/ tikhistory
www.subscribes...
Thank you to my current supporters! You're AWESOME!
- - - -
ABOUT TIK 📝
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.
Germanys contribution to winning the war is massively underrated
The German High command was probably the one that most contributed to Allied victory on WW2
@@Daishi18 True, Hitler was actually the smartest one there.
Germany gave aircraft tech to the soviets in the interwar period , when western powers refused to, in exchange germans could train in soviet land away from allied surveillance
Good thing Hitler was a madman. Kidding! Kidding! OMG, what have I opened myself up to ...
as I read history of WW2 I thought that Adolph interference was probably the best thing going for the Allied cause, but the allies bungled quite a bit too, if Adolph had listened to Rommel then the D-Day invasion may have been quite different, Rommel maintained that the invasion force should not be allowed to land and take the beachhead, Rommel said "if the allies Land and take the Beachhead then the war is lost", Germany could not keep up with the colossal Industrial strength, I am currently reading "Guns at Last Light " by Rick Aticksnon and if it is accurate then he landing was very lucky to have been achieved as the Germans had no " dibs " on bungling.
I am not always a great fan of Patton but this quote seems appropriate : “No dumb bastard ever won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country.”
It does help with the average IQ though. Just as the current war is improving the average IQ in Russia today.
Basically US and US did that - sit on sidelines at waited until Soviets beat Germans and then they swoop in as liberators.
@@aleksazunjic9672 but, we only entered the war due to being war declared on us, by the germans, italians, and japanese. we didnt want the war, we were given it then finished it
@@aleksazunjic9672 So silly first Commie-boo sighted!
The USA NEVER signed a pact with Hitler, the USSR did, and profited greatly.... for about 2 years. Then they got what they deserved.
As with WW1, the USA had to be dragged into the war by arrogant enemies and Democrat Presidents. American Leftists are nasty when it comes to getting us into wars, just check the records. We do have a habit of winning big wars, something the CCP might want to remember these days.
@@aleksazunjic9672 So then which particular Soviet divisions fought and beat the Germans in :
North Africa
Italy
Greece
France
Belgium
The Netherlands
Denmark
Norway
In the U.S. library of Congress you can find the Lend Lease numbers and it shocked me at its enormity.
Absolutely shocked me.
2,500 locomotives cannot be overlooked...Nor can 2.5 million tons of fuel and oil. The numbers go on and on
The majority of the locomotives the Soviets used were Lend Lease. Without these and all the Lend Lease trucks, the Lend Lease radios, the Lend Lease aluminum, the Lend Lease chemicals (including explosives and medicines) the Lend Lease machine tools.the Lend Lease ball bearings...yes the numbers sure do go on and on. I've heard Russians say-"well we could have just tried harder" if there was no Lend Lease. Don't all those casualties indicate that they were trying as hard as they possibly could? Tried harder how? and with what?
Locomotives definitely but oil, not so much, lend-lease oil to the USSR was a luxury item for sure.
For the USSR the oil from the USA was a drop in the ocean in terms of its own oil production, the USSR produced about 800 million barrels of oil to 1 billion, or about 110million tons to 140million tons for its self in ww2.
It was about 69% of the Soviet 100 octane and 35% of the soviet oil for aircraft in ww2.
Edit: The USA supplied 2.5 million tons or about 18 million barrels to the USSR.
@@billsvoboda4459 No, the majority of locomotives used in the USSR were soviet-built.
The majority of locomotives *built during the war* were US-made.
Two different things.
The nuclear weapons were the big worldwide equalizer. Otherwise no country can match the US mix of geography, resources, industrial capacity and population in a conventional war. It's not even fair and I'm not even American 😂
@@brianlong2334 Yes. But they couldn't refine it to make good derivative products. Those they had to import. What good is to have an ocean of oil if all you can do with it is power vehicles? And not even in sufficient quantities: They still used horses to move their artillery and to deliver messages until the end of the war.
I'd just say the Soviets gave the most brutal fight against the Germans and kept a consistent pressure on the Germans unlike other states due to the land fight on the giant boarder. A huge role to be sure, but not singlehandedly.
@@nikolamilicevic1040
And yet as author in the video points out almost none of those big victories would be possible without Allied bombing and naval blockade of Germany as well as land lease. (not to mention partisans in German occupied Europe which took away Germany's resources even more)
So yea.
@@rainbowstalin594
The main problem with the blockade is that Germany alr pretty much prepared for the naval blockade, had very limited trade through the Atlantic and didnt bother to engage in naval warfare after Bismark's sinking, instead focus on U-boats.
The Allied bombings were yes, crucial to the war effort, but its still a fact that many of the German war productions peaked in 1944, during massive bombings by the Allies.
And besides the Yugoslavs, the Partisants werent that impactful.
Overall, the USSR delivered the most casualties to the Germans in every category from materials to manpower, much more than the Western front ever did. So saying there war effort was crucial, if not decisive in the war, wouldnt be an overstatement.
Alone. The lousy allies joined and opened a second front when they realized that the USSR would definitely win the war
The Russians had massive due to poor tactics such as human meat waves and not retreating. Stalin also had multitudes of Russians murdered.
@@alcoholfree6381 the human waves are overstated, post ww2 anti soviet propaganda didn't help oversize that. Yes the Russians did do it, but they're wartime strategy wasn't just sending in zombie waves, they wouldn't of won the war if they did that all that much, nor would the allies of been afraid of the russians after the war if they had.
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." - General George S. Patton, 1944
Or, in other words, the Soviet contribution to winning the war was how many Germans they killed, not how many Russians, etc., died.
Commies are very good at dieing on mass
@@marsfreelander5969 * dying en masse.
Not just commies.
The Russians learned this well which is why they're making the Ukies experience that first hand. Arty go boom!
>t. Genital Mutton
I had a neighbour in Ottawa who was a Soviet veteran, he said "For me the best day of the war was when the second front stopped being the cans of meat from America to being an actual thing, that was for me on June 9th 1944. I knew that day after having driven my American Tuck and worn my American boots, that now the Hitlerite's were facing the world and together we would crush them. Because I knew that the others had the time to learn to fight well and they had the guns and trucks needed to do the job." It is just the perspective of one man but it has always spoken to me that the soldiers on the ground were far more aware of the truth than perhaps the politicians ever wanted them to be.
No offence to him and you but by the 9th of 1944 the Germans were done it was just a matter of mopping up which was long and costly but by then(1944) there was no way Germany could win.
Germany could not defeat the USSR, but could the Red Army conquer Germany without Western help?
The Nazis weren't just going to give up. It's plausible that a stalemate could have happened - could Bagration have met with such success had the 10-ish panzer divisions engaged in western Europe been available as a reserve in the ostfront? Probably not... and the invasion of the Reich in '45 if the panzer armies used in the Ardennes offensive been available in Poland and Prussia? Who knows?
@@onylra6265 If the Germans did not have to use almost 50% of their assets to a navy, a large % of their aircraft and AA, many troops (in Norway alone the Germand kept 400,00 troops) and the load of fortifications they very well may have steamrolled the USSR early in the campaign.
@@rankoorovic7904 You could say that if the Alies were not in the equation, Germany would not lose, and by not losing, the Soviets would not win. The Germans were far from finished in June 1944. They were still in Russia, held all of western Europe from Norway to the Aegean except for Spain, Portugal and half of Italy. The Balkans and east Europe was either occupied or allied to Germay. There was a year of heavy fighting to come, and massive losses on all sides.
The"second front" had been in being for 2 years (according to Speer, a man who had his finger on the pulse) because of the bombing campaign. The resourses Germany kept in place were huge, often idle for weeks sometimes months. 100,000 plus anti aircraft crews, 20,000 guns of all calibers, manufacturing ammunition and guns, feeding the crews etc. Then the number of aircraft involved that could have made the difference in halting/reversing Soviet offensives. Bombers and fighter bombers were used to defend German held airspace at again involving massive resources.
There was no "mopping up" done in Normandy in June and July 1944, but hard battles against a determined enemy.
@@jameshannagan4256 " *they very well may have steamrolled the USSR early in the campaign* "
They had the numbers. What they were lacking was an efficient supply chain, and I don't see how easing their burden on the West was supposed to help with that. As we already know, they didn't even send winter clothing to their guys, because there were always more important things to send.
That's the problem with counting 88mm guns defending *Germany* . They were right there, exactly where they were needed, no logistical strain to speak of.
Besides, even if W. Allies were a lesser threat, they would always remain a potential threat, so some military presence was necessary. Plus occupation forces.
As I recall about 70% of Soviet aviation fuel was from the US. Just imagine if the Soviet airforce couldn't fly?
Not sure if it was 70% of the fuel but lend lease provided the chemicals necessary to produce high octane aviation fuel which boosted engine performance, 15%-20%.
Imagine if they had to fly against the majority of the Luftwaffe as well. It would have been a slaughter.
the dumbasses would then still push the planes into combat! :P
@@guntguardian3771 if i remember correctly 60% of the luftwaffe was tied down in western Europe or the Mediterranean as well as thousands and thousands of AAA assets. Speaking of which how many men did it take to man all those anti-air guns???
@@guntguardian3771 60% in 1943 i forgot to add, not sure what it was in 1944 ect...
I'm surprised you didn't mention the quotes from Stalin, Zhukov, and Khruschev all saying that the USSR wouldn't have won without the rest of the Allies, primarily the US and its lend-lease
Yes. But the USSR won this war. The US and allies fought only 20% of the German Army. The USSR alone fought 80% of the German army. Also dont forget the Reverse Lend-Lease of the USSR and British Empire sending $124 billion of materials too the USA.
@@azumishimizu1880you say as if germany was the only axis power in wwii
@@KirkirPL Italy? Yes they were "strong" lmao
@@azumishimizu1880 ...um...Japan
@@KirkirPL Kantaro Suzuki, former prime minister of Japan, said that Japan surrendered cause of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. So AGAIN, the Soviets doing the heavy lifting and America, trough propaganda claiming the spotlight. Its so sad actually. Soviets did everything, fighting wise.
"As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who is demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell him nothing, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. ...he will refuse to believe it... That's the tragedy of the situation of demoralization." -Yuri Bezmenov
Yuri's quote about those people in my opinion fits like a glove when compared to the feminist mindset.
That’s the average person lol. No demoralization needed. The average person is hardly functional and barely conscious.
He tried to warn us.
I think I have been exposed to true information and believed it.Tragedy of the situation is that I have no idea what to do whit it.I think that is all so demoralization.
@@Edax_RoyeauxI don’t believe it is an elitist. It is demoralized.
I am an Australian and I think we all study our own little part of the war. There was so much going on around the world that it is very hard to take it all in.
Perhaps the most ironic thing about WW2 is the aborigines fighting an evil ideology that stripped German Jews of their citizenship in their own land only to come back to their own ancestral land and denied citizenship until 1967.
Like wise indigenous Canadians
@@noblemann4898 Twaddle.
@@noblemann4898 The treatment of aborigines and indigenous Canadians was vile, however German Jews weren't just stripped of their citizenship, but were the victims of a murderous genocide. The Germans were a step or two more evil.
@@questionmaker5666 It's historically considered that Crystal Night was not a spontaneous murderous riot by the German public but a race riot organised by the third Reich.
The fact that it happened during the night and the Nazi party claimed that it was an unplanned riot by the German people in reaction to the assassination of a German envoy, is an indication of the Nazi government concern of overseas public opinion.
In America, the white American public had no such concern. They slaughtered over 400 African American during the Tulsa massacre. That horrific riot, like many mass murdering racial riots, happened in the middle of the day.
The white American public were far worse than the German public of the third Reich
@@noblemann4898 Nazi Germany carried out the Holocaust which killed 6 million people in 4 years. The Holocaust couldn't have happened without the support of the German public who had shown strong anti-Semitism beliefs since soon after WW1. Not the USA nor Australia or Canada, committed genocide in the 20th century, that's the difference.
Kristallnacht sparked international outrage. The overseas public wasn't convinced by the cover story.
Hi, I would like to share a story which I regard as very important in the context of allied victory in the Second World War which is not known enough.
It's about explosives shipments to the USSR under the lend lease program.
The context is that the only impact explosive, as opposed to propulsion explosives, used during the war (99.6% of the total according to a figure I saw) was TNT, of which an ingredient was toluene. There were two sources to obtain toluene, coal and oil. Most nations used mainly coal to obtain it (so it really wasn't a problem for Germany), but the USSR insisted on using oil as well, around 40% of toluene or so (maybe 10% more or less) before the war came from oil.
The USSR found itself immediately in massive problems regarding explosives because about ⅔ of their coal was extracted from the Donbas and oil production fell from 31 milion tonnes in 1940 to 16 or so after the sabotage of their own fields in 1942.
As such one of the first requests of the USSR to the allies was to send explosives, which they sent as a final product as TNT or they sent toluene which was used to manufacture it.
These shipments, contrary to many others, came immediately to the USSR making a very important numerical difference since the beginning: in 1942 34% of the TNT used by the USSR was either sent directly or manufactured from allied shipments, this proportion grew to 65% in 1944. The proportion for the whole war is around 54%.
As such 54% of the whole artilley or tanks shells, bombs etc. used against the germans was directly due to allied shipments and the soviets could not have produced these explosives themselves.
Regarding propelling explosives, the ones used to propell shells and bullets, the most used were white smokeless powders.
I have less accurate data in this regard but the allies still proved massively important: in 1944 30% of artillery propellant explosives used by the USSR were given by the allies and in 1943 100% of the glycerin used by the soviets to produce these explosives was given by the allies.
Maybe around ⅔ of materials to produce these explosives was given by the allies in the duration of the whole war but I can't guarantee this data as opposed to the others.
Also the soviets, differently from TNT, could have produced inferior versions of these chemicals themselves, so the allied aid proved less decisive here
Most estimates assest that 60% of all casualties during this war were due to artillery, and given that all artillery shells only used TNT, and that the soviets could not produce enough of it, this really proves that lend lease was decisive from the start for soviet victory in the eastern front.
