I know people describe Britain, the US, and Russia as the Big Three of WWII, but were Britain's contributions really equal to the US and Russia&#...

I know people describe Britain, the US, and Russia as the Big Three of WWII, but were Britain's contributions really equal to the US and Russia's?

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They started it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Lmao is this how bongs see themselves?
        Most of the world hates anglos for their duplicity and their unbridled greed. It's not healthy to project those on others

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Cool story, chang.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Most of the world
          Anon I haven't even hit my mid-thirties and I remember just a few short years ago when americans used to juice over the UK like they do aussies today. The conservative party may have run the UK into the dirt today, but that doesn't change history. Go and sing my little armalite again you wannabe irish quadroon gay

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >aussies
            Huh?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          septics perpetually mad that they will never penetrate the bantersphere

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Most of the non-Anglo world is rife with communism, started 2 and a half world wars in their 100 year existence or is simply France. Who gives a shit what they think?
          Besides, Japan thinks we’re based.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You know most of the world is anti-Nazi and nobody besides some Pajeets and stormfags actually thinks Hitler was good, right?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            everyone outside of europe and north america believe hitler was good lmao

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Everyone outside of the civilised countries
              Great club you've got there

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah buddy am sure the mixed race peoples of Latin America and the black people of Africa really love Hitler and Nordicism
              And the communist Chinese are huge fans of right wing movements

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >everyone outside of europe and north america
              The Asians don't.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah.
      First, is right. The British started ww2.
      Second, people think Britain was just the British isles while they were actually a world-spanning empire with a larger surface area and population than the US or the USSR. The army of the Raj was the largest all-volunteer force in both world wars and essential to British victory in both world wars. British finance forced most of the world to embargo Germany when war broke out.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The British started ww2
        >Nazis invade and annex two countries while openly announcing that they think they should invade and annex Eastern Europe
        >Britain says don't invade a third country
        >Nazis invade a third country
        >Britain and France "start WWII"
        Eat shit.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >>The British started ww2
          Correct.
          invade and annex two countries
          Austria was not an invasion and the people loved it, Czechoslovakia heather government ask for it to prevent commies from taking over.
          >while openly announcing that they think they should invade and annex Eastern Europe
          That never happened and all of eastern Europe exceot poland, which was ruined by a mix of it's own retardation and anglo lies of support and Poland stronk was very happy to work with Germany.
          says don't invade a third country
          Britain did it all the time and had no business there or reason to care. It was simply an excuse to start another world war.
          invade a third country
          *first
          And they should have just accepted the corridor.
          and France "start WWII"
          No, just Britain, you pulled France in though.
          Now scurry off to your fish n ships shop, this board is for free men, not slaves and you will never be anything else, noguns bongoloid.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >heather
            *had its
            I'll go do things brits can never do now.
            Be free, have free speech and the ability to arm and defend myself.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >they should have just accepted the corridor
            and they should have only taken the corridor.
            Got a little greedy mustache man

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >socialist gay already making up completely fantasy scenarios.

            Lol and people still try to pretend there was a difference between nazis and their soviet allies.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >this board is for free men
            >German socialist bootlicker

            As far from a free man as humanly possible.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Britain and France were hilariously underprepared for the war, which is why they performed so badly at the start. Britain had a huge anti-war lobby that was influential in the country right up until London was being bombed, Britain and France were still traumatised from WW1, the act of declaring war againt Germany was a last resort to stop a retarded dictator who would have been too powerful to stop if he went for them next.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Britain's weakness was always the enemy within, even today. Its the curse of dominating for too long. Society always becomes self destructive.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >the act of declaring war againt Germany was a last resort to stop a retarded dictator who would have been too powerful to stop if he went for them next.
              Funny way to say crush opposition to gnomish Capitalism/Bolshevism...

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Meds now schizo

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The British started WW2
        Germany's invasion of Poland started it.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Britain had no business guaranteeing their independence.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No Britain, no Normandy landings.
    No normandy landings, no second front
    No second front, Russians btfo
    gg

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >No guaranteeing Polish independence

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Lend lease was more important than the second front, the Soviets were already winning by the time of the Normandy landings.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >No second front, Russians btfo
      More like "French Soviet Republic"

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is cope. Also you can open a second front I africa or Italy,

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        With what naval bases? How would America land beachheads without Malta or Gibraltar? Remember also that IRL Americas first attempt to do anything in North Africa ended miserably with a considerable defeat.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bigger than russhits
    not bigger than America's

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Uk was in since the beginning

    Uk fought in Europe and Asia

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'll argue contributions to the war were as follows; USSR > Britain > USA > Canada.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >USSR>>USA
      Lol
      Lmao even

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Le western front was equal to the eastern front meme again...
        The Eastern front is WW2.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Odd that it's called World War and not Europe War

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's ludicrous to compare US contributions to USSR contributions if you include the eastern war, even then it was the Soviets who delivered the finishing blow by storming through Manchuria.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              the eastern front was a secondary front for the luftwaffe post '41. the US was fighting in the skies over western europe, in the atlantic, africa, italy, the pacific, literally everywhere and without support from the soviets.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Because they destroyed the Soviet airforce during the initial invasion. During 1942, when the soviet air industry came back online the German priorities shifted again. Also
                >USAF in '41
                It was all RAF that year dear.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I wasn't specifically pointing to '41 as being when the US was fighting in the skies over western europe, my point was more that the US effort was a global one compared to the soviets who were driving to berlin in US trucks wearing US boots shipped in on US locomotives

