How is this even fucking possible?

They did they use fucking magic? Being able to supply 2 fronts across the entire world and giving more stuff than the Nazis themselves could produce with slave labor, is absolutely nuts.

The US mainland was completely unthreatened by war and the US has been the largest economy in the world since the 1880s so they already had a headstart when it came to restarting their industry post-recession.

>>17869642 (OP)
In hindsight the US shouldn’t have sent anything to the USSR. They should’ve just let the Germans and Soviets destroy each other.

>>17869655
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Hitler responded by declaring war on the United States. The US simply sitting the war out was no longer an option by that point. By that point the US neutrality movement was dead

And yet the USSR only recirved a very limited amount of the total Lend Lease.

Kinda goes to show the industrial juggernaut that was the US in those years.

>>17869660
That’s all well and good, however that doesn’t mean the U.S. had to send the Soviets anything. The U.S. should’ve saved all that material for themselves in the fronts they were involved in.

>>17869655
Soviets weren't really evil like Germans were, just incompetent.

>>17869655
It would have made the war worse for the allies as well then.

The whole point of Lend Lease was to keept the majority of the Wehrmacht in the east, away from the allies. It was a quite effective strategy

>>17869660
Most of pic related should have gone to UK and resistance movements, soviets should have received at best food and maybe some ammo but that's it.

>>17869665
>that doesn’t mean the U.S. had to send the Soviets anything.
It would've made no strategic sense not to but sure retard, I guess the world is just a giant RTS game according to you

>>17869674
I’m sure the U.S. regretted doing it after it bit them in the ass with the Cold War.

>>17869688
Foresight is always 20/20 and it's already 2025...

>>17869671
The UK was already getting the overwhelming majority of Lend-Lease.

>>17869670
That would’ve happened anyway even without Lend Lease, the Germans never had the logistics to actually defeat the USSR.

>>17869706
No it wouldn't lol.

No Lend-Lease = more static frontline in the east = Wehrmacht can allocate men and material elsewhere.

Is this hard for you to understand?

>>17869723
The Germans placed heavy emphasis on offense. A weaker USSR would’ve led to more German offensives, they wouldn’t have let the front go static if they had the ability to make further progress.

>>17869731
Ok so which one is it?
1. The Germans lacked logistics to push further, i.e Lend-Lease prevented a static frontline
Or
2. The Germans would have pushed further, i.e Lend-Lease prevented the Red Army from being outmatched.

Literally in both cases Lend-Lease makes sense. For every German soldier fighting a Russian, is one less German soldier fighting an American.

You want to prevent USSR from taking eastern Europe? Then maybe Hitler shouldn't have started shit.
USA won't concern itself attempting to course-correct a situation Hitler created. Their main concern was winning the war as soon as possible with as less dead American men as possible.

>>17869655
Trvke

>>17869642 (OP)
Now do it as a % of what soviets used

>>17869642 (OP)
>How is this even fucking possible?

America wasn't realistically threatened by war and had unironically done a fantastic job of industrializing and modernizing the nation after the civil war. America was for a time what China is for us today: the largest economy on the planet and the world's global center of manufacturing.

>>17869642 (OP)
Unlike the European countries they didn't have to send all of their productive-age men to the frontline.

Bump

>>17869669
They absolutely fucking were, commie apologist

>>17869669
>evil is when you do a self defense
Yep it’s a shitlib.

>>17869674
Well actually the US planners after the war said in hindsight it would have been better. You’re just wrong and the very people who made the decision said it was the wrong decision.
They didn’t know the Soviets were what they were not were they aware of Russian penetration into the US and Europe.
They should have let the Soviets and Germans fight it out. The Germans wouldn’t be able to defeat the US, at least it’s extremely unlikely, while the Soviets before the war was even over in a very real way could have pushed the Western forces out of Europe using their immense advantage in artillery and armor as well as being able to contest the skies. All the while safe from western raids.
This couldn’t last forever but it shows the Soviet power from the American shortsighted. A strategic mistake.
Should have let their enemies weaken each other.

>>17869655
>the US shouldn’t have sent anything to the USSR
great, now the germans rule half the continent and we have to fight the cold war against facsim

>>17871404
Why would we need a cold war? Hitler was much more friendly to the Western powers than the Communists.
There were Germans in the United States and American investments in Germany, they would be a natural ally.

>>17871409
Communism isn't the deciding factor you moron.
A state with enough influence will always project its own sphere of interests. Russia today isn't communist but it hasn't stopped US-Russian rivalry.
In fact China isn't communist either in its practical sense, and even if you'd argue that they are, it's still not the actual factor as to why the US tries to confront Chinese political and economic reach.

And race is definitely not the deciding factor, something stormfags never understand.
They also won't understand that time doesn't simply stop if Hitler wins. There is no "and then they lived happily ever after".

>>17871385
It's hard to understand how people reasoned when you have hindsight, along with all the facts and statistics.
But when USA joined the war, there was still a real concern that Germany might win in Russia. It was the main reason why USA adopted the "Germany first" strategy.