Zhukov after the war commented that "we didn't have explosives, gunpowder, we didn't have anything to charge our rifle cartridges with. The Americans really saved us with their gunpowder and explosives"
Sources:
1 Развитие производства взрывчатых веществ в СССР в 30-е гг. Хх В. И поставки по ленд-лизу в годы Великой Отечественной войны
2 Роль ленд-лиза в истории Великой Отечественной войны/Алексей Исаев (here on youtube)
edit: another interesting fact about this is that even if the USSR during the course of the war produced roughly 7 times more artillery pieces than the Germans did (Source: wiki Military Production During WW2), until the end of 1944 the Germans were actually firing more artillery shell mass on the soviets. This should also reduce the narrative of the "enormous industrial production of the Soviet Union", an artillery piece is not a weapon, it's a delivery system, the shell is the actual weapon, same with the bullets. In those regards the Soviets were seriously lacking
Thanks
Thanks for sharing this information.
Thanks for sharing.
Brilliant comment.
@Irish Technical Thinker Thanks, I just hope this story spreads because it's definitely the most important element of the lend lease and it made a decisive difference since the beginning. Despite that it's not even mentioned at all!
(p.s. sorry for the grammatical errors I try my best with my maccheroni english 🇮🇹 😂)
@@youtubeuser1993 Not at all, you were very precise and articulate in making great points. It's refreshing to see. Lend Lease was definitely a crucial factor in playing a role of Russian success and it's incredibly overlooked.
It's amusing how everyone talks about Russia's contribution justified by it's casualties but no one seems to apply this same logic to China against Japan
The important statistic is that 80% of Wehrmacht casualties in WW2, happened on the eastern front.
because then the logic would fall apart, since it's very evident japan didn't surrender because of china
@davidpryle3935 now mention the percentage that happened from 1944 on. It's almost like most of the people they killed were injured, old, or young. Weird.
@@davidpryle3935 On their own Soviet Union couldn't do that. They were starving and without weapons.
@@mdjey2 It’s time for you to read up on your history. I would recommend you start with the book on WW2 by renowned British historian sir max Hastings, All Hell Let Loose.
People often overlook Britain's strategic power at the time. While the flashier acts of battle would come later, Britain's main influence was the total shutdown of Germany's access to oil, and its role as an enemy-in-being that tied down millions of German soldiers and tens of millions of tons of German materiel on the Atlantic coasts. All of this at a time when its strongest ally - arguably the 2nd most powerful military in the world - had just been knocked out of the war and it seemed that the British Empire would face a nearly-total fascist domination of Europe and Asia alone (well, as "alone" as a whole Empire can be).
- tying down vast German forces
- starving their production and industry
- shutting down fleets and sea trade
- taking over their entire spy network
- defeating the luftwaffe
- decyphering their strategies
- sacrificing to the Americans the monopoly on technologies that would redefine warfare
-And acting as the only viable staging-point for a western front...
I think its safe to say that the Americans and the Soviets could not have won the war without Britain. Certainly not a *total* victory.
I think the US could have, if it had the political will for it - they only partially mobilised in world war two anyway.
@@guntguardian3771 But where could they have invaded from? Iceland, Ireland and Portugal were the only Alliance-leaning neutral countries, and without the UK it would be near impossible to convince any of them to host a liberation force - plus they are all too far away and lacked the naval power to protect a liberation force while it gathered. Without the UK, Africa and the Middle East would also be under fascist control. And if the world wars taught us anything, it's that you simply can't land troops on a fortified beach head without extreme diversion and preparation.
The USA could have potentially forced the Nazis to withdraw from its conquests if it had nuclear weapons, but even then it would have lacked a base to launch from.
The Axis would have 2 whole navies (+ the ships they took from the French) and access to all the resources they needed to maintain production and supply lines. As well as all the German and Italian forces this would free up, it would free up vast numbers of Japanese soldiers from fighting in Burma - and potentially even given them access to millions of Indian soldiers if they were persuaded by the fascist-sympathising Indian nationalists.
America would probably (and rightly) see this as a lost cause and return to isolationism, once they had defeated or stalemated Japan. And as hard as they fought, I can't see how the Soviets could withstand all of that without Anglo-American support.
You are correct, but I think their biggest contribution to the war was cracking german intelligence. Operation Cidadel was such a gigantic failure because the british informed the Soviets, that pulled everything they had to defend it. While Cidadel would be a failure regardless, it would have caused great damage to the Red Army, and slow down plans for major offensives like Bagration. Without the complete failure of Cidadel, Germany could've likely lasted another year.
@@TheAtlasReview
Okay, so in this scenario the US has no foothold in Europe immediately. The fact they have no major Atlantic Navy as of 1941 is irrelevant, since why would they be fighting there initially?
The answer is they wouldn't, you fight on the sea to maintain lines of communication and supply. Without any of these, then no presence required. Easy.
The defeat of Japan was inevitable after the US had them within bomber range, and after their submarine campaign had cut off Japan from resources.
With this campaign over, the US could have focused more of its resources towards the second threat of Germany. How could they have won?
Their naval power by this point made the pre-War navies of France and Germany look old, outdated and of not much use.
The question is whether the US would have been able to establish a foothold and maintain an air campaign against the Germans that would allow them to eventually defeat the Luftwaffe. I think they probably could in time, with nuclear weapons. Perhaps not though.
@@guntguardian3771 That's a very long 'when given enough time'. Entirely disregarding how much slower the Americans would have won the war in the Pacific if the British would have just offered Japan a peace deal after their initial conquest, the US would have to invade Japan at some point as they would not even have submitted to the nukes if the USSR is not entering the war against them. So after sacrificing half a milion lives to join the war in the Pacific, somewhere in 1945 or 46, the US looks back over the Atlantic to start invading Europe. Oh wait, no presence of the USA and Britain out of the war means no lend and lease via Murmansk (or anywhere in the western part of the USSR), less forces tied down in occuppied Europe and a mighty Reich with unbombed industrial production that has possibly driven the USSR back to the Ural mountains. You need a hell of an invasion to set that straight, and good luck getting your invasion force over against a U-boat fleet undamaged by a battle of Britain.
I'm not saying it couldn't be done, after all, the USA would still have been technologically ahead and the Germans still mostly tied down in Russia, but the political will to do this after a horrendous campaign against Japan would be difficult to find. In that scenario, we're far more likely to see some sort of peace agreement that ends with a huge nazi empire
Simply no. One of Stalin's main men Nikita Khrushchev in his memoirs stated that Stalin told him personally several times in private conversation and to others that they couldn't have defeated Germany one on one without the help of America through the lend-lease program, and Nikita Khrushchev agreed.
Go figure, but nah commies are going to keep denying it because it ruins their idealized version of made up head canon.
Truth of the matter is that 80% of the world participated in the war against fascism and the axis of evil.
Every country contributed something.
But it was the US, not the British, or the Soviets, that had supplied the allies with everything it needed.
Food, trucks, weapons, tanks, planes, clothing, raw materials and so on.
We may not get top spot as far as the battlefield is concerned (although we get either second or third overall) but when it comes to the backbone of all of the allied armies… we were number one.
Logistics win wars… tanks, planes, ships,
Not even men with rifles win them.
Well, Khruschchev was a rat but yeah, pretty much. The victory was a combined effort, still, war wouldn't be won without the USSR, they absolutely did the heavy lifting.
Well is Khrushchev
Didn't Stalin admit as much directly to Roosevelt at Tehran?
The West would not have won without USSR manpower either. 4/5 of every German casualty was on the eastern front.
Since when did we start using military losses as a method of who fought the best or hardest?
Well, the Italians tried it after the first world war...
Indonesia’s death count in the Pacific is around the mid 4 millions while the the United States’ death count is around 200k in the Pacific. Therefore, the Dutch East Indies played a bigger role in defeating Japan than the United States.
I mean 80% of all German casualties were on the Eastern Front, so... That's where the War was mostly. That's where the fighting was. It shows us where the fighting was most intense, where people lost their lives doing the whole war thing. No the Soviet Union didn't win by itself, but I think we're starting to over-correct again and go the opposite way in saying, well since the Soviets *didn't* win it by themselves, then it was the U.S.' industry and military might!... and not you know, a mix of everything? I'm not chastising you directly, I'm just cautioning that people are going to over-correct... once again.
@@johnn8795 Yes and 80% + of all of those casualties were from exposure and illness. The German army froze/starved to death. The Soviets died at lower rates thanks to the massive amounts of supplies provided by lend lease. No lend lease, the Soviets collapse in 1943.
@@meowfaceification That last bit is easy to say from an armchair with confidence, but in reality that's not how it works. Regardless, my point still stands. I'm not saying lend-lease didn't do anything, I'm saying lend-lease isn't this God-send that won the entire war all by itself, but I guess you can't tell the difference :/. I want to warn against *over-correction* that is it. American exceptionalists are just as annoying and incorrect as tankies and wehraboos.
How about we just take the Soviet Union out of the mix and put in a bunch of tiny useless states in the way of Germany's lebensraum? How is an allied landing in the West even going to be humanly possible? Could you imagine those 3 million Germans NOT being on the Russian border? Could you imagine that 80% casualties never being casualties and the allies STILL winning the war unconditionally? No. You'd be dumb to say otherwise. As it turns out, it's a mix of things and not one thing or the other. Is that really controversial to say?
Everyone talks about how much the West helped Russia in the Second World War. Nobody talks about how much help Germany got from abroad.
Almost all of Europe supplied Germany with raw materials, weapons, food and fuel. Millions of European soldiers fought alongside Germany. In 1943, every third soldier who fought for Germany was a foreigner.
There were also millions of forced laborers who had to work for Germany.
Russia also gave a loot of supply for technology
"Supplied" you mean they straight up took them. Yeah not exactly the same as being given them for free, hell straight up hand delivered in a warzone. They didn't have the greatest production machine in human history supplying them from 1000's of miles away from the nearest enemy bomber. That's not even counting the air support that US/UK contributed and the huge distraction D-day and the subsequent invasion. All Germany got was a self serving ally in Japan and Italy, which lets face it might as well have been part of the Allies. Well and Romania and the other minor powers but that's kind of ridiculous comparison to US/UK/USSR. Honestly the fact the Axis had the success they did is quite frankly amazing and virtually solely because of Germany.
The UK looted all it's colonies in the war. India specially contributed a huge amount in terms of resources and man power in a war they had nothing to do with. And in the process millions died out of starvation in the Bengal famine,where stockes were reserved for future needs for the war rather than helping the dying Indians. The Canadians, Australians , Africans all contributed and helped the UK. Without them the UK would have as many chances of winning the war as a mouse might have against a cat.
And the Soviet Union had to pay it all back. Uncle Sam ain’t gonna give anything for free unless it’s contaminated blankets.
The Nazi Germany suffered 80% of casualties in the Eastern Front. Do you understand the titles you were reading? The Nazis lost 3 millions of their best troops in the Soviet Union. By the time the Allied Forces showed up they were fighting Volsktrum, HitlerJugend and soldiers Nazis recruited from the conquered territories.
The massive import of logistic vehicles (lend-lease) also meant that factories otherwise needed to construct those vehicles could now produce tanks, I think part of the reason why the Soviets managed to produce so many T-34's. Regardless, I'm grateful Overlord did occur. At the very least the second front saved my country from becoming a puppet state to the Soviets.
Chances of the Soviets capturing the whole of Europe were ZERO with or without Overlord.
Soviet logistics were pitiful. Without Lend Lease they would have failed completely. The most valuable asset the Soviets had was the Studebaker truck or as the GIs called it the deuce and a half.
@@Calmarsden Actually the biggest help from the Lend Lease were the locomotives not the trucks
There was plenty of trucks in the USSR
No friend! Overlord was the 1st front! Remember the UK was fighting the NAZIs from the beginning and through to the end. That’s where the first front war was. The Soviets fought on the 5th front.
The Allies fought on the 1st front (in France) the 2nd front (in the Atlantic), the 3rd front (in the air-war over Britain and Germany) the 4th front in N. Africa (later moved to Italy) and the 6th front in northern France and the 7th front (in Southern France [operation Dragoon]).
@@rankoorovic7904 One out of every three Soviet trucks were Lend-Lease, and the U.S. trucks were much better quality than the Soviet trucks.
My father, an air force man in WW2, said without the allies bombing Germany night and day the Russians would have faced much more air support for the Germans.
Absolutely
And much more enemy equipment in general. Imagine if all of Germanys industry was left intact?
@@captainkyperplayz1162 the war would have lasted 3-4 more years. Best case scenario
@@captainkyperplayz1162 I read at one point that in 1943 one third of the army and two thirds of the Luftwaffe were in France and the low countries facing the UK. IF all of that could have been freed up for the eastern front the USSR likely would have collapsed.
The Soviet Union never gained air superiority over the Germans on the eastern front the Allie’s did in Western Europe. Then all the more war material Germany would have been able to produce and use against the Soviet forces.
Back in 2009 I went to Moscow for business. For one week I trained computer security people at a bank. While I got along fine with my students, their manager and I did not get along. On Friday, he surprised me by inviting me to lunch. While we drank beer and ate pizza, he shared his view of Americans (not very positive, yet not insulting), and then brought up the great Patriotic War. He asserted Americans did not appreciate the Russian efforts during the war.
I acknowledged his view and started talking about Kursk. His jaw dropped. “You know about Kursk!?” For the first time all week, he smiled.
I guess we achieved deténte.
If you want to warm a Russian to you; recount him his history
He'll be offering you his daughters before the evenings end 😂
The issue is that he had probably never heard about Guadalcanal, New Guinea, Tarawa, Peleliu, Saipan, Leyte, Luzon, Mindanao, Okinawa or Iwo Jima. He probably didn't know that the units with the heaviest casualties in the US Army was the 8th Air Force, and by mid-1944, 60% of all Luftwaffe day fighters and over 10,000 AA guns from 88-128mm were committed to the defense of the Reich. Or that the Battle of the Atlantic resulted in 90% dead for German U-boat crews. Or that the US, British and France captured as many Axis troops in Tunisia as the Red Army captured at Stalingrad. I could keep going, but let's always remeber that while the British were hanging on by their fingernails in 1940, the USSR was shipping millions of tons of food, iron and oil to Germany.
Has he heard of Omaha beach?
@@pro_master2486 He may even not have heard how the USA sent thousands of tanks and trucks and jeeps to the USSR. Stalin and his cronies never promoted that to the people.