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I think you're vastly underestimating Sovjet production infrastructure and I'm vastly underestimating the Yanks. While lend-lease was consequential, it wasn't paramount.
                The global effort the US had to deal with was the same as the Brits.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Russia had a neutrality treaty with Japan until after the fall of Germany.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_Neutrality_Pact

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            WW1 and WW2 is more accurately the Two Great European Wars of the 20th Century, but it doesn't fit well with the future US hegemon who wanted it to sound more inclusive.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Tbf the war in Asia was pretty enormous too.
              >10+ million Chinese dead
              >European empires defeated by Asians
              >British Raj on its death throes
              >First use of Atom bombs

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              What about Asia and Africa, moron? What about the islands near Australia? Did nothing happen on those continents during WW2?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The Eastern front is WW2.
          and american aid prevented the soviets from collapsing, a fact admitted to by stalin, khrushchev, and zhukov

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the eastern front was a secondary front for the luftwaffe post '41. the US was fighting in the skies over western europe, in the atlantic, africa, italy, the pacific, literally everywhere and without support from the soviets.

        russia was literally a parasite on the UK and USA
        fuck off vatnig

        https://i.imgur.com/scvnzBD.jpg

        Good bait

        75% of German casualties in WW2 were on the Eastern Front. 'b-but we sent 6 gorillion boots!' isnt gonna change that

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How did they affect those casualties?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No one knows

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          in terms of bodies stacked obviously the USSR contributed the most, they lost an eighth of their total population and an entire generation of fighting age men. in terms of raw war material, the western front is where krautshit went to die. again, the luftwaffe didn't even bother with the eastern front after 1941 because the bigger threat was coming from the west. that's a lot of planes and equipment that wasn't able to be utilized on the eastern front against the USSR.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Raping and looting counts as casualties in vombat

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          moron the major reason Germany lost the front, not to mention its existence in the first place as anything other than living space, was because one word: logistics.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Germans kill 3 Ruskies for every German they lost
          >Russia thinks this means they were instrumental in WWII
          While we're at it we should say China was instrumental in the defeat of Japan given how many bodies they threw into the Japanese meat grinder

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Way less of a worthwhile metric than you think. They wouldn't have managed that without the effects of lend-lease.

          https://i.imgur.com/wCVmFB3.jpg

          bro what!
          >It's Britain's fault France couldn't defend itself
          >Britain kicked Germany out of Africa, but they were so shit

          You are a butthurt frog that doesn't want to hear the truth...fact is, France was lost because the dumb fucking generals didn't belive there was a giant convoy of armor going into the Ardennes that could have been bombed to shit thus stopping WW2 in its tracks, but due to the usual French stupidity and incompetence they ignored it and proceeded to become the most embarresing nation to ever exist. To this day the white flag of surrender is attributed to the French cowardice worldwide from Vietnam to Vienna people laugh at the French.

          You could draw parallels to this today, Macron didn't belive Russia would invade Ukraine either and was shown as incompetent, he then sacked the head of military intelegence because he too was a joke. Its the Ardennes all over again kek.

          Nah, the biggest issue for france was war weary and decimated population combined with a divided political scene. Almost no one was willing to fight a great war anymore.

          >muh lend lease
          When will this meme die? Look at soviet production numbers for tanks, rifles & more and you'll realise how irrelevant a few ambulances are.

          Doesn't fucking matter, logistical lend-lease , fuel and foodstuff in the early years were what kept the USSR going. Without them they couldn't keep their industry running and their workers fed.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      russia was literally a parasite on the UK and USA
      fuck off vatnig

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Good bait

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Yak-9 production alone exceeds the aircraft number given as lend lease.
        Also I did some more research as I don't remember that many US planes given as lend lease, turns out that infographic includes the spitfires and hurricanes given by the Brits lmao.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >actually we built a lot of aircraft after you saved us with 2 years of lend lease aircraft
          Uh huh

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            More like they built ten times as many aircraft as lend lease delivered even when lend-lease actually delivered any worthwhile numbers.

            That btw was only in the final two year sof the war, when the Red Army was already winning anyway. At the time the tide was turned, in late '42-mid '43, lend-lease was a bare trickle that hardly even registered compared to the Soviets' own production.

            All Lend-Lease ever did was allow the Soviets to win the war faster. Deal with it.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              > All Lend-Lease ever did was allow the Soviets to win the war faster. Deal with it.