>>17871409
>Hitler was much more friendly to the Western powers
hitler literally threatened the wests entire hegemony and tried to destroy france

>>17871858
What does this even mean? Hitler didn’t threaten their hegemony he offered to send 150,000 men to defend the British empire and pay for it using German wealth.
Hitler never tried to destroy France, he tried to preserve France, the French had attacked Germany and launched an 80 division (this was larger than the German invasion of Poland which had only 66 divisions) operation on the Saarland.
The French were thrown back and France was then invaded. Hitler offered peace both before and after France fell.
He was turned down every time.

>>17871932
The entire existence of a state Hitler wanted was a threat.

What Hitler then "says" is completely irrelevant because no government is going to surrender their foreign policy on what one guy says he will do.
I know you guys see Hitler as some sort of Jesus who would never break his words, but others don't viewed him that way.
Hitler can try to achieve his ambitions by talking big about how he's going to pander to England if he gets what he wants, but you should at least try to understand, that from England's perspective only England should be able to guarantee her empire, not someone else.

And your whole point pretty much assumes that time just stops if Hitler gets his way, that Britain or France will never ever risk having a fallout with Germany sometime in the future, except now they've just granted Germany much more power which makes a fallout with Germany far more deadly.
And even if it doesn't happen with Hitler, who even knows what German leader comes after Hitler to take over?

And even in the case of Hitler, he really didn't do much to compromise with Britain and France. He was just saying fancy words but in every negotiation he always threatened war unless he got what he wanted. He had zero intentions of limiting his ambitions by respecting the interests of the others. Why should thry share power with him?

I say this as a Scandinavian btw. I'm not pro England but it's fucking rational when you view it from their perspective.
They're not just gonna let Germany (or Japan) blob and divide the world. They were perfectly happy with the status quo.

>>17869662
It still is. The difference is machines do alot of the work. Back then you needed alot of warm bodies to literally do everything. Machines replaced 90 percent of the labor and then somehow create even more products.

>>17869688
Doubt it. The Cold War further strengthened and consolidated the USA's world hegemon status that brought enormous economic benefit to it. Every super power needs a super villain and the USSR filled that role nicely. America never had it so good and never will again.

>>17869655
TPBP
Idk why no one in this thread is acknowledging the fact that Russia and England probably would’ve won the war anyway even without American intervention. There is no scenario where Germany takes over Russia and survives as a state. In reality the war would just be a lot more gruesome on the Russian side but we’d end up with the same end of an Allied victory. The only difference is that the USSR would be so crippled they literally wouldn’t be able to project any power against the US/UK and Eastern Europe would still be in western control.

>>17871376
he already told that soviets weren't evil

>>17872998
Another retard who argues with hindsight.
In 1941-1942 it still seemed like a real possibility that Germany might win.
The reason you frame it the way you do is because in 2025 we have all the facts and statistics to make an somewhat accurate judgement, but at the time the US severely overestimate german stockpiles etc, and the Germans themselves believed Case Blue would be the crushing blow.

Also a reason why USA did not want to deliberately withhold was the real fear that Stalin might strike a deal with Hitler if he suspected that the allies were doing just that.

Finally, it's hard to get in the shoes of the people at the time, but Germany was allied to Japan, these two posed a mortal threat to USA because of their willingness to attack.
The Americans believed that the world through the UN would work so they wanted to wrap things up as soon as possible. The war was destabilizing the world. The US had to invest billions of dollars in the Marshall plan to rebuild Europe, partially for their own sake to even have a market.

It's so retarded to argue that the US should have been trying to do some 4D chess and taken deliberate detours that only risked to escalate the complexity of an already chaotic war, all because chuds in 2025 low-key wants to give Germany a chance of winning.

>>17871404
Actually the outcome was relatively the same. Just different fascists now. Turns out two lefts do make a right, but now we shall find ourselves going backwards, won't we?

>>17869642 (OP)
Slave labor is actually really shitty and ineffective at producing large amounts of shit. You need to pay people and get them motivated.

>>17869665
>The U.S. should’ve saved all that material for themselves in the fronts they were involved in.
Ok so what do they do when the enemy that's forcing a two front war on the Nazis gets defeated because of lack of supply?

the US government took over the crapitalist production and simply organized what to produce and what not to produce

>>17869660
>Hitler responded by declaring war on the United States
What do they teach you in school? US declared war to Axis Powers, including Germany, not the other way. Hitler was very unpleased after hearing about Pearl Harbor, because before that, unlike US government, common Yanks were highly against US joining the war.

>>17873019
Firstly no one said that secondly is wrong the Soviets are evil.
Germany was the good and moral nation.