@@edlawrence6553 Stalin even said that Land lease was immensely important in the victory. However you Americans dont want to admit that WW2 was a solo carry job by the Soviets. More german soldiers were killed or captured in Stalingrad than on the whole western front for the duration of the whole war. If ww2 was a group project, than ussr did 80% of the work and the us at most 15%, while trying to claim it in any way did a comparable amount. Laughable however if you want to believe something, no amount of facts will change your mind.
"The Soviets won the war because they took the most casualties!"
In other news, China defeated the Japanese almost single-handedly (and the Germans were absolutely routed by unarmed civilians).
well put
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
they took over berlin so they beat them as simple as that
braindead comment
That also means the Russian Empire was winning then
Reminds me of an old joke my old man likes to tell.
In highschool he learned how the United States defeated the Nazis on the beaches of Normandy.
In college he learned how the Nazi warmachine was broken on the steps of Russia.
And in flight school he learned the Soviets broke the Nazi warmachine riding on American trucks.
The Soviets broke the Nazi war machine driving T34 tanks, all of which were made in the Soviet Union.
@@davidcolley7714 lmao, just coping in all the comments
@@davidcolley7714 and the Soviet Union was able to commit so much of its economy to military production precisely because of Lend-Lease supplies from the West. "Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics."
@@stevenhenry9605 To listen to you and your confederates, it would appear that almost everything was provided by lend lease to the Soviets. How about some facts and by facts I do not mean the western allies "facts"
@@LeavingGoose046 Nor did I, but the T34 tank was
Britain also claimed thousand times "We were alone against Hitler in 1940". But they did get help from USA and other countries. Why aren't you also ranting about that?
Because the British have no false conceptions that they were capable of winning the war alone. When they said "we are alone" they weren't bragging about being alone they were saying that they were the only nation at war with the Nazis and the other democracies of the world really should come and help. In his we will fight them on the beaches speech Churchill literally states: "in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old." He literally says in that speech that Britian won't win until the US comes to help them. He's even more explicit in his Finest Hour speech when he blatantly says that the Germans will come for the US after Britain is defeated and they really need to join the war right now. There's literally no concept in the British narrative that the war was going to be won by anything other than a larger power coming to save them, it just so happens that from 1940-41 there were no great powers coming to save them and they had to wait it out and hope for the best.
@@styleroler5816 Umm, Britain is lucky they are surrounded by the Atlantic ocean which acts as a natural barrier. That's the only reason Britain didn't capitulate in WW2, the same can't be said for any other country in the mainland. USSR literally fought for their existence because if Hitler would have succeeded then he would either deport or exterminate the Slavic people.
@Evilleader you're conflating multiple different events which make no logical sense if you look at them chronologically. Yes multiple states capitulated... before the British started claiming they were alone. The speeches in which Churchill began to appeal for US involvement came literally after the fall of France and cited the fall of France as the reason why they wanted assistance. The invasion of the Soviet Union occurred 1 year later, the one year in which Great Britain was the only uncapitulated power left in Europe. So the period in which Britain was claiming to be alone... was the one year period in which they were the only uncapitulated power facing Hitler (excluding their colonies which were literally a part of them). And it's not like nothing happened throughout the year. The entire year they spent in a war of attrition with the German airforce. The Germans had begun the Atlantic War and began the first German "happy time" where every other ship bound for England was sunk, and the only thing which stood between them and the German forces was a small channel. It's not like the British didn't have precedent to fear a German naval Invasion either, as Churchill had literally come to power following the fall of Norway where the German invasion force had completely bypassed the British blockade. This was not the "phoney war" of 1939-1940, this was the real war where most of the British consigned themselves to the fact that the Germans had already won and they were waiting for the inevitable invasion.
The only way your version makes any sense is if the British somehow all knew in advance the Germans were going to invade the Soviet Union and leave them alone. Otherwise, what exactly was the British hope supposed to be? It literally took a surprise attack against the US over a year and a half to even make them consider going to war, and the Russians were as far as the British public were concerned allies of the Germans after the Poland affair. What were the British of 1940 supposed to think other than: no one is coming to save us, we're all starving, the streets are on fire, and we have no army so it looks like we're gonna loose the war. You're imagining the alone mentality that they are claiming to have won the war (which again literally no one said and I can even show you quotes where they say others won the war), and then asking why they complained in 1940 that they were alone when there was literally no one else in the conflict.
@@evilleader1991If by "lucky" you mean it's their merit for having the largest and best navy with the best admirals in the world which made a german invasion impossible, then yes, they were lucky
@@leongremista95 cope, Germany literally steamrolled through every country in Europe. What makes you think the Brits would be any different?
I recall an old saying:
“The Britsh provided the time, the Americans provided the money and the Soviets provided the blood”
Which is an apt saying. Everyone contributed, each in their own way and means.
That is not a ‘saying’. It’s an observation.
China's casualties (military and civilian) are estimated to be about 13-50 million (1937-45). No one argues they won WW2 alone.
Well, they did around 80% of work in the European theatre. This corresponds with the Germans having 80% of their forces on the Soviet border
@@tempejklbecause, of course, the allies didnt fight in Africa and the atlantic ocean
@@jacaredosvudu1638 Funnily enough, Africa isn't in Europe. Though I don't know which Allied forces were fighting in the Atlantic?
@@tempejkl of course, and all of WW2 wasnt on Europe
On the second one, thousands of skirmishes between planes, ships and submarines, the hunt for the Bismarck and the Battle of the Atlantic, which lasted during the entire war starting by 1940
And also, the Battle of the Atlantic, which even though wasnt a battle per see and more of a theater, who lasted from 1940 all the way to the defeat of Germany
Anyone forget about the Artic convoys? For years Britain was sending millions of tonnes of supplies and weapons the Russia while under constant u-boat threat
Weren't those destined to support Finland in the Winter War? According to The World at War documentary, Britain almost got into war against the USSR for this.
@@SwfanredLotr They was sending and supplying everyone. To the Indians who was suffering a famine, to Finland and Russia, and the French. Britain was paying to keep everyone in the fight in the same way they did against Napoleon.
Russia Contributed as a distraction only.
@@SwfanredLotr The Arctic Convoys continued through the entire war, and the vast majority were bound for the Russian port of Murmansk. A few early convoys may have carried supplies for Finland, but not many. The British did not want to end up fighting both Germany and the USSR, so were reticent about sending too much in the way of supplies to Finland during the Winter War. They sent some, but not a huge amount. Don't forget, by the time of the Winter War Britain had already been at war for two years.
The vast majority of those Arctic Convoys were bound for Russia however, and they continued right the way through till the end of the war. The very reason Tirpitz was based in Norway was to threaten those Arctic Convoys.
Yes and British Lend Lease supplies took effect before American and in late 1941 British tanks and planes were important for the defence of Moscow.
@@SwfanredLotr Britain sent no Arctic convoys to Finland.
During the Winter War, the Soviets occupied the Finnish Arctic Sea port of Liinakhamari, blocking that trade route. The British plan to send direct military aid to Finland was to go through Narvik, Norway. That would also have allowed them to take control of the Swedish iron mines, denying that resource to Germany.
During the interim peace, Liinakhamari was in operation as the only free port in the Nordic countries. Finland used it to conduct international trade independently. Both Britain and Germany inspected all the ships going there for war materiel.
On June 14th 1941, Britain blockaded Finland's Arctic due to German military buildup in the country. The countries remained at war until September 1944, when Finland signed the armistice treaty with them. The treaty gave Petsamo to the Soviets, so Finland lost its only arctic port.
These kinds of questions bug me quite often. It’s like asking which part of the engine is most responsible for the car moving. The alternator, the transmission, the battery, the cylinders… all of them are essential. Even if some of them are more communist than the others.
Great analogy 👍🏻
Right. Cuz the communist parts are by far the most important parts.
✝️🇪🇺🇬🇷1982🇬🇷athens
08;17
🇬🇷🇬🇷🇺🇳🇬🇷🇬🇷👋
Both helped.......
But only because stalin is more bastard than hitler
UK 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
Won the war
With brains and tea
British won air war on battle of britain
British ceacked enigma Uboats radio messages
I admire Britannia
And british ships
Discipline tea
Humor
Mr bean won hitler
Amazing
My beloved Britania
🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
@@Inoffensive_nameHave you ever seen a Trabant? It might change your mind
nothing about USSR was communist after 1924 let alone ww2
Seems like a lot of people forget about the war against Japan. The UK and USA had military commitments around the whole world, not just in one operational theater.
The USSR took up Japan’s best forces in Manchuria. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria is quite possibly the greatest invasion of all time, the Soviets took everything they had learned from the war and executed it masterfully.
@@tempejklJapan did not have its best forces in Manchuria, those best forces were involved in ichi go and spread across south East Asia, along with the great planned defense of the main island, although the Soviet invasion of Manchuria was an impressive show of how much the Soviets learned and how weak Japan had gotten since the war started because of the UK and USA
@@cringewatcher4229 The vast majority of the Japanese forces were eliminated in this offensive. Of course, the Chinese deserve most of the credit, although the nationalists in particular were very totalitarian, and killed hundreds of thousands, flooding populated areas in a vain attempt to stop the Japanese.
The Japanese surrendered because of the Soviets, not the nukes. This is just a fact, the Soviets were already planning an attack, took Sakhalin, Kuril Islands, Manchuria, and were about to take Hokkaido. The soviets weren’t the only factor, the fact that the Japanese lost their navy to the US and struggled in China didn’t help them, but the Soviets delivered the final blow with a masterful offensive.
@@tempejkl "killed hundreds of thousands" please, you tankies have no right to talk about other countries oofing their own civilians, when the soviets and communist chinese did the exact same thing, on a far larger scale
@@tempejklsoviet's didn't even have landing craft lmao
Apparently a few weeks ago a UA-camr called BadEmpananda 2 had made a video claiming he had debunked (an extremely abused word) TIK's "pro-fascist" channel. And his commentators call us viewers idiots for watching TIK. Insults are a dead end, I learned far more about economics and politics from TIK than I have from school or anything of these "debunking TILK" vids, so he's earned my support.
TIK dosent like socialism and he was ex right wing too. Make that as you will 🤔
I like and enjoy TIK’s work very much, but there are more than a few areas and topics where I disagree with him, and in my opinion there really needs to be more people on UA-cam who are willing to engage in civil, professional debates/arguments/discussions with him. (Anton Joly is one of the few)
No insults, no being condescending (TIK unfortunately is guilty of having been snide toward some of his critics and detractors, though I would say that he is getting better about it)
TIK’s stance regarding Socialism is one in which he is VERY much against it, and I am hoping that there would be a historian who - again, civilly and respectfully - be able to provide evidence and sources that would SUPPORT the argument that at least some Socialist practices HAVE overall been more positive than negative.
In my opinion, it’s about balance.
Should a private business be mandated by the government to have standards and regulations regarding safety and health? Absolutely.
But should the government control ALL the aspects of the business, from pricing to production? Should the government “nationalise” all businesses in a country?
Yeah, no, I wouldn’t support such a policy.
Apparently, Sweden is an example of a country with mostly Socialist policies that is doing ok (more-or-less)
If this is true, I would love to know more about it. And if it is not, I would still want to know.
As TIK would say, history lies in the heart of the debate.
@@CMY187 Be carefully, Sweden is abused by Socialist lije an example if “suscefully socialism”.
In the contrary, thet were rich until 1960 with free market and Liberalism, broked in 1980 with Socialsm and emerge again actually with less taxes than Europe and EEUU. Best regards!
@@juanporzio5990 Thanks for sharing this, but I am of course going to say, “Is this really the case?”
IS Sweden indeed now worse off than it was in the 1960s, and if so, is it truly because of Socialist policies?
I want someone on UA-cam to create a video in which the first half of it is them presenting evidence that supports one argument, then in the second half of the video presenting evidence that supports the other.
For example, there is evidence to support both sides of a debate:
Was Lend Lease truly critical to Soviet victory/Axis defeat in the Eastern Front?
Or would the USSR still have defeated the Axis regardless, though Lend Lease definitely helped tremendously and contributed to the Soviets being able to push all the way to Berlin instead of just forcing the Axis into an unwinnable stalemate?
@@CMY187I agree with you, I was very short in my answer earlier. There are matter of debate, but ( in advance) Inagree with TIK 100%
Howevwe, Sweden, or the debate about the Western powers contribution, are complexe topics.
But, one thing. Never make comparations at the same country 30 or 40 years. That’s because in 40 years there are developnents (like the plastics, electronics, Software systems, etc.) that make wrong to compare the society productivitie or wellness, because always the earlier were less productive.
You should compare every country with the world. In 1960 Sweden were the richest GP per capita, in the eighties became the 20 or so. And was broken…
Best regards
Saying the Soviets won WW2 alone is like saying the Americans won their independence alone.
or is like saying cats are not dogs or pizza is not concrete . make as much sense
There's a surprising amount of Americans who actually think that though.
The importance of the French and their navy is underappreciated by many Americans. We don't win without them.
@@mikeoxlong3676 Theyre a huge reason we won at Yorktown and captured over 7,000 British troops.
@@mikeoxlong3676 Also the Spanish played a much bigger role than what is credited to them if at all, apparently as important as the French if not more.
Wasn't it the Soviets who wanted the Brits and Yanks to open up a second front?
Yup and they complained several times that we were too slow (we don’t rush offensives and take more casualties than is necessary lul)
And when the British ambassador suggested they could open a second front earlier but they'd need to lower lend lease the soviet suddenly went rather quite and changed the subject
The reality is that WW2 was such a complex conflict that the only thing to say is that the allies all contributed to win in the ETO & PTO (Hiroshima, the Soviet entrance into the PTO, and Nagasaki was the 1-2-3 combo that forced the surrender).
Japan knew they were defeated, but thought they could get out of the war without an unconditional surrender. Hirohito rejected the American-British-Chinese demand for unconditional surrender as the Military were determined to fight on and the Prime Minister thought that since Stalin hadn't signed the declaration maybe he might intervene and persuade the Americans to negotiate a peace. Thinking about it, surrender would appear the worst option for the Japanese. To be done only if ALL else had failed. They were grasping at straws for any other way out of the war.