              Which is why Stalin Khrushchev and Zhukov all explicitly stated they could not have won the eastern front without lend lease.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Even Soviet historians have stated that Russia would have lost to Germany without Lend-Lease. Almost 100% of a Soviet manufacturing turned to weapons production and without American supplied logistical materiel they would have collapsed

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >muh lend lease
        When will this meme die? Look at soviet production numbers for tanks, rifles & more and you'll realise how irrelevant a few ambulances are.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Lmao bro, look at how much shit the British gave to the USSR...then look at how much the USA gave them. Russia would have been totally fucked without them.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You can believe that all you want but Stalin would have had no problem losing a few million more men in the meatgrinder.
            Germany could literally not sustain an invasion. Okay so they dont get lend lease, maybe they take a few more strategic points, maybe Stalingrad maybe St Petersburg. Maybe, if they're lucky, they can reach (not, take, just reach) Moscow. That greatly increases their frontlines which was already under massive strain in 1942 and suffering manpower shortages. Compare the amount of German soldiers on the front lines in 1943 to the amount of soldiers the soviets were throwing at them.
            Lend lease helped, probably lessened their strain. But Germany could not win under any condition.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >USSR>>USA
      Lol
      Lmao even

      russia was literally a parasite on the UK and USA
      fuck off vatnig

      Anyone who thinks any one, or even any two of the Allied powers would have won the war is delusional. The closest you might get would be the USSR and US potentially winning because US lend lease could keep the USSR afloat through 1941-43, but without the Eastern Front, the Western allies just aren't going to retake the continent, and without lend lease, the USSR is going to get ganked in 1941-2.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This is the biggest wehraboo cope I have seen in months. The US can win alone vs the whole axis. And the USSR can handle Europe on its own. Germany and Italy had no ability to knock the USSR out of the war. And even dragging the war out works to the benefit of the USSR as germanies economy melts down by 46-47 tops. How do you think Germany survives another year of war with no rubber, no oil. And don't start on some delusional cope that not only does Germany get the caucuses but magically rebuilds the equipment then magically starts transporting oil thousands of miles back to Germany. Axis vs the US is simply a joke.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          delusional mutt nonsense

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Please counter a single argument. Explain how germanies econowas just fine. Explain how Japan had the iron to build a fleet large enough to take the US out of the war. I bet you think sealion was possible you delusional fuck.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >please counter my fantasy argument where the u.s.a wins everything all by itself

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Bro the fantasy argument is yours. You are proposing nazi Germanies economy lasts long enough to defeat the US with some space alien tech, or that it lasts long enough to defeat the USSR. Stop goalposts moving wehraboo. Explain how the the axis can achieve your goal of defeating the USSR or the USA, much less the UK.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                im sure the u.s could have conducted mass scale amphibious landings in continental europe on their own anon. just keep on living in your gay patriotard fantasy

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Gets nuked

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The USA would not have been willing to sacrifice the manpower required to beat the axis on its own.
              The USSR would have lost without lend lease, the Soviet leaders of the time are on record saying as much.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Why should I? You're fantasy scenario is retarded and lacks any axioms.
              What are each sides goals? What is the starting situation? Interaction and reaction by other nations? etc.
              Would Britain slacken naval limitations for Germany? Is the axis getting fuel from other nations? Is the US trying to invade Italy, northern Germany or Lybia?
              It's just a retarded murica stronk fantasy at this point.
              I even have to agree with the sovietboo

              https://i.imgur.com/ID4bxwj.png

              I'm the anon who made that post and I'm a Sovietboo, not a wehraboo. It's just the facts of the case, the Soviet Union's entire breadbasket was occupied by the German armies, and the Soviets would take two years to liberate it, that's two years where the Soviet Union is having mass famine in a time of war, the German position would have been far stronger in Eastern Europe without Lend Lease. As the other anon said, Soviet leaders are on record saying as much during and after the war. The US only had to fight a relatively small portion of the German Army as the German armies were largely focused in the East, without such a burden and with (presumed) Soviet economic assistance from the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, it is unlikely the Western allies would have been able to achieve the truly decisive air superiority that they achieved historically in large part due to the Luftwaffe fuel shortages, and if it's the US alone without Britain as an air base, fighter cover for strategic bombing and the army would be all but impossible.

              The victory in WWII was a team effort and denying that is just weird ultranationalism.

              here in his assessment.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'm the anon who made that post and I'm a Sovietboo, not a wehraboo. It's just the facts of the case, the Soviet Union's entire breadbasket was occupied by the German armies, and the Soviets would take two years to liberate it, that's two years where the Soviet Union is having mass famine in a time of war, the German position would have been far stronger in Eastern Europe without Lend Lease. As the other anon said, Soviet leaders are on record saying as much during and after the war. The US only had to fight a relatively small portion of the German Army as the German armies were largely focused in the East, without such a burden and with (presumed) Soviet economic assistance from the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, it is unlikely the Western allies would have been able to achieve the truly decisive air superiority that they achieved historically in large part due to the Luftwaffe fuel shortages, and if it's the US alone without Britain as an air base, fighter cover for strategic bombing and the army would be all but impossible.

          The victory in WWII was a team effort and denying that is just weird ultranationalism.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is not to say the Soviet wartime economy was not enormous, the Soviet Union produced a massive amount of military hardware such as tanks, aircraft, artillery, etc. during the war, but the civilian sector of the economy, particularly agriculture and transportation, had gaping holes in it due to the destruction caused by the occupation of Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States, and much of Western Russia. Lend Lease filled those holes and allowed the USSR to focus their economy on actually fighting the war.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Soviets were the definition of min-maxed due to Lend-Lease, they were able to hyper optimize for churning out a shit ton of tanks and other things because they could give the US a wishlist for anything they needed and use their huge labor force for a few specialized tasks of their choosing

              all those planes they were able to make are useless if the US wasn't providing all the fuel needed to run them

