|
|
|
|
|
|
by TheNorthman
2340 days ago
|
|
|
> and the USSR leadership openly admitted exactly that privately. This sentence is nonsense. They publicly (not privately) thanked the US for their aid. Besides, your framing of the war is obviously false. The allies had lost the war up until about ~1943, where they started gaining momentum. A turning point I'd like to point out is the Battle of Kursk, in which the Germans for the first time cancelled a major operation. Sure, the invasion of Sicily played a role in their decision, but the battles weren't even on the same scale (14k casualties vs 370k in Kursk). Also the lend-lease is a false equivalence. Yes, the "industrial might" played a role, but the US hadn't lost 25 million men to the war. Their capacity for production was higher because they weren't sending everyone to their death. The US even saw population growth during the war. The Soviet Union only saw their loses replaced during the mid-50s. The US played their part, but make no mistake in the difference between 11 billion USD and 25 million men. |
|
|
Well of course that's why. I don't thing anyone is arguing otherwise. OP was simply saying, without the US, the allies would likely have lost.
Why the US was able to supply most of the Ally's supplies doesn't take away from the fact that they did. Your not even arguing against anything OP was saying here, other than the "openly private" contradiction, which was right on. Now of course it wasn't just the US that won the war, without the USSR the Allies would almost assuredly have lost.
Now certain people may argue that one was more responsible for winning the war than the other. I think that's pretty pointless and we can leave it at them both being critical to winning the war.