The Prime Minister didn't brief Hirohito after Hiroshima because he was still waiting to see if Stalin would help them.
The bombing of Nagasaki didn't necessarily change the situation much. Okay, it was another destroyed city but the Allies had been destroying cities for months. The USAAF had to be provided a list of off-limits cities in order to leave cities like Hiroshima untouched as targets for the atomic bomb.
But the invasion by the Soviets dealt a crushing blow to the Prime Minister's plans for getting out of the war. He was the first to recognize that there was no other reasonable option than surrender. We'll never know what he truly thought, as the arguments he made for the Emperor were probably constructed to persuade the Emperor to a course of action whether he (Prime Minister Suzuki) believed them or not. But the Prime Minister did raise the threat that if the war went on they might someday be occupied by, among others, the Red Army. And there would be less chance to spare the Emperor if they had to surrender to or negotiate with the Soviets than just the Americans. it was an argument that while surrendering now to the Americans was bad, surrendering later would be worse.
The British gave time, the US gave money, the Soviets gave blood.
And the Jew who welded these nations like nickels and dimes.
BASED
I heard a similar quote that went something like: The British gave the airforce and navy, the Soviets gave the army and the US gave the industry.
@@niiiiggggaysexxxx not based, both allies lost their country to multiculturalism
@@myhonorwasloyalty Finland is part of the Russian Empire!!!!🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺
The most important parts of lend-lease were actually chemicals. Something like 80% of aviation fuel was made with american gasoline and 40% of shells were made with american explosives and powder
Chemicals, aluminum, radios, etc.
@@Edax_Royeaux that wasn't really true in 1945 anymore as soviets had new oil refining equipment delivered by lend-lease and also romanian oil
Even so, canned food is a big deal when starvation was a factor many times during the war.
@@samsonsoturian6013 starvation of peasants does not affect combat performance. Germans starved in 1917 and still went on the offensive
@@tedarcher9120 if only it were that simple
I really hate the idea of deaths = war victory. Because it really doesn't work like that. Nowhere in history is it like that.
That's completely true. But number of casualties is to some extent a measure of effort expended. Not completely, and of course we're all oversimplifying here. But it is a measure.
“BuT wE lOsT mOrE sO tHaT mEaNs We WoN riGhT!”
Losing a ridiculous number of your own troops because your leaders are incompetent and didn’t know how to fight a war until halfway through isn’t a victory.
@@executivedirector7467casualties doesn't win wars,surviving personnel does(occupation,fighting strength,reserves,staffs,ect.)
Unless it's the death of an opponent.
The USSR defeated more German soldiers than it lost its own, Europe really likes to ignore this
Marshal Zhukov said that without Lend-Lease the Soviets could not have gathered enough reinforcements to continue the war against Germany. That is how close they came to loosing the war.
Please show a source when Zhukov said this
A soldier without boots doesn't walk very far (US boots that is, the Soviet didn't have enough production capacity of that)
@@TR-cr2xj I'd have to find an English translation of Marshal Zhukov's memoirs. I have seen one locally where I live but never checked it out of the library. That is my source but I can't quote it because I don't have it to hand.
Complete nonsense, Marshal Zhukov never said that. You very much overestimate the influence of lendlease on the situation on the front, the Soviets could have done it without lendlease, yes, there would have been more losses and it would have taken more time, but the Soviets would still have won in the end
@TR-cr2xj nowhere, westoids are rewriting the history as usual. Hard to listen to these people.
What percentage of losses did the germans (and their allies) withstand on the eastern front, compared to the rest of the fronts (western europe, atlantic, africa ...).
It's not how many soviets died, it's how many Germans, Romanians, Croats, and collaborators and how much of their hardware was destroyed by Soviet forces.
Those percentages are in the 70-80%. And yes the Soviet Union did the most work in defeating Nazism.
It's actually about 60% if you include the navy and air force, plus Japan. However, if we factor in that the Soviets also (practically) allied with Germany in 1939, then the damage done to Poland, France and the other countries occupied in 1939-1941 could have been significantly reduced, meaning that the Soviets wouldn't have had to shoulder so much of the work. In addition, you have massive material and financial support from the West, a naval blockade, and an air campaign that significantly impacted the Axis ability to conduct the way. Thus, it's not as clear cut as just counting casualties, as explained in the video.
Without the Allies enabling the soviets to live and then win, plus without the USSR helping the German regime in a variety of way (because of their own gains as far as their conquests in the East) up until June 1941, the situation would be way different from that status.
While the USSR would probably not have lost WW2 if left alone, it probably also wouldn't have won it. So I'd say no, because winning WW2 alone was beyond the USSR's capabilities.
If being ''alone'' means that Germany didn't had to guard there western coastline, didn't have to focus the Luftwaffe on the western front, i think the USSR would have stand no chance.
They had lost alone
They would have won regardless, but at a much higher cost in men and material.
No chance they could have fought successfully alone. Stalin told his Allies he could fight for four years, and Germany could have fought for much longer.
@@Pietervandebuurt yep, “no chance”, that’s why Stalingrad’s battle happened in 1942, when no serious bombing raids were happening and certainly not the best divisions were put on the coastline to guard anything (from what lol? Americans were not ready to land, British couldn’t )
If you read 'win' differently and look at the world map, then the USSR won by gaining territory and client states while France, GB, the Netherlands and others lost (in the end) by loosing their colonial empires and the US won by gaining a bigger market place and the strongest currency. Still GB was awarded by being allowed to have the Beatles, Rolling Stones and the Benny Hill Show. (Source: Official History of Planet Earth 4000 A.D.)
America already (pre-war) had the worlds biggest marketplace ....post war it was the only real market
I think the British empire was in retreat in any case, it was too expensive, inefficient and the populations were becoming capable and desirous of managing their own business, particularly India, which after the fall of Singapore the British/European Hegemony in SE Asia and the subcontinent had become untenable, and I think the people who mattered (possibly excepting Churchill) recognised it.
Well, I never cared for the Beatles or the Stones... but Pink Floyd was epic... and Benny Hill was hilarious.
Also... "Are You Being Served"... and "Fawlty Towers"... and... uh... that strange doctor guy.
Who?
Yes.
I wanted to make this exact comment. Technically the soviets ended the war with a net positive in territory, military equipment and social cohesion. While the western allies ended the war losing former allies, in political disarray and crumbling empires. If it wasn't for America, the allies could be said completely broken by the end of the war.
@@RedactedBrainwaves Allying to America was a bit of a double edged sword for the European powers, yes Americans helped rebuild the continent and offered protection against the Soviets, but also made them tow the line politically and effectively become dependants.
I do wonder if there was a lot of resentment from European nations for the Americans anti imperialistic approach whilst simultaneously doing what they wanted in the name of the cold war. Or they knew the game was up and just accepted how things were.
You don't win mvp by getting dunked on the most times
How dumb you must be to compare a basketball game to a bloody conflict. Many soldiers lost their lives for the sake of winning, they fought for their existence, they suffered the most and won the biggest battles of WW2(Kursk, Stalingrad, Moscow, Berlin etc). And you’ve got the nerve to question their “MVP” as you call it, hell yea USA lost rifles, tanks and ammo, it’s much more valuable than human lives, is that what you are trying to say?
Of course not.
Joint first!
Of course yes!
By the way, its easy to forget that Germany was getting one hell of a lendlease from the rest of the Axis and other conquered territories. But when looking at German victories, no one ever questions that those victories came from Germany and Germany alone. So why is it different with the Soviets? Why everyone must pitch in with "well you couldn't have won without lendlease"?
The flaw is thinking that credit for the victories goes to Germany alone. Just because lots of people fall for that fallacy, doesn't make it true. Rommel couldn't have won a single battle in North Africa without the Italian troops and equipment under his command, and he couldn't have even gotten to Africa to begin with without the Italian Navy giving him a lift.
Tik seems to have a very hyperbolic view of the press. While I admire his research and military analysis, his view is very black/white and lacking nuance in his statements on the main stream media (simply espousing the Russian/Soviet efforts as the main driver of victory does NOT make someone a communist sympathiser-you may be wrong or misguided but it doesn’t make someone a simp for Stalin) and obviously influenced by his own political views. I think his commentary here reveals more of Tiks own biases (ex his abrupt and simplistic labelling of people as “Marxist”) than anyone else’s. It’s surprising he does not have the self awareness around his own very strong political views influencing his commentary (his use of Greta meme is revealing) because he does tend to preach having a questioning and skeptical perspective but does not acknowledge his own biases publicly before the discussion.
At the very least there is no neee to weaponise a persons educational background or studies (including that focused on ethnicity or race), environmental stance etc against them; it’s cartoonish, does nothing to advance the persuasiveness of Tiks arguments (which fundamentally are very convincing when the political harangues are left out) and come across as ad hominem rather than substantive.
Also side note: citing German critiques of their allies abilities (even if Tik acknowledges racism played a part) in no way whatsoever substantiates the point that they were worse. The Germans had every reason during and after the war to try and absolve themselves of responsibility for their military failures. Their assessment of Italians, Romanians etc may indeed be accurate but one must question their motivations first. This reveals the delicate underbelly of Tik. When he wants to he marshals diverse sources, and a keen intellect to advance a clever thesis but he is often lazy and prone to simplistic tropes or throw away statements that are problematic, as in this vid with some of his political points.
Anecdote Time. This is not historical record, but a story passed from person to person.
My grandfather was a professor of Russian language and culture. He visited the Soviet Union as a guest professor since the 1960s and continued to visit even after the USSR fell and the Russian Federation formed.
During one of his visits in the 1960s, he met an old woman who told him that during the Great Patriotic War, she was a dock warehouse worker at the port of Archangelsk, unloading lend-lease supplies.She was usually assigned to work on the food, medical, and other non-lethal supplies.
She told my grandfather that the supplies came in sturdy crates marked "U.S." in stencils and with american military insignia on them The one of the first things that the workers did was to repaint all the crates and mark them with "CCCP" [U.S.S.R.] and soviet insignia before shipping the crates on towards their final destinations.
When I heard this tale, I was astonished. I knew that Stalin was prideful and that he kept much secret from the general public, but as a former warehouse worker, myself, I marveled that the Russians would spend all that time, manpower, and a small fortune in paint simply to create the illusion that Russia was relying on only itself for supplies.
My un-expert conclusion: Stalin was already making the claim that Russia won the war on its own before the war was even won.
I think he is more dangerous than the German armies
Stalin was one horrible s - - - !
You really think the Soviet people would’ve done better if the country that was embargoing them 20 years earlier was admitted to be supplying them? And it’s not like it was kept as a secret after the war, Stalin and Zhukov both credited the US’ lend lease program.
Stalin cancelled the lend lease agreement and refused to pay for it after the war when he realised that it was a financial trap to bankrupt the USSR
@@tempejkl
As with most countries, what was stated in international media is often different to what was said in each countries own media.
In the UK we would read a french newspaper for the truth because UK media was highly scensored.
I saw a really good video just recently about Lend-Lease. The person being interviewed was talking about a T-34 that he saw being refurbished, and discovered that most of the steel, all the aluminum, many of the tools used to make it and a lot of the parts in this signature Soviet tank were made in the US! He also commented on the bulk of aviation fuel used by the Red Air Force was made in the US as well. And mentioned how troops that could have fought in Russia were siphoned off to face the Allies elsewhere during the war. He didn't add that almost all the trucks and radios used by the Red Army, as well as one-sixth of the Red Air Force, were all manufactured in the US. Nor did he mention the large numbers of British and American tanks that were used on the Eastern Front either. Plus all the food that was given to the USSR by the Allies.
So no, the Soviet Union did NOT win WW2 alone.
TIK have video about land lease, please watch it.
Knowing that 75-80% of Germans killed in WW2 were killed in on the eastern front. I don't know what more soldiers were there that could fight soviets and were siphoned elsewhere.
I mean maybe if Germans did not start the western front and the Africa front before summer 41. But it was the soviet Union who handled the millions of Germans, Italians Romanians, Croats Bulgarians who could have otherwise fought in France and in Africa.
This is completely BS.
@@tunisiandom9318 Your Just thinking of men. Not production, Logistics, Trains, Air support, Intelligence ect. and where did most of all of this stuff come from? the US and UK, The soviet Union alone without outside support as well as the Germans would of (in my opinion) would assert that the Germans win this one, Also just because there couldn't of been swarms of soviet soldiers pouring down a hill doesn't mean that a invasion of Europe most likely wouldn't of happened, Just a lot more Bloody and Stretched out
another thing that I would like to point out is that people say the T-34 was the best tank of WWII. when it was not... Looking at the entire war it would probably be the Sherman, don't get me wrong shermans have their faults too
@@tunisiandom9318 How many divisions did Germany keep in Norway to counter Allied invasions? 12. How many divisions did they commit to Italy? At least a dozen. How many troops did the Axis lose in North Africa? Lots. The final surrender involved over 250,000 German and Italian troops. Think what those troops could have accomplished on the Eastern Front. Your response also ignores the fact that the Allies supplied the Soviet Union with sufficient material to stay in the fight and not collapse. It was a combined effort. Yes, the Soviets did engage the vast majority of German land forces throughout the war, but the point being made here is that the Allied contribution to the USSR's war effort is very frequently ignored. And that is skewing the narrative.
Supplies delivered to the USSR spared American and British blood. Without the 70% to 80% losses inflicted on the German army by the Soviets on the Eastern Front, there would never have been any Allied landings in Normandy or the liberation of Western Europe, because the Germans would have been able to amass in addition hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of armored vehicles and hundreds of planes on the French coasts.
In fact, Germany had already lost the war long before the Normandy landings. Hitler's first defeat (Battle of Moscow), the turning points of Stalingrad and Kursk, one of the worst German military disasters in history (Operation Bagration) and the fall of Berlin were all the work of the Soviets.
By 1943-1944 almost the entire Luftwaffe fleet was concentrating in the Reich to defend the factories from the bombers, so it's arguably that the allied strategic bomber offensive made a heavy blown on german war economy. I am not even talking about the amount of money and fuel that germans spended in occupied territories and the construction and maintenance of the U-boats - that were completely used against against the western allies. So it's hard to imagine a soviet victory if the germans not have all these problems.
The effect of allied bombing have been studied extensively and are still being debated. It's a complex question.