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >that's two years where the Soviet Union is having mass famine in a time of war
            Thank you for bringing this up. I always point it out during Operation Unthinkable discussions. The second part of the problem for the Soviet Union was that essentially their entire Farmer manpower pool.... was in the Army. Even with massive drawdown of troops when the war ended, they still suffered large scale famines in 46'-47'. If the war had dragged longer this would've been exasperated greatly

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              This is the biggest wehraboo cope I have seen in months. The US can win alone vs the whole axis. And the USSR can handle Europe on its own. Germany and Italy had no ability to knock the USSR out of the war. And even dragging the war out works to the benefit of the USSR as germanies economy melts down by 46-47 tops. How do you think Germany survives another year of war with no rubber, no oil. And don't start on some delusional cope that not only does Germany get the caucuses but magically rebuilds the equipment then magically starts transporting oil thousands of miles back to Germany. Axis vs the US is simply a joke.

              this, Soviets would have collapsed completely without lend lease. 2 million died during peace time as soon as Lend Lease was cut off.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1946%E2%80%931947

              Operation "Unthinkable" would have been an easy victory because of this, Allies would have just needed to provide the supplies to Germans and Poles and the Soviets would have folded in a few months, even fewer if the US decided to invade from Alaska. The fact we didn't do this shows that Patton was 100% right about our leadership in the State department being a bunch of commies

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Would the American public have the stomach to see tens of thousands more dead right after the war ended though? You could sell the war as fighting the commies and shit, but after years of rationing and seeing your neighbors die, wouldn’t the people not want to start a war of aggression right after the most destructive war in history just ended?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The US can win alone vs the whole axis
          This is pure fantasy.
          How would you maintain reliable flow of reinforcements without the UK as a staging point? How would you transfer troops and supplies over the Atlantic without getting ass raped by U-Boats? How would you land in Europe?
          Not only that, but do it all while trying to kill Japan as well, who apparently don't have to worry about UK or USSR involvement either.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How would you maintain reliable flow of reinforcements without the UK as a staging point? How would you transfer troops and supplies over the Atlantic without getting ass raped by U-Boats? How would you land in Europe?
            Goes both ways.

            >Not only that, but do it all while trying to kill Japan as well, who apparently don't have to worry about UK or USSR involvement either.
            Depending on reactions may actually be easier in a few ways if it was just US vs Japan.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Goes both ways
              What? what do you mean... ho... ho no... you can't be this retarded

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Neither side could launch a campaign across the Atlantic in that scenario. No clue what the conflict would actually look like. Attacking trade brought other countries into the war in both world wars.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The difference is Germany doesn't have to launch a campaign across the Atlantic to win the war, all of its objectives are in Europe.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                US wouldn't have any objectives in Europe.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If the US were fighting Germany, all of their objectives would be in Europe. This is retarded anon, the US can't do shit about Germany conquering Europe from across the Atlantic.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Reason US objectives were in Europe, was that they were supporting Western Allies. In this situation Western Allies aren't at war with Germany. If you take that out and then Germany declares war on the US(the US had thrown out real neutrality in 1939) after Pearl Harbor(if it would still happen) the US doesn't have any strong reasons to land in Europe.

                There would be little to nothing for either side to fight over. If any conflict broke out it would be a completely different war with less investment.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So the scenario is Britain isn't involved?
                >Germany takes France, secures the french fleet
                >Vichy French under german command begin drilling with the Italians in the med
                >U-boats murder US lend-lease to russia
                >Russians lose
                >Italians are still incompetent
                >Rest of Europe may as well capitulate entirely
                >IJN launch distraction operation, terrible losses for both sides
                >Combined axis navy launches operation Seagull and begins an amphibious landing of the eastern seaboard
                Me 262s over I-95 is the best future.
                If Germany already secured europe and russia a possible zimmerman note 2.0 could have had a lot more diplomatic weight behind it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Would France declare war without Britain?
                You could go the far opposite fanciful end and say US Frencha alliance US starts mobilizing in 1939, no phoney war.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >; USSR > Britain > USA > Canada.
      >Canada
      Delusional

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    British intelligence, cryptography, and scientific contributions were unironically essential to Allied victory. Without breaking enigma or the Tizard Mission, an Allied victory would have been exponentially more difficult. Not to mention their little island served as launchpad the eventual liberation of Western Europe. If Britain folded along with France, American penetration into Fortress Europe would have been straight-up impossible and Nazi Germany would have had unrestricted access to the sea lanes, meaning that they could have provided material and technical support to Japan that might've actually made a difference in the Pacific War. Even the Soviet Union's position would have been significant imperiled as every gun that was pointed in the direction of Britain would have gone to killing Red Army troops on the Eastern Front.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The british army in ww2 was hilariously incompetent and managed to create a gigantic leadership clusterfuck in france that got the entire country captured in record time, regularly got shit on by a numerically inferior german force in africa, and ceded gigantic swathes of the pacific by sending legions of colonial pajeets to die for them. (they also later completely abandoned india and left them to starve when the famine arrived)

      However, their naval, logistical and non military stuff was absolutely essential and heavily turned the war in the allies favour. Basically what said

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        bro what!
        >It's Britain's fault France couldn't defend itself
        >Britain kicked Germany out of Africa, but they were so shit

        You are a butthurt frog that doesn't want to hear the truth...fact is, France was lost because the dumb fucking generals didn't belive there was a giant convoy of armor going into the Ardennes that could have been bombed to shit thus stopping WW2 in its tracks, but due to the usual French stupidity and incompetence they ignored it and proceeded to become the most embarresing nation to ever exist. To this day the white flag of surrender is attributed to the French cowardice worldwide from Vietnam to Vienna people laugh at the French.

