3 ms·
Exactly. And the USSR built more tanks than all the other allies combined, while under bombardment.
by cpursley 2y ago
Exactly. And the USSR built more tanks than all the other allies combined, while under bombardment.
- kibwen 2y agoConveniently forgetting that without the fuel sent by the US, those tanks would have been pretty paperweights. Y'all, it's true historically that the US has oversold its personnel contributions to the European theater, but overcorrecting with this weird nonsense about the USSR single-handedly winning WWII is just beyond bizarre.
- faeriechangling 2y agoI recall Zhukov didn’t think they could have won without the Wests help in supplying things like Steel, regardless of machismo from later USSR leaders who claimed they always had it all under control. FDRs death was gravely mourned in the Soviet Union. Stalin praised the allies for distracting them with the invasion of Italy. The USSR did the most in that war but they were not in fact capable of winning by themselves.
- MaxPock 2y agoThey would have won but it would have taken a little bit longer.Lend lease was only 10 % of Soviet materiel
- faeriechangling 2y agoThe Americans had some resources the soviets were in short supply of so their impact was greater than them just contributing 10% of materiel. Also again, Hitler had a lot of resources tied up in the west because of the allies. Germany got pretty close to Moscow. A little different of a tactical situation would have been a big deal in that theatre of the war.
- flavius29663 2y ago> only 10% That does not mean anything. A car's engine contains only 10% of the parts in that car.
- blackoil 2y agoThe difference is mainland US was not at war. They don't have to worry about bombing and siege and maintain production.
- Koshkin 2y agoBut it was the shipping that was the bitch.
- hollerith 2y agoAnd the US sent industrial engineers to help the USSR design and improve their factories.