One can only imagine how differently Stalingrad would've played out if more 88mm guns had been deployed with the Romanian/Italian/Hungarian armies deployed on the flanks instead of in Germany in an anti aircraft role.
@@Lonovavir Not much difference at all. German strategy in the Stalingrad campaign was abysmal. Let's admit they got outplayed by the soviets.
I think this is an excellent point. If my numbers are correct, the LW has 3,500 combat aircraft in June 1941, and 2,500 of those are deployed in the East. From July 1940 to June 1941 the LW has already lost about 2,500 aircraft and pilots, 1,900 in the BoB, and another 600 in subsequent operations. (Greece, Crete, Malta, N. Africa, Channel, France, UK)
So it would be reasonable to conclude that without those 2,500 aircraft lost, the Luftwaffe could have deployed at least double the number of combat aircraft to attack the USSR than it did historically.
@@executivedirector7467
I think the jury is out, whilst they didn't cause a total Industrial collapse until the end of 44', the fact is by constantly harassing and attacking German forces hugely impacted the amount of war resources ended up reaching the front.
Plus, the Luftwaffe and Air Defense, if I recall correctly, was in receipt of the biggest slice of German industrial capacity. Therefore, had these been freed up, or the Luftwaffe been able to be used more offensively, it could of drastically changed the war in the East.
I will say, growing up in the US in the 80s/90s, not a lot was mentioned about the contributions of the other allies during WW2.
This was an irritation us Brits but we sort of know how Hollywood works, however the Russians didn't see any films, books, or TV programs from the west, so I suspect their view of the war was very much derived from understanding of the losses sustained and the media they received from their leaders ... rather similar to the US output but with a Russian bias - there are some very good boys own Russian war movies - very similar to Hollywood output to be fair.
@@andrewjohnston9115 The official Soviet history wrote out the Von Ribbentrop pact and claimed that the USSR just occupied areas of Poland after they vacated. Moltov's complaints of losses in Poland never made the official history. The story was they just occupied and didn't invade Poland. Well the Soviet one did. The East German version did mention the MVR pact. Military History Visualized or maybe Military History unvisualized has a great video on the differences of the Soviet official history.
@@johnweatherby8718 I think you've replied to the wrong person, this has nothing to do with my reply.
@@andrewjohnston9115 Must have I remember someone saying I wonder how the Soviets saw it. I can't find now. Oh well. :)
I will say, growing up in Belgium in the 60s and 70s , not a lot was said about the Russians fighting the Germans, it was all about the western allies .And when it was mentioned it was the cold wars cliches ( madman Hitler, Russian winter and countless numbers of stupid Russian soldiers dying to overrun the german army).
Hell no.
But the Soviets are by far the main reason.
80% of Germany army die in the Eastern front.
The lend lease that was the highest number was high octane petrol, which I believe was 90%, critical to high performance aircraft. The Germans also lost 50% of all casualties in the last 10 months of the war. I suspect the Soviets would have suffered disproportionate losses also. Both sides in the East were not following Geneva, also creating heavier losses. The playing field was not even, as TIK pointed out
They also took 100% of all the HE 2lber production and would take as many valentines as could be made
Lend lease came in when Soviet Union won the battle of Stalingrad
@@NorthWirld Cobblers
Lend lease act was signed into law March 41, battle of Stalingrad started August 42
@@TringmotionCoUk Lend lease doesn’t work like that, it did signed though but however the effect and supplies came in after the Battle of Stalingrad
@@NorthWirld No again.
You seem to have the whole power of the internet and yet you manage to be wrong.
In 1941 the deliveries continued from British factories and were paid for by the Americans.
British equipment was at the battle of Moscow. The difference was the paymaster. Delivery from the USA direct started in 1942. There was no correlation between Stalingrad and lend lease supply
I feel like the argument is an overreaction to the under representation the USSR has received when talking about what won the war. I believe that the Soviets played the largest role in beating the Germans and they should be recognized for that and while the US could’ve beat hitler without Soviet effort it would’ve been a much harder and longer fight. The US did beat the other two axis powers but they played a secondary role when it comes to the German theatre. Furthermore while the Soviets lost the most they also inflicted the most casualties and this should be noted.
@@Godisfinished the US did biuld the A bomb first so... yea, Germany would have capitulated.
They didn't.
It would have been difficult without the soviets. The atom bomb would have probably done the trick, but without it, in the years befor it was ready... tech wasen't that much of a factor compared to the sheer manpower needed. And in pretty much all battles in ww2 europe, the side that had more soldiers won. Germans had about the same number of military personal as the US, so without the soviets binding most of the german troops in the east, it would have been a long bloody slaughter to the last man on the western front until the atom bombs were operational.
Part of the under representation of the Soviet actions in WWII are their own fault quite frankly. For years Western historians were not allowed even close to the Soviet Archives to conduct any research in what the USSR did. While that did ease for a while following the collapse of the USSR Putin soon put a stop to it as well. As a result relatively little is actually known in the West from the actual Soviet perspective because Western Historians do not have access to those Archives.
Because of that Western Historians have been more or less forced to use those sources they DO have ready access to, which are almost entirely German.
@@connerwomack9990 I don't think they would have capitulated so easily
You're not alone in thinking the media is only a few companies acting like a bunch of separate entities.
Fox News and the Daily Telegraph are not the same as the Guardian or the NYT. If you think they are you need a less snug tinfoil hat.
I never understood how the number of casualties taken determines the effectiveness of your nation in fighting an enemy.
It doesn't. It shows how much a country lost and sacrificed.
But on the other hand, the number of casualties inflicted on the ennemy does determine the effectiveness of your nation in fighting that enemy. The 80% of german losses were in the eastern front.
Around 50% of the luftwaffe being tied down figthing the western the allies:
25% in Summer 41, in 42, 50% and in 43, 75% acording to WW2 week by week
@@stc3145 Not to mention Luftwaffe is hardly "just planes".
A massive amount of men and 88s, the former potentially useful in making rear areas actually working, the latter something poor Romanians would dream of having when -defending- getting massacred trying to defend Don.
Only 24% of Luftwaffe fighters were on the Eastern Front at the end of 1942, dropping to 17% at the end of 1943.
There were moments of optimism, after Stalingrad, when soldiers would say that the Red Army could smash the Germans single-handed, and that Russia would therefore not need to “share the fruits of victory” with anybody. This line was to be discouraged by Stalin himself, who, on one occasion in 1943, bluntly declared that Russia could not win the war by herself.
Werth, Alexander. Russia at War, 1941-1945:
That was never confirmed by anyone other than Kruchev who hated Stalin and lied alot. Stalin in no instance believed that the war would be lost and he was prepared to fight till the end.
@@Stockfish1511 Yeah, there was pretty much no way the Soviets could have "lost" the war. The West maintaining second front and invading Italy and France did help the Soviets win the war far more easily than they otherwise would have though. The lives the West sacrificed for Soviet victory would have had to have been paid by Soviet soldiers and the tanks and guns would have had to have been paid for out of the Soviet Treasury.
And if West was not fighting the war for Soviets, they could have intervened on behalf of Eastern Europe at any point they desired and that could have limited Soviet gains in Eastern Europe.
@@Stockfish1511 Khrushchev denounced Stalin years after the war, but what motive would he have for inventing a lie about Stalin saying this? Anyway, it was not Khrushchev who reported it, but Alexander Werth, who spoke Russian and reported from Russia during the war and presumably heard Stalin say it first hand. The statement was in character with Stalin saying many times that Hitler could not be defeated without the combined arms of the Soviet Union, The British Empire, and the United States. What motive do you have for denying what is well-documented and obvious?
I saw the push for "Soviet won the war alone" as more of a reactionary campaign against the narrative that to be honest, the west also push that it is the democratic western world that won the war without including the soviet in it, it is pretty mucg being shown in every popular media, from movie to games etc, and the lack of this soviet representative itch a lot of people, not to mention Cold war propaganda narrative that are being push against soviet people
At the same time, both narrative are stupid, the war are being won by everybody's effort, it is idiotic to play chest thumping and ignore everyome else
@@Stockfish1511 Here is more evidence that Stalin did not think Russia could win the war alone, in a conversation he had with France's Charles De Gaulle in 1944: Stalin agreed that a straight Franco-Soviet Pact would make France more independent in relation to “other countries”, but since it would be difficult for Russia and France alone to win the war, he still preferred a Tripartite Pact.
Werth, Alexander. Russia at War, 1941-1945: A History (p. 928).
I also love when they tell me (Polish) that the Soviets have liberated us.
The Soviets replaced the NAZIs with a less genocidal occupation.
“I wouldn’t say liberated. More like under new management.”
As a Latvian, I'm with you.
Not less genocidal. Different kind of genocidal. Read about "Polish operation" and expulsions to Siberia. Soviets after the end of the war ran the same concentration camps with the evey same goals in kind.
Congratulations you have been liberated. Now please stop resisting
Really missing your Battlestorm series.
At one point (unless I’m mistaken) there was a video about every fortnight.
Now, who knows?
The battlestorm series is perhaps the greatest detailed revision of military history on the Eastern front.
I had a Russian in my class in high school. She was very surprised to learn about the Western narrative on WWII. She jumped around on her chair, looked over the class and said in a clear and impressive voice 'This is NOT what we learn in Russia!'
I knew alot of Russians in my class, I wrestled with many of them. I don't believe you. That sounds like no Russian I ever met. My guess is if this were true that you were talking about some obscure soviet atrocities. But I think your just lying for whatever reason.
@@deathdog1392 Its beyond doubt that the Russian narrative and the Western on WWII is seen from each perspective.
When I read your comment, it looks to me that there are a Russian community in your area. Maybe they're established there for generations and live well with both narratives on WWII.
The Russians immigrated increasily to my country post 1990. My high school were for adults. Yes, we do have two the possibility to take High School in two semesters as adults. The Russian girl in my class was 20-25 years old. I would guess that she was relatively newly immigrated here. It seem to me that she wasn't familiar with the Western narrative. It was likely the first time she heard the Western narrative. Hence she was surprised to say the least.
Then everyone clapped and chanted my name!
Не выдержала кринжа, lol
But really, it's seems USA reaaaally like to overstate their contribution. The whole lend-lease boils down to USA buying themselves out and making someone else do all of the dirty work. Hell, even if USA supplied the entirety of USSR's war effort they still weren't the ones actually fighting (and dieing. a lot) untill much much later when it's became "safe" to participate.
@@kindlingking there’s a whole lot of stupidity in what you wrote, ranging from the Lend Lease (which provided the critical amounts of resources) to the brain-dead idea of there being a “safe” time to join the war.
When talking about divisions, one need to remember that many of the fighting units in US Army were actually independent battalions (tank, TDs, artillery, engineers etc) acting outside of the divisional structure. US Army had "only" 90 divisions in field during WW2, but the amount of soldiers grouped in independent battalions (or in Regimental Combat Teams) that were attached to field corps or field armies was actually equal to the number of soldiers serving in the divisions.
Add to that soldiers serving in logistics and in USAAF and you are getting quite a big number (almost 8 300 000 active servicemen in 1945).
Great point. And US divisions were bigger and maintained unlike German and Russia who just created new divisions. Only 1 US division, the 106 was effectively destroyed during the Bulge but the reformed with 2 new regiments replacing the 2 that were destroyed/captured.
Saying "we won the war because we suffered most casualties" is like saying "I'm the heavy weight box champion because I've got beaten up the most in the School" - very weird logic
Besides - if bodies are counted - China lost people on par with the Soviets but not many people claim that China singlehandedly beaten entire Axis.
Another point - flesh is weak and in age of industrial warfare machines and their costs do matter. Chinese infantryman with outdated gun is one person, so is the US pilot who destroyed two Japanese aircraft carriers in one day. And each aircraft carrier I dare to say is an equivalent of tank division in cost and impact
Another commieboo classic is to simply ignore the Pacific Theater.
@@deriznohappehquite To be fair, although insanely valuable (just like anything taken care of by the West that now isn't taken care of by anybody, by putting out of the picture the UK, that was holding together with the soviets to make it harder for Germany, + the US pulling and lifting all-around the continents), and taken care of by the only real "one-nation-victory" holder in WW2 - the US in the Pacific - , the said Asian Theatre wouldn't have been that much of a key for the war.
What would've mattered for the USSR and for Europe is that a freer Japan could've thrown troops in the Far East right when the germans where doing their fierce offenses.
The true tankie and commieboo special, I would say, is claiming that the USSR even did anything in the East just because they stabbed Japan and destroyed the finished skeleton that was the japanese backline troops in Manchuria behind the 1945 Chinese Front.
Or that they could've naval landed in Japan's islands or home islands, which would've been impossible already with the Allies on Japan's throat in 1945, considering the USSR's capabilities and non-existing experience + Japan's home defenses.
8 out of 10 German soldiers died on the eastern front....this is winning the war...
You are goddamn right. This guy is just trying to say that allies were more "efficient" than the USSR and because of that more important in winning the ww2. He just completely ignored that soviets fought against germand for 4 years on gigantic front every day. It's like saying that a worker does more contribution to factory by working one day a year and doing 50 products in that one day, while the second worker works full year and does 20 products in a day. That just doesnt make sense
It was less than 8 out of 10, and that accounts for Army Soldiers, not Luftwaffe, or Kriegsmarine. Also, what that stat doesn't consider is that the majority of German losses in the East came after the war was basically decided and they were collapsing. If you look at years 1941 through early 1944, the Soviets and Western Allies were more like 50/50. Details matter.
@@mitchrichards1532 more like 70/30
@@not_retr0 Reality check. The Soviets captured 3.2 million German Soldiers, of which 1.92 million ever came home.
The Germans lost 5.3 million men in the war or never returned, 4 million are from the Eastern front and that is the origin of the 80% fallacy.
If 1.3 million of the 4 were POWs that didn't survive, that's only 2.7 million lost in combat. So now it's 67% of German Soldiers lost to the Red Army. Then there's the issues of when. The Germans lost 1 million men KIA defending the Eastern front and Berlin in 1945 alone, when the war was basically decided. So that's 1.7 million German Soldiers between 22 June 1941 and 31 December 1944. Its pretty close to 50/50 in terms of meaningful operations.