        You could draw parallels to this today, Macron didn't belive Russia would invade Ukraine either and was shown as incompetent, he then sacked the head of military intelegence because he too was a joke. Its the Ardennes all over again kek.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          kicked Germany out of Africa, but they were so shit

          they were. they got their asses kicked all over north africa until the supply and logistical situation turned against the germans, which ironically had a lot to do with the british code breakers cracking the italian codes being able to destroy their shipping

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            British success in North Africa mostly came down to the eventual replacement of shit-tier generals, Montgomery saved our asses from retards who kept falling into the exact same trap Rommel played every single time.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >British success in North Africa mostly came down to the eventual replacement of shit-tier generals

              The capture of O'Conner was a heavy strike against the British forces in the area. The real fuck-up though was Churchill pulling troops out when Italy was on the ropes before the Afrika Corps arrived to try to save an already doomed Greece.

              Then pretty much every time Wavell managed to form a resemblance of a proper organization again to contest Rommel, Churchill would intervene again and force him to split forces to support other area's such as Iraq/Syria rebellions.

              Auchinleck had a good eye for Defenses but overall had absolute idiots in his HQ who went against battlefield experience from Troops who had already been fighting. Then he also got same interference from Churchill but more in constant "request" for offensive operations instead of defensive.

              By the time Monty arrived, the entire situation had changed. Due to Barbarossa, German supply lines had shifted to supporting the Eastern Front. Prior to his arrival, the Germans had free intel from the U.S. Embassy as Italians had stolen the code books and allowed the Germans to routinely know the UK supply, dispositions and plans. Instead it was the UK who now had the intelligence advantage as they had broken the local Axis codes and now knew the complete order of battle, supply lines and situation of Rommel's army. Then final kicker of resupply of the Eighth army with Sherman tanks and much needed fresh reinforcements.

              It wasn't that Monty was such a great General that the entire situation had turned itself on his head. Complete reversal of Intelligence, Supply, and Equipment situation for both Armies. Monty always gets talked up as a great but really he was simply able to take advantage of the situation very well and it would've been harder for him to fuck it up than anything. Without Auchinleck's hold at El Al and preservation of troops/equipment, Africa would've been lost.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I see, very interesting, ty anon, I find North Africa a very neat yet underreprese.ted part of WW2 compared to the 'flashier' fronts

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Understated
                That's because the US had little to no involvment there thus you don't see a million films box sets etc about it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Even here in the UK it's not often shown off, certainly not much beyond 'muh desert fox and monty'

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Didn't the burgers get killed trying to land in Africa by the french? I guess that makes remembering that theatre a little awkward.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Operation Torch was essentially a huge live fire excercise for the US forces in order to avoid a repeat of the complete shitshow that the US armys initial involvment in WW1.

                The whole point of Torch was to identify the shitty officers, shitty ideas, and shitty operational practices present within units and unfuck that shit before the green US army went up against a well supplied and competent force in mainlan Europe. Torch didnt really acheive any major strategic objectives but was a huge success with regard to unfucking the US Army at an organisational level

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No problem. Essentially O'Conner had the Italians on the ropes but his capture fucked up the offensive. Then they had to throw their more experienced units onto boats and rush them to Greece, fail, then rush to Crete, fail, so by the time they got back to Africa they were shells of their former selves, especially in having to abandon most of their equipment.

                Auchinleck's ability to preserve his units for the most part and his decision to fallback and hold at El Al truly was the thing that held Egypt and made it even possible for Monty to show up. His story doesn't get told much primarily because he kept going against Churchill and the war council. They "needed" to show UK on the offensive and it forced him to throw men into doomed attacks, wasting more men and equipment. Monty himself was also very "showy", loving the attention.

                >Understated
                That's because the US had little to no involvment there thus you don't see a million films box sets etc about it.

                Kasserine Pass doesn't help.

                Didn't the burgers get killed trying to land in Africa by the french? I guess that makes remembering that theatre a little awkward.

                Sort of. While initial landings were rough, they quickly sorted themselves out. It was mostly the mountain passes that regular Army beat their heads against. It then allowed the Ranger battalions to truly shine.

                Operation Torch was essentially a huge live fire excercise for the US forces in order to avoid a repeat of the complete shitshow that the US armys initial involvment in WW1.

                The whole point of Torch was to identify the shitty officers, shitty ideas, and shitty operational practices present within units and unfuck that shit before the green US army went up against a well supplied and competent force in mainlan Europe. Torch didnt really acheive any major strategic objectives but was a huge success with regard to unfucking the US Army at an organisational level

                This anon hits nail on the head. It was a giant exercise to see what worked and what didn't. Without lessons from Torch and Sicily, Operation Overlord would've probably been vastly more costly.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So you've changed your tune to
            >Britain was bad because Britain sunk the logistical chain of the Afrika Corp then kicked both Italy and Germany taking a huge amount of prisoners material losses and a metric fuck ton amount of shipping

            Bro you are clearly a swarthy salt merchant or a French upset he is a gigantic coward

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I said the british army was bad, which they were. i clearly stated they were vital and competent in every other aspect of the war. Try to argue in good faith