>>17872025
>the state Hitler wanted was a threat
What do you mean? ALL states are potential threats against ALL other states.
The United States is a threat to England. France is a threat to the United States. The existence of another country is not legitimate grounds for war.
>what Hitler says is irrelevant
Not really.
>surrender their foreign policy
They “surrendered” their foreign policy to Stalin and FDR lol.
So yes they are going to “surrender” their foreign policy.
As if not going to war is some kind of capitulation why frame it this way?
>you see Hitler as some sort of Jesus
No. Why do you say that?
>from England’s perspective
We don’t know England’s perspective because England isn’t a person. The English government was fine allowing the United States to completely supplant them as the preeminent maritime power.
>time stops because what if Germany is a rival in the future
Germany IS a rival and Germany won. Britain only suffered by leaving the German lead EU.
Is this cause for war? No.
France is also a rival to the UK. Is this a cause for war? No.
>Germany far more deadly
In what way is Germany far more deadly?
Just how powerful is east Prussia?
This is a made up reason. It’s nonsense.
No one at the time believed this and you are making it up because you no the British had ZERO legitimate reason to seek hostilities with Germany.
>he always threatens war with France and Britain
When?
What negotiation?
>rational view
It’s not rational at all. You seem to think foreign policy is conducted on the basis of social bonds, it’s not.
Everything you said about France applies to the United States, heck bro it all applies to France as well.

You don’t understand the concert of Europe.

>>17873020
>give Germany a chance of winning
No one does this.
>it was destabilizing
It was less destabilizing than the Cold War.
>Americans believed in the UN
No they didn’t.
>their willingness to attack
What does this mean? Britain demonstrated this, so too did the USSR, so did China, so did Poland. This is nonsensical “reason” that you made up to posthoc rationalize American behavior.
It makes much more sense when you realize there was a foreign lobby in the United States driving them to war.

>>17873894
>ALL states are potential threats against ALL other states.
Wrong.
Hungary is not a threat to China. But USA is.

>The United States is a threat to England.
Which was the reason for the Monroe Doctrine. Britain and USA agreed not to cross the ocean.

>The existence of another country is not legitimate grounds for war.
A strong state that is expanding at the expense of other states is the ultimate legitimate grounds for war and has been since ancient Greece.

>what Hitler says is not irrelevant
Yes it is. Hitler is not God.
And it doesn't matter if it wasn't Hitler.
No state us going to tailor their foreign interests based on one man's words. It's absurd and has never happened.

>They “surrendered” their foreign policy to Stalin and FDR lol.
Not willingly. The fallout from a chaotic war.
It's like saying Germany did so as well.

>As if not going to war is some kind of capitulation why frame it this way?
Because it is.
If China invaded Japan today and USA did nothing, that is capitulation, because China is now stronger than USA could reasonably manage.

>No. Why do you say that?
Because you treat Hitlers words like the ultimate thousand year guarantee.

>Is this cause for war? No.
It is a cause for war if your rival attempt to indiscriminately tries to become a dominant power.

>France is also a rival to the UK. Is this a cause for war? No.
Yes it is. Napoleon recieved the same treatment.
In fact Britain fought entire 1700-1815 specifically against France to prevent them from getting more than they already had.

>In what way is Germany far more deadly?
In the way that Germany had inflicted more casualties on Britain than any other state has ever done from 1914-18, and threatened her island in more serious way than any state has ever done since the Habsburg hegemony ruled Europe.
It's also the fact that Germany is the only state that has bombed English cities
To give Germany more power with her already deadly capability isn't desirable.

>>17873898
>It makes much more sense when you realize there was a foreign lobby in the United States driving them to war
If only you could logically rationalize it in a convincing way, which you always fail to do.

>>17869655
Soviets were already winning, lend-lease just made the war end a couple of years quicker at most

>>17869642 (OP)

Amateurs think tactics, experts think logistics.

>>17874017
>Soviets were already winning

Ивaн, please.

>>17874038

>>17873876
>germany was moral nation
They literally started the war with air raid against civilian city centers in the Poland.

>>17874017
Your chart shows they received 2.5 million tons of goods by 1942. Them receiving a subsequent 15m does not change how critical the first 2.5m was even if it looks "small" by comparison.

Why can't communists correctly interpret charts? Is this also why you are so bad at economics? I realize people call each other "retard" and "stupid" on the internet a lot, but it would only take a middle school level of mathematical competency to realize this, you are genuinely deficient.

>>17873571
>US declared war to Axis Powers, including Germany, not the other way.

The US declared war on Japan and then germany declared war on the US. Where did you learn history?

>>17871404
Oh no le hecking evil fascism! Grow up.

>>17871404
just vote for fascist parties at home, unlike communism it would greatly improve our countries

>>17874093
Maybe you missed the part where every nation did this? WWII was the first total war.

>>17874562
I don't remember anyone doing that before the Germans started it on Poland. When did they do that in WWI?

>>17869669
Communism is an evil jewish ideology

>>17874581
Didn't even start with Poland. It started in Spain.

>>17874093
>>17874759
>>17874581
>civilians being near military targets means the Germans were targeting civilians
Why are you like this? Part of the reason people are sympathetic to Hitler is because of the extreme dishonesty surrounding him.
Are you polish? Are you jewish? Answer me. I as an American don’t have an inferiority complex towards Germany or Hitler so I can be unbiased. You can not be.