@@mitchrichards1532 Now, what would had happen if there were no Lend Lease that supplied the Soviets with food, ammunition, parts, equipment, trucks, train, aluminum, aviation gas and there was no strategic bombing of German cities and oil fields or any second front until 1944. The Soviets lost 23 million people during WWII and that was with Lend Lease , imagine the death rate of the Soviets without Lend Lease. Death by Starvation alone would force Stalin to surrender in 1943.
I'm a donbass supporter, and I found your video to be just fine. On the contrary, there are also many Putin supporters who are not tankies and don't think every single thing Putin says is true. Even more, Russia is at war, so to think they are going to tell the truth right now would be incredibly foolish.
Putin did many mistakes; i mean when you compared his conduct to stalin, or the last czar, you would think stalin and this czar were very competant.
Also putin should have started his operation at the end of Spring of 2021, when the disgusting ottoman and magyars regimes and the ukrainian were clearly threatened the donbass.
Instead of that, he launched his operation in the middle of winter 2022 : it was a critical mistake.
putin keep purging the donbass of competant fighters like mikhail Givi, alexeï Mozgovoy, alexander Zarkhachenko and pavel Dremov while keeping away russian political parties, from the right-wing and the communist party, from power because they would clearly be smarter than him.
Brilliant as usual TIK, love your takes. Keep up the great work.
There is no doubt that the Soviets lost millions of soldiers, often through the wreckless orders of their generals who seemed to treat their men like cannon fodder with seeminlgly no regard for the lives of their men.
However, when you turn this around and look at the number of Axis soldiers that the Soviets killed, even the figure quoted in this video is 70%. Other sources that I have read quote a higher figure of 80%.
Since the Soviets were responsible for 70-80 % of the Axis casuslties, it seems obvious that they indeed largely won the war. How could anyone argue otherwise, when the rest of the Allies were responsible for at most, 30% of enemy casualties.
They were essential, but so were the Western Allies. According to Nikita Kruschev (in his memoirs), Stalin admitted privately on multiple occasions that USSR would have lost the war without the American Lend-Lease aid. He didn't see this as charity. They were paying to keep USSR in the war. The West was fighting to the last Red Army soldier.
The Soviets were in regular communication with the Western Allies telling them what they needed most, and what this was was food. The trucks and jeeps and aircraft supplied were a great help to the Soviets, but food to keep their 5 million plus army going was essential. You can maintain a totalitarian state through a lot of trouble, but not with a starving army.
So if we start with the Germans winning on the Eastern Front with no aid to USSR, but still at war with Britain and USA... what would have been if Germany could take divisions stationed in France and Norway to guard against Allied invasion, and use them in the East. Take the aircraft stationed there as well.
Consider also that going into Barbarossa, the Luftwaffe had almost as many operational aircraft as they had in July 1940 at the beginning of the Battle of Britain. A year of building more planes and training more pilots and they still hadn't caught up to where they were. Imagine the Luftwaffe with 2,000+ more aircraft to use on the Eastern Front.
Now consider how much the German plans revolved around seizing the oil fields as a source of oil for their war effort. How much their plans could have been focused on breaking the Red Army if they could have been importing oil from Venezuela. Importing steel, bauxite, copper, and everything else they needed paid for in plundered resources. Britain at war was a continuous thorn in the side of Germany hampering their war effort. The naval blockade was bleeding Germany.
@@iansneddon2956The Western Allies were certainly important, but the fact that the modern Western generation insults the USSR's contribution to the war by calling their losses stupid and ignoring how many German soldiers they defeated shows how much they don't care about history.
@@ANGEL--- Khrushchev's statement stands - that USSR would have lost to Nazi Germany if they had to fight that war alone. The support from UK helped the Red Army defend Moscow (about a third of tanks used by the Red Army were British tanks in that battle, about 25% of Red Army tanks at the time were British). And the US aid was essential to keeping the Red Army and USSR going.
As far as calling Soviet losses stupid, that could apply to the stupid waste of troops that were ordered by Stalin to stand down and not provoke the Germans before the Germans invaded.
USSR had some clear disadvantages in the war that USA and Britain did not face, or to the same extent. With much more efficient economies, USA and Britain could produce massive quantities of war materials with a smaller % of their economy than Germany and USSR could with their centrally planned economies. But the greatest benefit that USA and UK had was not sharing a land border with Nazi Germany. UK and USA had the luxury of building up forces, training them, improving their doctrine while Germany was unable to invade them.
After Barbarossa, USSR had to largely rebuild their army, going through a similar buildup and munitions manufacturing arc that UK went through in 1939-1940 and USA was going through in 1941-1942. But USSR had to do this while in a land war with the Germans. This required sending troops and officers into combat with less training. This limited the nature of how the troops could fight and let to much higher casualties which led to a continued stream of less trained and experienced replacements going into battle.
I doubt any of the Western democracies could absorb such casualties without some sort of political collapse. But with their totalitarian control, USSR could spend the lives of their people to wear down Nazi Germany as the Red Army improved in capabilities (again, very largely with American aid). The capabilities of the Red Army and their growing successes against the Germans correlates quite well with the growth of tonnage of Lend-Lease aid reaching USSR.
According to Khrushchev, Stalin called this for what it was. It wasn't charity. It was the West paying USSR to stay in the war, with the West paying in materials while the Soviets paid in blood.
The course of the war was highly dependent on USSR doing this. If USSR had fallen and most of those German and other Axis troops in the East could be deployed to Western Europe, I think it would have been near impossible for the Western Allies to launch a successful invasion of Europe, or at least not for a very very long time.
I think the Soviet leadership made rational decisions on how to fight the war that required a larger expenditure of lives to carry out but this was how they could fight with what they had. So I don't call it stupid. When, with a lot of American made vehicles, the Red Army became more mobile (while the Germans became less) they were able to shift concentrations of troops to hit the Germans where they were weakest, break through, and encircle large German forces. Losses were still very high in those breakthroughs, but the results achieved became greater. Not stupid. Just fighting with the army/resources they had.
Again, USSR did not have the luxury of months of getting armies ready before opening up land fronts with the Germans such as Tunisia (1943), Italy (1943) and France (1944). Neither the East (USSR) nor the Western Allies could have done it alone, but USSR had to do it while their homeland was under invasion and large parts of it occupied. USSR didn't have the luxury of deciding when and how to best wage war with Germany - they had to figure out in the face of advancing German and other Axis armies.
Had USSR been a functioning democracy with greater care for the lives of their people, they might have had to give up as France did and achieve some peace with Nazi Germany - and the world would have been worse for it. But under the Soviet system that allowed this stubborn and continuing resistance, it was the people of the Soviet empire who paid the price.
I honor the people and their many sacrifices. I do not honor the USSR which has been correctly described as an evil empire.
@@iansneddon2956 Why is the USSR hated more than Germany? Most commentators under this video report that there is no difference between Stalin and Hitler, while Hitler destroyed part of Europe and almost all the Jews, which Stalin never did. They also say and are happy that the USSR did not capture Europe, and America successfully did it, with the help of NATO under its control, but for some reason they turn a blind eye to this, justifying all this as protection from the long-defunct USSR
@@ANGEL--- Hated more? Depends by whom. Hitler was a menace that had to be stopped. He inflicted great harm over Western Europe. There are reasons why the West was propping up Stalin to defeat Hitler.
Stalin, as so many other Marxist totalitarians, was more of a menace to those under his rule than his neighbors - or at least was seen that way. People in Poland who were occupied in 1939 and liberated in 1990 might provide their own opinion. It can be debated who was responsible for more deaths, Hitler or Stalin. I figure Mao has them all beat and the humanitarian in me hopes his death toll is never equaled.
Stalin and Hitler were both monsters. But we had to fight a war to end Hitler while the USSR could be contained and waited out.
If you are a Jew, clearly Hitler would be seen as worse. If you were a Pole who lost family members by either murder by the NKVD or deportation off to the gulags just to cement Soviet control over occupied Poland, and experienced Nazi occupation and then the mass rapes and depopulation of the second Soviet occupation... maybe you would say it was hard to choose which.
The cost of supporting and strengthening USSR through the war was the nations in Eastern Europe that were conquered into the Soviet Empire.
I sometimes see people on forums expressing some wish that Hitler had won. I find this disgusting. As a Canadian I am proud that we declared war on Nazi Germany in September 1939, and proud that we served in NATO containing USSR until its collapse, ending its threat to Europe.
And now the West is dealing with the imperial ambitions of another regime in Moscow.
We all know it was the Australians who won WWII single-handedly 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
and then Emu nation attacked.
@@dimas3829 😫😫😫
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
All of your arguments and statements are spot on sir. Sadly there just aren't enough educated people who understand the full complexity of the Second World war. There's a lot to take in and consider. It takes years of study and a deep understanding of what was happening from one year to the next on all levels from politics, economics, military potential, industrial output, training, logistics and military tactics. It's a lot and very few people take the time to learn it all.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. Russia lost it somewhere around 40 to 50,000,000 soldiers and civilians during World War II, which was the largest loss than any other country in the war. The soviets wanted butter revenge on Germany for sure.!!
Even though the Russians did find the majority of the ground war in Europe, do United States and Britain were fighting in north Africa, and went into Sicily and Italy first, because Winston Churchill said we should go into the soft underbelly of Europe. Roosevelt would have much rather made plans to invade France somewhere in order to liberate them first definitely a 1942. Winston Churchill’s idea didn’t exactly go so well once the allies were stopped for a while in northern Italy by the Germans. The one good thing that it did over those two years was give America more time to build up massive massive weaponry, so that the invasion into France would make them better prepared. I know one thing for sure, and that the Sherman tanks made a big difference when they came out because the original M3 tanks that were constructed and manufactured in America in 1941 & 1942 were nowhere near the quality of the Sherman. Moon I don’t think invading France in 1942. Would’ve been a good idea because we didn’t have the Sherman tanks then. So the good thing is that at least fighting in North Africa,
Sicily and it’s silly for at least a year and a half or so enabled the United States more time to massively increase the size of the military, because the USA had essentially demilitarize after world war, one except for a small active duty, army and somewhat large navy.
Russia King him gotten to Berlin much faster if they wouldn’t have taken their time going to Yugoslavia and Greece , after helping, the Italians win the war against Greece, it postponed the German invasion of Russia because operation Barbarossa was supposed to occur in April 1941, and because the Italian army screwed up big time in Greece, they needed Germany was held.
What I don’t know is if Germany would’ve attacked Russia in April versus June if it would’ve really really made any more substantial impact because I don’t believe it would’ve been the long run .
Initially, it would’ve helped Germany because they would’ve been able to fight in warmer weather for six months or so . However, Russia only has two seasons a year, and they sort of blend riding together and that’s summer and winter. Ukraine is similar except that it rains a lot in Ukraine in November so until it freezes over in December, it’s just extremely muddy.
The best thing that Stalin did do was move the weapons manufacturing businesses into a different area of Russia, so it protected them from a wall of the German attacks earlier on in the war. Russia still did not invade Stalingrad until August which is still hitting late summer. in the 1/3 it would get down to -15 degrees F & and I still think that overall rush I had more than enough weapons and millions of people to fight for the country. After Germany, invaded Russia, Russia was caught by surprise, and Stalin couldn’t believe it for a while when he was in denial and thinking the German military did it against Hitler, but they didn’t and infect ordered by Hitler and that was the plan all along.
Hitler and the Nazi party couldn’t stand communists.
Apparently, Stalin never read Hitler’s book . “Mein Kemf”.
Sometime in 1944. Great Britain and Russia signed what is known as “ the naughty agreement” is Winston Churchill called it. They were both in Yugoslavia and Greece.. of all countries the UK and Russia were going to divide the areas up and Russia was going to keep 90% of one country and give 10% to Britttany and the UK was going to take 90% of the other country and allow Russia to have 10%.
I guess they didn’t expect Roosevelt to figure it out but eventually the USA and President Roosevelt discovered this plan and what was going on and he ordered them both to get the heck out of Yugoslavian grease which they did.
What does Soviets allowed to happen in Poland before they went in and actually check did the Germans out entirely of any police territory was cruel . The Polish resistance knew the Russians were there, and they openly got into conflict with the Germans thinking that the Russians would come in and they would all fight together, but that never happened. Stalin was too busy eyeballing territory because his objective was primarily over, except for fully going into Germany.. from the beginning of the war until close to the end of World War II, rather than promoting the fighting for communism, Joseph Stalin, put that on hold and or roughly 3-4 years that Russia was fighting the Germans, Stalin was proclaiming that all Russians would be “ fighting to protect serve the motherland!”. It was working rather well for several years, but when the Polish resistance roads up to fight the Germans, these poor people were expecting Russia to help them, and Stalin just told him to sit on the sidelines and wait until all of the police resistance was wiped out. So sad! Practically all of the police resistance were killed and those that were not we’re hunted down by the Russian military and they were killed.. the reason the police separatist were killed by the Russians because Stalin ordered his military to do that because the Polish resistance were definitely not communists.
In addition to the Soviets believing they won World War II, that’s not entirely correct. Most of the Russian civilians in military would have starved to death if the USA wouldn’t have been sending them food for two years until they get harvester crop in the fall of 2023, because the Germans invading Russia destroy the majority of agricultural fields.
ALSO, during and after World War II, the Soviets really thought they did win big time in World War II but America was world, unlike other allied and axis powers. Roosevelt made Europe top priority, but Nimitz and the western fleet were doing everything they could to put the war in the South Pacific.
After the US decided to draw the nuclear, and then the Plutonian bombs on Japan because they didn’t wanna lose another half million or 1 million American troops plus having three times a number with injurious.
People were sick and tired of war, and I just wanted to get it over with in addition to the fact that a land invasion by the Americans, whatever resulted in an estimate of somewhere around 9 million Japanese military and civilian and would’ve been killed or they would’ve give me to suicide sor more Japanese citizens dying. I’ve been fascinated. yet surprised to discover with so much research, is that those two bombs instantly killed probably 40 or 50,000 Japanese people in those cities however another 10% around their regions, didn’t get burned
& probably an extra 10,000 in the city ended up dying from radiation. That was really sad..
anyway, the Soviets were in Manchuria & essentially some people & the Russians believed that Japan only surrendered believe that’s the reason why Japan unconditionally.