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Lol the British Army did more in Europe than the US Army what kind of crack are you smoking?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Britain kicked Germany out of Africa, but they were so shit
          Unironically thank the United States.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >unrestricted access to the sea lanes
      some of that is restricted by
      Spain
      Egypt
      Turkey

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Spain was neutral and Gibraltar existed
        >Egypt, was British they controlled the Suez
        >Turkey, was irrelevant

        Are you retarded?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          none of those places make for a very solid Ally

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Britain controlled one of them and Gibraltar controls that little thing called the entrance to the Med you spastic. Learn geography before posting.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >lrn to logic

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You literally posted that the sea lanes were restricted by countries (apart from Turkey but they are irrelevant) garrisoned by the British you fucking imbecile.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The most prideful and arrogant of the Africans, butthurt Neo-Ottomans, and Spain are shitty allies. What a shock.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Spain
        german ally at the time
        >Egypt
        basically a british dominion at the time (would have folded alongside the brits)
        >Turkey
        would have joined the axis as soon as it looked like they were about to win

    • 3 weeks ago
      Based Charlie Magne Poster

      enigma was broken by poland though. sooo.... yay for tizard which...got the usa to productize british r&d.... oops guys britain's real contribution to the war was providing comfort women for all the us troops stationed there.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >BCMP
        >doesn't post Charlie
        >tries to stir shit between anglos

        have a nice day, vatmoron.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Based Charlie Magne Poster

          cry more you avatarposting pedo

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Brits stood alone in those early years.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What is this and why is it in Cyrillic? It looks like something that was printed by Poles in exile to let Brits know what the score is... but it's in Cyrillic.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Are you not aware that the Russians and the Nazis were allies from their invasion of Poland until Barbarossa?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'm asking about the poster, dumbass. Surely this isn't a Soviet poster. Or is it?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Basically
            >Russia and Germany stronk
            >Fuck them Brits with their empire

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It is.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      We were pouring arms and supplies into them the whole time. Not exactly alone. Still, they held the line admirably.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Are you not aware that the Russians and the Nazis were allies from their invasion of Poland until Barbarossa?

      Basically
      >Russia and Germany stronk
      >Fuck them Brits with their empire

      It is.

      >it's real
      No you retards, it's a fake photoshop of the original poster. The original poster is pic related, showing a British and Soviet plane dropping bombs on Berlin

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Fuck off, I just roughly translated it but because of your faggy reaction I now know it is real.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >hurr durr im just pretending to be retarded

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If the Soviets had gone all the way to Portugal then Europe would have more traditional demographics today.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And T I G E R S

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    punched above their weight tbh. Even amongst three near-peers the UK proportionate contribution was as great as two countries with three to five times the population, even before you factor in intel, subterfuge and codebreaking. Fucking carrierbags if you ask me

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they removed frog at Mers-el-Kébir so they pulled more weight than the slavs by default

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Do Brits even learn about the opium wars?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They should run it on British Broadcasting as a comedy

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous
        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I feel physically ill

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cherrypicking. There were literally two black kids in my high school near London.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Very funny that American far right always yell about white Americans being replaced but in England it’s like kind of happening?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >White population USA = 56%
            >White population UK = 86%
            lol
            lmao
            Your mum's a ho

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Pajeets and Asians are you the most academically Western nations. Go to any spelling bee and it's mostly Asians

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >At least they passed the spelling bee

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      such based british imperial history isn't taught.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Britain was fearless when it came to attacking the French and trying to steal their gold.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Brittan actually produced more tanks than russia in 1941. If British fleets weren't around in the Atlantic then all that aid from America wouldn't have reached Russia

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >If British fleets weren't around in the Atlantic then all that aid from America wouldn't have reached Russia
      LMAO. Most Russian supplies went over through parts of China and the Pacific ports. That's why the flying tigers were a thing btw Japan didn't have the naval tonnage to do anything about it throughout the war while also attacking US fleets.

      Atlantic shipping was almost exclusively for the bongs and their African territories.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >LMAO. Most Russian supplies went over through parts of China and the Pacific ports
        Not really it was about 50/50. Next time you want to start with "LMAO" maybe have somthing more interesting to say.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Based Charlie Magne Poster

        >Most Russian supplies went over through parts of China
        the usa was also supplying the chinese army in ww2. no supplies for the soviet union went through china, they went in through vladivostok, murmansk, and iran.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I think

          https://i.imgur.com/d0VFzgF.jpg

          >LMAO. Most Russian supplies went over through parts of China and the Pacific ports
          Not really it was about 50/50. Next time you want to start with "LMAO" maybe have somthing more interesting to say.

          already covered that with his image...