I don’t think so, and the truth is that the Prime Minister and the head of Japan in addition to Hirohito did not want any more death and destruction in Japan in addition to the fact that they really didn’t want the Russians there either. Yet, when general McCarthy said that Hirohito could remain Amber for the sake of his people because he didn’t want any more Japanese committing suicide, then already had.. Truman believed that the Americans had to work with the emperor to rebuild Japan. However, the emperor was only in his position, essentially as a figurehead, and any kind of discussions had to be discussed with MacArthur and MacArthur had the final say. I believe that was the real reason Japan surrendered.
Yes but without soviets europe stays nazi but with usa only europe stays nazi aswell
Stalin and his pals were responsible for those losses ! He murdered most of the high command of the army in the 30s ! Bolshevik Thug !
And then, of course, there's the Pacific Theater that is always forgotten by the person making the "USSR alone" argument.
unimportant island hopping campaign which pales before the 1938-39 Border War, Soviet-Axis War and Manchria 45 campaign
No, the Soviets didn't win WW2 alone. We all know the reason why the Germans lost WW2 was due to madman Hitler, who we know for a fact was a madman because he was played by the same guy as Admiral Ozzel (the guy who kept on failing Vader in ep5) in The Last Crusade!
Happily for him Lord Mainstein was there.
Fact!
@@maciejniedzielski7496 Praise be the Manstein, the ultimate wonder weapon!
"Evacuate Stalingrad? In our moment of triumph?"
I disagree. You should watch tik's video on the "madman hitler" topic (just search tik history madman hitler)
Tik's argument, is that if we say hitler was a madman, it just excuses all the vile things he did during his reign (since after all, if you're mad it isn't your fault)
I love your comment on casualties. It reminds me of General George Patton stating " no SOB ever won a war by dying for his country"... I'm sure you remember the rest. 😉
and yet patton should have died for his warcrimes during ww2
✝️🇪🇺🇬🇷1982🇬🇷athens
08;17
🇬🇷🇬🇷🇺🇳🇬🇷🇬🇷👋
Both helped.......
But only because stalin is more bastard than hitler
UK 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
Won the war
With brains and tea
British won air war on battle of britain
British ceacked enigma Uboats radio messages
I admire Britannia
And british ships
Discipline tea
Humor
Mr bean won hitler
Amazing
My beloved Britania
🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
It is now 32 million, but also possible for it to be almost 40 million
Yeah, but on the other hand, the Wehrmacht suffered 80% of their casualties on the eastern front.
Your channel is a library of knowledge. Awesome work man.
Germany: "We almost took Moscow."
Russia: "We literally carried our factories over mountains."
And the French took Moscow, and still lost.
It is bizarre to look back now that as a child growing up in Britain in the 60s / 70s WW2 consisted of the following elements: French sucked, Churchill was elected, miracle of Dunkirk, Battle of Britain won, Bismarck sunk, trouble with Rommel and U-boats, El-Alamein, then D-Day (the US did get involved here) won the war. The Japanese did something - not sure what, then the US dropped a big bomb on them. I didn't even know there that had been an Eastern Front. My childhood view of the war = complete BS.
How about the fact that Chamberlain policy of appeasement was directed at pushing Germany eastwards to destroy Soviet Union, did anyone teach that?
Everybody talks primarily about themselves then.
@@alexlocatelli2876 true, this is what I'm saying to everyone that i see on youtube saying how the Western allies only talked about themselves, WHICH IS TRUE WHY WOULD YOU TALK ABOUT YOUR CURRENT ENEMIES WHEN YOU CAN GLORIFY YOUR OWN COUNTRY,
Its the same case for the soviet's, they will not teach you anything about the lend lease, the africa campaign or D-day, heck they'll talk about how they defeated japan by going through Manchuria.
I swear man
😂
@@bongcloudopening5404 True, but only for cold war period. Back in the late 90s we still studied by 80s Soviet history books and I clearly remember chapters dedicated to Battle for Britain and Operation Overlord. The book had two sections, one dedicated to WW2 1939-45 and included all general major events, and one section dedicated to The Great Patriotic War 1941-45 and obviously taught USSR vs Nazi Germany in particular.
They gave the most lives. Marshal Zhukov said they couldn't have won without American material support.
Even Stalin said that
Oh this'll be a good one. My answer is no, especially in terms of boots, trucks and aviation fuel, as well as the Allied fronts in North Africa, Italy, the Mediterranean, the Atlantic, and the Air War, and all of the Lend-Lease.
We shouldn't deny that the Soviets were able to hold out for that long and in the dire situation they were in. Lend lease and a western advance were impactful, but they're often overglorified by us in the west so much, to the point where the contribution of the slavs in the east is largely ignored. TIK's series on Stalingrad proves this point very well. They lost 20M but saved quadruple more.
The Soviets had the resources available to wage war, it was mostly just bad management. Once they got their crap together, they were fine. Even before they had their crap together, they were doing allright.
If you call 80 % not alone, then no
@@SirBoggins The Soviets were undoubtedly a colossal force, and I do not deny the fact that they inflicted 80% of all of Germany's casualties, but whether or not they did it alone is a fairly simple answer, and that answer is no. Also I'm pro-Russian, so I'm the last person to downplay Soviet achievements.
@@joshualoganhoi4 Agreed. I was pointing out how we often pretend that the Allies in the west did the most work (if we look at all the WW2 films, usually filled with several Americans and sometimes British troops), but it's good to see you agree.
We don't have to care about the 27 million Russians that died. If 27 million of them died but they destroyed only 10% of German army, then Soviet Union did not play main role in victory. If 100,000 Anglo forces died but they destroyed 80% of German army, the Anglos played the main role in victory. But the fact of the matter is that Soviet Union destroyed 80% of German army.
Well, while overblowing the casualties remains worthless, even the millions sacificed or even misused by the USSR mattered in the sense that the eventual remaining and smaller german forces (that took out the bigger force that fought it) were still partially spent in certain ways, like wear, ammunitions, logistics, organization, tear etc.
What matters the most is that you don't take out 60% or 80% of the german forces without the set up that made it at least possible for the soviets to do it.
beast against beast, the Russians reaped what they sowed.
@@Teapot69Did the Russians kill Jews?
Short answer: no.
Конечно, мой друг. Ведь не Советский Союз потерял 28 миллионов человек, из которых 14 - военные. Не Советский Союз освободил европу. Не Советский Союз уничтожил японскую армию в маньчжурии, после чего Япония сдалась.
Тупые.
Американцы.
Exactly.
Short answer: Captain America won single-handedly.
Hell No the western front kept the Germans from concentrating all their forces toward Russia plus America supplied all the Allies including Russia🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲
Simply put, there's a difference between contributing more and sacrificing more.
As Star Trek DS9 put it in the Ferengi rules of Acquisition. 3. Never spend more for an acquisition than you have to. ("The Maquis, Part II")
Funny how this one applies to Hitler and Stalin too. 76. Every once in a while, declare peace; it confuses the hell out of your enemy. ("The Homecoming")
It's also worth mentioning that the Soviets did not choose to engage with the Germans. They were attacked and forced to defend themselves. While I wouldn't split hairs it might be more accurate to say that the Russians paid a heavy price rather than having actively "sacrificed* themselves.
Although of course I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Allies weren't acting in their self-interest, they ( esp USA) did not need to engage with the Germans Norcross assistance with the Sovietd to ensure short-term preservation. Not fighting out of necessity the concept of sacrifice is perhaps a better description of, the Allies participation in the war vs USSR, especially when you consider that they didn't occupy or dominate for 40 years the lands that they liberated...
Could the Soviets have won WW2 alone? Could they control the seas like the British navy did? Would they fight the Japanese all over the Pacific and Asia with engagements as far south as northern Australia and as far north as the Aleutian Islands? Could they make the Japanese surrender their homeland? Could they have built the aircraft carriers and superfortress bombers and liberty boats like the US did? Could they have won in the Atlantic, in Africa, in the Mediterranean? Did they save Britain, liberated France, Belgium, The Netherlands etc? Would they be able to mount the biggest amphibious invasions in France, Italy or the Philippines? Would they be able to bomb most of Germany's cities, infrastructure and industrial production? Probably not. This is why they don't view the WW2 as a world war, because they are more focused on their part in the destruction of their former ally the Nazi Germany.
It is impossible to know what would have happened if the Soviets were fighting alone but in my opinion if they were pushed from both sides, it would have turned much better for the axis powers. Probably a more protracted war ending at a stalemate with neither Moscow or Berlin, or Tokyo falling.
And one more thing: Let's reverse the question. Even with a neutral Soviet Union when the Americans had the atomic bomb, how long would Germany last?
Why would the Soviets have fought the Japanese? Sure, there was some bad blood from the beginning of the century, but the Soviets weren't interested in the Pacific and the Japanese weren't all that interested in Siberia. The Soviet gains in the Far East came about because the Soviets saw free real estate in 1945 and moved in, not because they were willing to really fight for it.
@@boobah5643 soviets almost went to war with Japan multiple times during WW2. They fought large battles over Manchurian border
@Boo Bah Japan actually planned to go to war with Russia
Not to forget the massive amount of materiel sent to prop up the USSR…or the information gained from cracking Enigma
Scott, it was not "propping them up" it was just a helping hand !
Let's also not forget that the western Allies also had Japan to deal with.
Only in russian books. As far as I remember, around 70% of gunpowder ( and components) was imported from allies because Germany bombed related factories in the first place.
P.s. Technically, the USA won the war because the causalities of the USSR have never been restored till today. I mean the price for the victory was too enormous to call it 'victory'.
Only in western definition of Victory. In eastern definition, USSR captured a half of Europe and rich trophy (german factories, what to 90-s work in USSR)
One historian made a very good point about the air war over Europe, namely it caused a lot of 88mm artillery pieces to be withdrawn from the Russian Front which were sorely needed by the defending Germans. 88s were reported by Voormann to have held off the Soviet tanks outside of the airfield near Korsun for a while.
And it also should be noted that the air war over Europe were also targeting military factories which would stall and slow down german war productions
@@Deaglan753hardly, at least until mid 1944. Until then it was about inner city bombings mostly. which is a great shame on all levels, germany could have been forced to her knees much sooner. see the bombings on the hydrierwerke for synthetic fuels. imagine those raids a year earlier and then try to not wonder how many peoples lives would have been spared by a war that's just a few months shorter
@@clicheguevara9917 I don't think bombing their resources would bring them to their knees, sure maybe stop the war earlier in Europe but I don't think they would be surrendering anytime soon
@@clicheguevara9917 when you consider that almost half of the houses in alot of german cities were destroyed by alied bombers (according to the always correct source wikipieda sure but its the only source i could find in a quick google) i dont think its fair to say that allied bombers didnt have an impact on germany until 1944. yes of coruse destroying factories would be a better plan but thats only if you can actually hit them. See the oft cited bridge in veitnam that the US failed to destroy with countless bombs until they depolyed guided muntions.
Yes, one third of all Tiger tanks were not completed because of bombing of production lines and component factories, that's about 660 in total - and there was only 100 available at the Battle of Kursk - so bombing eliminated all those tanks, an amazing feat and one which the RAF, not the USAAF, was responsible..@@Deaglan753
Hello I really enjoy your material - it's really well, researched and presented, and does indeed challenge the accepted way of thinking on a topic. Just a thought, have you ever thought of also going some short videos (say 10 minutes eachas a sort of overview and / or a promo for your longer pieces? You'd be able to reach a much larger audience!
✝️🇪🇺🇬🇷1982🇬🇷athens
08;17
🇬🇷🇬🇷🇺🇳🇬🇷🇬🇷👋
Both helped.......
But only because stalin is more bastard than hitler
UK 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
Won the war
With brains and tea
British won air war on battle of britain
British ceacked enigma Uboats radio messages
I admire Britannia
And british ships
Discipline tea
Humor
Mr bean won hitler
Amazing
My beloved Britania
🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
This is like saying my beloved US Marine Corps won the Pacific War all by itself and ignoring the important contributions of Commonwealth Forces. Even the US Army helped 😜
a lot of Americans do think that anyway
Most Americans don't even acknowledge the Chinese role in fighting the Japanese, even though just as many Japanese soldiers got KIA In China as they did fighting America.
Your beloved USMC would have spent the war cooling its heels on a dock in San Diego if my beloved US Navy hadn't beaten Japan on the sea and in the air so they could get the Marines (and soldiers) to all those islands they fought on. 😉
(Likewise the Australians won the first land battle against Japan in New Guinea but IIRC they were flown there on USAAF transport planes.)
Why do the Soviet’s casualties matter? You don’t win wars by dying. Or by being taken prisoner by the tens of thousands.
Edit: oh, you cover this. Nevemind 😊.
France won World War II single-handedly
Halder won the war single-handedly, end of story
With a little bit of help from Manstein, who provided his blessing
@@TheImperatorKnight MAD MAN MANSTEIN!!
@@TheImperatorKnight not quite sure why you are always so hard on Manstein. Certainly don't buy into the narrative hailing him as the greatest general ever, but he had his moments.
@@TheImperatorKnight Smiling Face Kesselmark …. Kesselring, I mean?!
@@TheImperatorKnight Nah bro, he would have won the war if it weren't for that Madman Hitler™!
Also you have to take into consideration medical capability. The death toll among the soviets was higher partially due to the fact that less of them could be saved so many WIA became KIA that in the US Army would come back on to their units.
That is a bunch of BS and he knows it.
Western historians never want to admit the truth. So they go around the bushes and end uo straight out lying.
They know the truth very well.
If the USSR had signed a seperate peace agreement with the Germans.
The fact is if those 140 German divisions the Soviets had fought in the East commanded by the best German generals like Guderian and Von Manstein had turned and gone to the West the Western Allies would have been finished.
The Allies invasions of Western Europe would not even have happened because the Allies wouldn't have even dared to put their feet in Italy and Normandy.
The allies never fought more than 10 to 15 Werhmart divisions throughout the whole war and yet it took them almost 9 months to take over the same territory the Germans took in 5 to 6 weeks in 1940.
Just think about that.
How the hell would they have defeated 140 German divisions led by Generals like Guderian and Von Manstein on the Western front?