          • 3 weeks ago
            Based Charlie Magne Poster

            not really, no. read it again. sound out the words if it helps.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Britain was holding down the fort while the USSR was broing it up with Germany/Getting raped by Germany and America was busy doing fuck all. They carried the early war until America woke up and started making it rain weapons and vehicles all over Europe and the Soviet Union

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Until America was attacked*

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russians can't seem to grasp the sacrifices the US had to endure during the war.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    UK received 3x the amount of Lend-Lease as the USSR and still didn’t accomplish much with it besides massacring German civilians with morale bombing

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >besides massacring German civilians with morale bombing
      Based. Didn't bomb ANYWHERE nearly enough and we still have to deal with German plague to this day.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Lol you realise a large portion of aid received by the UK was given to the USSR as part of the Lend Lease deal right? Ontop of Britain's own Lend Lease to Russia and guarding pretty much every shipment of aid sent to that backwards shit hole? Missed that bit did you chum?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >a large portion

        yeah and what percent you think that is? 1% of all aid given to the UK?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >UK received 3x the amount of Lend-Lease as the USSR
      No it's didn't, the Britsh Empire/Commonwealth nations did, the there's a distinct defference

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The UK recieved about the same amount of lend lease as the USSR

      >didn't acomplish much with it
      about 50% of German wartime production went to the western theatre

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        When you say about 50% you mean about less than 30% right ?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          no 50%

          80% of German soldiers went east, but 50% of German war material went west.
          The European theatre was proportionally a lot more metal heavy; Germany didn't produce 1000 submarines for the Eurasian steppe.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            When you say about 50% you mean about less than 30% right ?

            American and British Units were a lot more mechanised and had a lot more firepower pound for pound than the Soviets or the Germans, 5 and 3 times the artillery expenditure per soldier respectively.
            The United states was the real artillery army of the second world war and everyone else copied their doctrine after the war.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    rubber, cork, and yellow cake

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    British manufacturing outstripped both Germany's and the USSR's in every significant category of war materiel except tanks. People just kind of assume that Germany and Russia had a much larger industry than they did in reality because of the physical extent of their empires, the Germans' quick advance initially on the back of surprisingly little mechanisation, and the USSR fielding huge numbers of tanks late in the war.

    Britain was solid number 2 basically the whole time

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We didn't do well at the start but by the mid to late point we did pretty well to redeem ourselves. Honestly if you remove any one of the 3 allied nations the odds of the allies being able to win falls drastically. The outcome of the war would have changed dramatically if it was a one front war, regardless if the one front was Russia or Europe.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It was Norway. Without the Norwegian commercial fleet supplying Britain, Britain would have collapsed and made peace with the Germans, meaning the US wouldn't have been able to operate in Europe, and lend lease wouldn't have saved the Russians.
    Being responsible for the degenerate anglos and the subhuman communists winning WW2 is Norway's greatest shame.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The British Empire bankrolled US lend-lease to the Soviet union to the point of Bankruptcy that was only fully repaid in 2003.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >50% of all explosives used for soviet artillery (ie propellant and shells) came from the United States.

    really jogs the noggin

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > Big Three of WWII,
    > were Britain's contributions really equal
    Yes.
    Britain saved Western Civilization during the Battle of Britain, during the summer of 1940.
    > Germany was steamrolling across Europe
    > the English Channel and a trivial invasion of England remained
    > the US was still waking up, not even in the war yet
    Britain was out manned and out gunned, but did have a few advantages
    > superior use of RDF (what we call radar today)
    > RDF was a force multiplier, allowing RAF to muster scarce planes in narrow corridors
    > Spitfire was an excellent plane
    > workhorse of the RAF wasn't the Spitfire but the Hurricane, which was also an excellent plane
    > Britain fought over its own soil, shot down pilots would fight another day
    > Britain had compromised ENIGMA (thanks in part to the Poles) and had some visibility into German comms
    Anybody saying "Britain didn't pull its weight" is a dipshit, or an honors grad from today's university system.
    Or both.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the USAs material and resource conrtibutions outweigh all of the UKs contributions.
      stay irrelevant angry angloid gay

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The USA's material and resource contributions in the decisive years of the war were a flat ZERO. Stay irrelevant and mad at being called out on your uselessness, fucktard.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Cash and carry started in 1939

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >were Britain's contributions really equal to the US and Russia's
    yes, without Churchill's napkin who would've sold out half of Europe to the mongoloid subhumans funded bu the garden gnomesa?

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Britian was the most technologically advanced

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Battle of Britain was fought by Britain alone (and some Poles) and crippled the Luftwaffe. German invasion of UK was called off, they foolishly decided to take on the USSR instead.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If Hitler wasn't such a Britaboo and allowed his generals to actually crush what was left of Dunkirk, Sealion probably would've worked. But he didn't, because he had this foolish idea up until the very end that Britain would stop fighting after France fell and they'd be friends

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >crush land army
        >Sealion will work now
        >Royal Navy still exist
        >RAF still exist
        >English channel still exists

        Bro how do retards like you get through the day

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Hitler didn't spare anyone at Dunkirk, the Germans stopped because their logistics couldn't keep up (a recurring meme for future endeavours in the east). The French army was also physically stopping them by force, not because the Germans were merciful or kind.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    British contributions is what allowed the USA to fight the USSR in the Cold War.
    The Normandy landings are the only reason why the Warsaw Pact didn't extend from Lisbon to Vladivostok, and the UK + Canada were essential for carrying out the Normandy landings.

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Russian manpower
    >American industry
    >British intelligence

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You've got to remember Great Britain was the Empire.
    They invested heavily and when the debt was called in lost massively.

    But yes they were the Big Three.

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sure.. If you want to pretend that the Mediterranean is on the same level as the Pacific

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    No they haven't schizo again take your Meds. Or reveal right now on PrepHole for the first time in world history the proof of your schizo idea.