They would have been all Slaughtered.
The German army that went into the USSR was the best army in the world. The German Pilots that fought in the Eastern front were the best in the world.
The allies would not have not even been able to establish air superiority over Germany if all the German pilots that fought on the Eastern front had been in Western Europe.
✝️🇪🇺🇬🇷1982🇬🇷athens
08;17
🇬🇷🇬🇷🇺🇳🇬🇷🇬🇷👋
Both helped.......
But only because stalin is more bastard than hitler
UK 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
Won the war
With brains and tea
British won air war on battle of britain
British ceacked enigma Uboats radio messages
I admire Britannia
And british ships
Discipline tea
Humor
Mr bean won hitler
Amazing
My beloved Britania
🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
Not that we should downplay the importance of the Soviet Union in defeating the Germans, But I wouldn’t consider losing a quarter if your population ‘winning’
I ain’t saying they shouldn’t have fought the scary evil fascists, I’m just saying looking at their casualty numbers they clearly didn’t do a very good job of it
@@jacklovesamericaSoviets military loses were 1.3 to 1 for Germany, the most Soviets casualties was civilian population, which was killed or sent to Germany
This is probably the most disingenuous video you've ever done.
1) No, there is no instance where the "official Russian narrative" claims that USSR won the war entirely on its own, and naturally you didn't bother to provide one (I suspect you didn't even bother to search for one). In fact, even today Putin still goes out of his way to mention American, British and French contribution into the Allied victory.
2) Yes, the Soviet Union indisputably did vast majority of the fighting against the Axis, as evident by the fact that they directly engaged against vast majority of German military and inflicted vast majority of combat casualties against the Axis. This is something that would be completely ludicrous to deny and something you've chosen to disregard entirely.
Regarding your first point, if that’s true, why do you find people all over the internet (especially Russians) claiming such? Even if there’s no “official narrative”, the idea is certainly pretty strong, regardless of what the state officials have said for relational purposes. There’s also no “official narrative” that America won the war entirely on its own, yet you still see hoards of American idiots claiming such online. Official or not, it’s obviously a widespread cultural belief, which you see reflected in dozens of stupid articles all over the internet.
questioning and minimising influnce of lend lease (drop in the bucket analogy) and strategic bombing nd second front is very popular in russia and those supporing ussr.
but then west does that as well if not more.
Another thing I think people overlook is that the wars the Soviets and Allies fought were different. The Allies (espicially the US and in regard to the Pacific theatre) involved shipping all their equipment across bodies of water with no domestic infrastructure on the other side, while the Soviets were essentially throwing tanks straight off the production line and into the battle. Also not to mention that the physical and intellectual resources required to make and service top of the line navies, air forces, and logisitcal systems is more intensive than just standard armies.
An aside, I believe it was The Cheiftan that said that the most important feautre of the M4 Sherman was its crane hooks welded onto it, indicating the logisitcal and other issues had to be considered more than what the Soviets or other participants may have had to, which again requires more resources.
What is interesting point is how different was thinking and traditions of Soviets and the Allies. The British Army in particular, which was ALWAYS fighting outnumbered and on foreign territory, had very different mentality and traditions than the Soviets, who fought in large numbers on home, or very familiar, soil. Operation Compass and Little Saturn are the perfect examples of that. British commanders were always trying to be as effective as possible, because they had less men, less resources and home base is far away. Soviet commanders weren't concerned about lives of their soldiers because they can get new ones pretty quickly, so effectivity isn't the highest priority. Therefore the British Army was modern to give more value from these limited resources, and the Red Army was still based around riflemen because resources weren't that much of an issue. The US Army was thinking around the similar lines as the British one, but they weren't as conservative with their resources.
The Soviets weren’t throwing tanks straight off the production line and into battle. That’s a myth. The T34 was also shoddily made and resulted in reliability issues and higher crew mortality
@danieltobin4498 I was being hyperbolic.
@@jakublulek3261 The British outnumbered the Germans in Africa since 1942 you stupid cunt. The Americans outnumbered the Germans 4:1 and only won by having atleast 4x or sometimes 10x more resources. Your entire wall of garbage is completely made up and didn't happen in reality. What the fuck are you talking about, the British Army didn't have more "modern" weapons, they had worse weapons than the Soviets and FEWER of them, you fucking idiot, their "land lease" weapons were completely useless to the Soviets because they were inferior. Their only useful impact to the war was air and naval. And in operation torch the british and americans had 300k total men concentrated on two fronts against 60k axis soldiers, and you are trying to pretend they won despite being outnumbered, what a joke, there is so much british and american chauvinist propaganda here.
@@MrKill100 Thank you for being civil when presenting your arguments. It really helps to take them seriously.
USA lost KIA, 420,000. That 200k no is purely euro theatre
Jesus your Channel deserves soooo much more attention. Keep up, dude. You are a role model to me.
germany vs ussr alone would result in a german victory.
No they would lose after killing 90% of the ussr armies
@@titanicbigship blah blah blah
If they won the war alone, Ukraine is defending their country alone.
And if Ukraine is not defending their country alone, Who else is at war against their ennemy? Are we at war against Russia? Then Russia is right if he considers us as their enemies and act in consecuence attacking us.
I've encountered several tankies/commies who claim the generic stuff like USSR did everything, the USA only joined once they lost, and even several who claim "[super minor nation] did more work than the US!"
Every time I end up in an argument with these people I always claim the work is about 50/50 on who won. If the west wasn't involved, German factories and rails would go unbombed and produce more equipment and ship more supplies. Plus the freed-up soldiers not needed to guard France, Italy, and Africa which could have helped a lot, especially in places like Stalingrad or Moscow.
But if the Soviets were not involved, well that's 3 million or so men that get turned around and sent to France and Italy and would probably turn the western front into what the East was in the war. A bloodbath.
No side could have won, or at least not won with little casualties by 1945, without the other side also being in the fight.
Rare TIK L:
1)Most of the German casualties were inflicted on the eastern front. Period. Nothing you can say that will change the statistics. So yes, Soviet Union inflicted the most damage in terms of losses on Germany. Period. Though I don't say westerns didn't contribute at all, Im just pointing out what TIK seemed to intentionally (or not) skip or very fast go over to the next topic
2) Western casualties were only smaller because it was almost always up to them to choose where to fight. UK and US were never attacked by land armies. They almost always had the choice on where to attack, so they had the opportunity to get prepared and catch Germans of guard. Basically, they only fought when they decided to. Soviet Union didn't have that choice. It was attacked by the largest army in human history across the biggest frontline ever and it had to fight back no matter the circumstances. It couldn't swim back to their country on civilian ships. It couldn't evacuate to a safe space. It had to fight off the onslaught for 4 years non-stop. For some reason TIK doesn't mention it giving an illusion that it was thanks to Allies's mastermind that they had such small casualties, not thanks to landscape which for the most part saved UK.
3) Claiming that Soviet Union was Germany's ally is hypocritical considering that westerners let Germany annex Austria and Czechoslovakia many years before Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. They did so hoping that Germany would eventually start full-blown attack on the East, only to find out to their demise that Germany decided to clear out the west first. So their strategy of aiming the Germany eastwards didn't work out.
Me, being Russian, I don't consider that Soviet Union was the only winner against Germany. Of course, it was combined effort. But I had to stand up to TIK because the way he skipped these facts didn't seem right to me. I would also agree that Bolsheviks were very bad at actually creating good things, so when they made all the intelligent people flee the country they had to come up with something on their own which later turned into dictatorial hell where you could have been sent to prison for being late to work. The same happened in army when they started killing skilled millitary personnel prior to the war which I consider top-notch strategic genius move. But that's just politics at this point. I could go on for much longer but I won't. Thanks for reading ✌️
In terms of manpower you'd be right. But you also have to remember WHY Germany invaded Russia. They weren't dumb like a lot of people think. They didn't want to make an enemy before they finished off the nation that still ruled the waves. It was due to resource shortages. Russia had oil and they needed it. If they hadn't invaded Russia at all imagine the strain it'd creat for supplies. Tanks that don't run, planes that don't fly, food that has to be shipped via horses instead of trucks. Nobody will deny that the soviets sacrificed the most. Put in terms of how much it actually contributed to Germany's downfall you have to look at a bigger picture. Imagine if the U.S had stayed entirely out of the war for example. Japan gets it's oil and definitely takes China. North Africa sits firmly in German hands, Italy never loses. And with no threat of American intervention there's the question of just what Spain, the middle east, and Japan think of the situation. PLUS Germany doesn't have to redirect millions of troops to the north and south PLUS the allies resources, vehicles, weapons, and blockades gained from America are all out.
Again, I know as an American it's what we do here (joking) but I'm not trying to diss Russia here or say that America by itself saved the world. But think about what Germanys war against the soviets would have been like WITHOUT the U.S. Russia very well would have lost.
Now think England. Suppose they never went to war with Germany. The western front would have been lost the moment France was taken and many nations which joined the war against Germany likely would have stayed out.
The allies without Russia at least had a potential to win due to Germanys resource issues. Russia not so much simply because the west was a huge reason for Germanys resource problems anyways.
@@spiffygonzales5160 I honestly could argue with you using my same arguments. Especially the first one that says Soviets destroyed most German soldiers. I have no idea why you decided to bring up "what if America didn't join the war"
The short answer is no. The long answer is HELL NO. Not only did they have nothing to do with the Pacific theater victory, they were in an alliance with the Nazis. Many forget that.
USSR didn't produce aviation gas, 400,000 vehicles, railroad engines, uniforms, foodstuffs ECT.
so by youir accoutn ussrt coudltn fly airplanes wihtout americns.you relaise that soviet airforce on eve with war with germany was largest in world tough it perfomed badly in first par of war.
No, the Soviets did not win the war alone, but neither did the US and the UK. It was a collective effort in which both sides helped each other. During the battle of Kursk, for example, the western allies invaded Italy which forced Hitler to divert some of his forces from the eastern front and abandon the Kursk initiative. In turn during the battle of Normandy (the D-Day and following) the Soviets launched Operation Bagration that prevented Hitler from transferring substantial forces to the newly formed western front. Towards the end of the war with Japan the Soviets cleared the Japanese from China and north Korea, thus helping Americans.
The USSR defeated Germany.
The US defeated Japan.
The British got a participation trophy for being on the winning side.
Without the British blockading the Germans from their oil, there was no path to victory. There would be no Russian victory in the east, no American victory in France, nothing. The British were the first to the fight. There is an argument for their contributions being the most pivotal when it counted and they were standing alone.
@@Gaspard129 "Standing alone" lol they had a whole global empire.
@@KissSlowlyLoveDeeply-pm2je but it was their empire.
@@Gaspard129 Stop being silly the Soviets prevented the Germans from get their oil from the East
Britain accepting peace terms in 1940 results in Soviet defeat:
No Luftwaffe losses in Battle of Britain, Greece or Crete (extra 3000 aircraft and 4500 of the best pilots and crews),
An extra 55 infantry divisions for Germany not needed on Western Front (35% increase on the infantry which actually took part in Barbarossa),
Barabrossa happens a month earlier on original planned date (because of no Greece campaign delay), so Germany gets much further before Russian winter arrives,
No British supplies (not US lend-lease, but Anglo-Soviet Agreement) delivered to Russia in September 1941 which were vital in defence of Moscow,
No Bletchley Park, which means no Enigma decoding, means no intel from the British to the Russians......the list goes on and on.
So I think it's fair to say that Britain did a little bit more than what is often made out.
Soviet Union contribution in winning WWII was hugest hands down period.
UK and US contribution (lend-lease the most) helped to save LOTS, millions of lifes of soviet people, so it was CRUCIAL.
Would SU win against Germany alone? Yes.
but americans won against japanese alone.
american contribution in winning WWII was hugest hands down period. who entered tokyo? who entered italy? who entered africa?
@@QWERTY-gp8fd en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwantung_Army , boi. Italy and Africa is insignificant. I already told you that U.S. aid to Soviet Union was cruicial. But not decisive.
@@theonehappyorc1235 italy and africa holds sh,itons of axis. im talking about 2 million italians and 1 million germans, best italian, german commanders and most importantly oil. 70% of germany oil comes from italy and africa. rommel in eastern front wouldve made lot more difference
@@QWERTY-gp8fd When in Reality Soviet Union declared war on Japan and defeated the largest, the most elite 1 million (!!!) strong Japanese Kwantung Army army, took over half a million of Japanese prisoners which then forced Japan to surrender (not the H-bomb). But I guess that is not studied in American schools. At the very least you can check "Soviet-Japanese War" on the dreaded Wikipedia before making such statements. Even the pro-Western English Wiki states that "The Soviet entry into the war was a significant factor in the Japanese government's decision to surrender unconditionally"
@@vladimirrodionov5391 not soviet union. soviet union AND mongolia. u think u can downplay smaller countries achievement? thats just shitty attitude bro.
most elite my foot. elites died against america.
Video idea: what if D-day failed. How would the war realistically play out after this loss?
Soviets would overrun Germany with no problem still
@@ppt9566 in short yes. I wish TiK would dive into details. When would Germany capitulate? Would the allies try another landing? If so where? If not why and what would they do?
@@ghostplasma5590 War would end in simmilar date because Allies would land in South France and push harder in Italy
Then the allies would probably just have put more emphasis on southern france, which people often forget was set to be invaded at the same time (Operation Anvil). With probable secondary landings around the bay of biscay.
@@ghostplasma5590 Well, here's my guess for what could've happened.
1. Bagration would have happened, but probably made less gains, here's why:
Bagration was kinda coordinated with Overlord, both happened in the same month, without the distraction of Overlord, More forces from France would have been sent to deal with the offensive, possibly slowing down the soviet advance. In our timeline, Army Group center was completely shattered and everyone who was left literally ran for the hills, with reinforcements it's possible the soviets would not have made into Warsaw, but maybe to the half middle of Poland.
2. Or maybe the very opposite, after the failed landing the germans could have pulled more people to defend the coast in case the western allies had a plan B, which could've made Bagration have about as many gains as they did in our time line (mostly because they advanced literally uncontrolably, up until the point a general order was made for troops to just stop advancing, else they would risk losing supply lines and etc.)
In short, it's hard to predict really. I don't know much about the italian front so I won't comment on that.