    The USA would not have been willing to sacrifice the manpower required to beat the axis on its own.
    The USSR would have lost without lend lease, the Soviet leaders of the time are on record saying as much.

    So your argument is the US wouldn't want to. And Soviet leaders were wrong they had no idea how weak the axis was. Just like how during the battle of Britain the UK thought Germany was mcuh stronger the the axis thought the UK much weaker. Modern work on the subject revealed the battle of Britain was hopeless for Germany the entire time. Just because someone feels something doesn't make it true. Or do you take everything commies say now as gospel. The soviets imagined Germany could continue as it had been not understanding the cheapest way for a German to get a new set of tires was to buy a whole new truck. The Nazi economy was incapable of lasting. And thr Soviet Union was never close to collapsing. The same economic weakness makes a US invasion of Europe much easier. Especially with strategic bombers nuking Berlin.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >So your argument is the US wouldn't want to
      Ya, unless the FDR was willing and able to send millions to their deaths (desu, he probably was willing) the USA would not beat the Axis on its own, unless you’d like to provide evidence to support your argument like you demand of everyone else.
      Oh right, the garden gnomes have always integrated well and never had issues with the locals, this is a well known fact, however could I be so mistaken?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Now explain why they were expelled retard. Also I have stated multiple times the German economy collapses. It's hard to win wars with no resources. Plus you know Nukes, and strategic bombers. It's again hard to win wars with no cities.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >argues the u.s.a would win ww2 all by itself
          >then applies all the actual conditions from ww2 to germany

          youre a real big brain mutt arent you?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You argued the US would lose and the USSR would lose. I am arguing against that. Your scenario is retarded. Not my fault, here make up new goalposts I bet they'll still be retarded.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Your argument is flat out wrong and using the actual war conditions which involved the efforts of all the allies and applying them to your pathetic ego fantasy is retarded and something a 5 year old would do. Begone, 56%er

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Now explain why they were expelled retard.
          Usury, refusal in integrate, shitting on their host nation.

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just compare Britain's industrial and economic outputs to the others and the answer is 'obviously not'
    Unless you are trying to weigh blood and sweat spilled as well

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What is the British Empire for 12 alex.

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Seems that creation and development of the Merlin engine has been overlooked. Not to mention the same of the spitfire. Then there is jet engine development as well. Britian did make some great strides in technology.

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nationalisms aside No.

    Soviet Union Union is the largest contributor by far, could America have contributed just as much or more in a similar circumstance? probably, but you can't even begin to compare the scale of engagements in which the soviet union was engaged while america was doing fuck all most of the war, the soviet union was fighting the largest armor and air battles in human history while the USA was fighting ??

    Idk just look at the turning point during the war, battle of moscow, america was doing what? guadalcanal? go look at the numbers involved in the battles the USA was involved in vs the soviet union, ''muh lend lease'' was essential but it's size compared to the war soviet industrial output? literally in every aspect the soviet union putted more towards beating germany, nobody can deny how timely and effective lend lease was but it's size vs the size of the soviet undustrial output?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The contributions of each of the allies are measured in more than just numbers, each one was vital in their own regard and each created a confluence of actions and factors that made winning for the germans impossible.

      On paper, the british did not have the raw production of the americans, or the blood sacrifice of the soviets, but if you were to have a war in which they hypothetically remained neutral it would absolutely and completely change the entire course of the war

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the soviet union was fighting the largest armor and air battles in human history while the USA was fighting ??
      Largest carrier battle in history most of the world is blue. Strategic bombing campaigns.

      The contributions of each of the allies are measured in more than just numbers, each one was vital in their own regard and each created a confluence of actions and factors that made winning for the germans impossible.

      On paper, the british did not have the raw production of the americans, or the blood sacrifice of the soviets, but if you were to have a war in which they hypothetically remained neutral it would absolutely and completely change the entire course of the war

      >but if you were to have a war in which they hypothetically remained neutral it would absolutely and completely change the entire course of the war
      Wouldn't really be WW2 at that point just a German-Soviet war.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes. The premise is flawed to begin with, Churchill isn't representing Britain, he is representing the British Empire. People obsess over land war (and then ignore half the theatres), and don't seem to think air or sea counts for anything.

      People talk about Dunkirk, "hiding in your island", they don't mention putting half the Italian fleet out of use in a single strike the day afterwards etc. Its difficult being a sea power when nobody cares about sea power I guess.

      On Al Murray's podcast they interviewed some Normandy tour guides and the guy said he gets asked everyday by American tourists why, as an Englishman, he'd be so interested given the British weren't involved in the Normandy landings. These are American "history enthusiasts" who have spent large amounts of money to visit Normandy

      So I think these things depend a lot who you ask.

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, of course it wasn't equal. They had a lower population and much fewer resources and less industry at their disposal, but they were a bigger contributor overall than anybody else besides the Soviets and America.

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    even if it was true the USSR had contributed more than the UK or USA (it isn't), it would be important to deny it to deprive vatnigs of any oxygen on here

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >guys if the Soviets didn't get those 5,000,000 tins of Branson brand all-American baked beans in ww2 Hitler definitely would have reached Vladivostok by 1943
    This is what Americans are taught in school and actually believe.

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union that enabled those two powers to partition Poland between them.
    >Signed 23 August 1939; 82 years ago

    Wow. 82 years ago

Your email address will not be published.