Usa aid to allies and soviets

Hard to say for sure but it certainly would have tipped the scales. If anything American land lease was much more a force in the European theater than the American troops. The Soviets would have lost many more troops without American food and trucks, and the Brits were completely fucking incompetent on the ground ala Market Garden and shit. The Italians would have lasted longer without America. Wether this would have resulted in a German win or a phyrric stalemate and the continuation of the German state is debatable. Even just an extra 6 months to a year of extension could have meant, say, the exhaustion of England's will to carry on a continental offensive , or England may have been unable to properly fulfill a naval invasion without US logistics. Without American aid, the Soviets may or may not have been able to stall the nazi offensive around Stalingrad. So many major points to swing the weight around.

hahahaha nice one frog

you guys are our cute buddies but quit dreamin brah, you guys surrendered almost immediately
>forgets about the commies only redeeming act

>tfw the Canadian if you kill your enemies they win is a Quebecois French tradition.

Attached: 1525063329541m.jpg (1024x1012, 127K)

what about the battle of moscow, mentioned by user

Obviously. Britain would've been completely fucked without the escorts and convoys that the USA sent to them, and the Soviets would've been fucked without lend-lease as well (almost half of all of their trucks in 1945 were American-made). That's not even considering all of the men, aircraft, tanks, etc. that the Western Allies pinned down and kept off the Eastern Front

>mfw the best Canadian soldier in WW2 was a Québécois

it would’ve been a closer conflict and may have lasted a year or two longer. The Soviet army would have still overwhelmed the nazis who vastly underestimated their opponents.

holy digits of 5.56 agree

so lend and lease was the reason the usa became the world super power?
Also Britain begging for help means the accepted not being a big player anymore?

Yes, although Hitler would never have militarily beaten Britain. Too hard to do, more likely Churchill never even becomes PM and Britain takes the deal after France falls in 1940 that secured their Eastern Colonies against Japan.

The Soviets won on American-built infrastructure, this is well known and even then only just, the Russians were fucked from Bagration onwards. They simply didn't have the energy to carry on at the pace they were going.

But seriously, the amount of US equipment that the Germans were coming across early on the Eastern Front is more than enough evidence that the Soviets would have been crushed without Western help.

t. History major.

Probably not
Though if he had known about the great wealth of oil in what was then the Italian colony Libya he probably could have

Assuming true neutrality, Germany will probably still end up losing unless other powers start getting involved.

Japan will have gained an unconditional surrender from the Australians as the Aussies almost surrendered in the war anyway but didn't because the Japs attacked the US islands instead of mainland Australia.

I don't know whether the Japanese would bother helping the Germans as they seemed focused on their own territories and were still making slow progress in China.

The Europe front would have lasted for several years more at the least and likely resulted in greater strain on Russia and the Allies. Once the war was over the Soviets would likely focus on Europe unless the Japanese were becoming too much of a threat.

USSR takes most of Europe, refugees flee to colonies abroad and the Americas. Cold/Hot war forms between USSR and Japan. Russia probably has the bomb.

More Nazis escape via the Western front to the Americas, America gets red scare as usual and harbors nazis, including many nazi scientists.

USA works on A-bomb, strong industry from war trade (possible), massive immigration of Europe's best/brightest, possibly still in depression but seems unlikely. Suddenly lost many trade partners-> hurts economy.

End result: Fortress America, Eurasian Union, East-Asian Co-prosperity sphere, 3 way cold war. Possible growth of fascism in Americas (north/south) due to fleeing nazi influence. Massive ethic change in Americas (from fleeing white europe.)

The timing mattered. USSR eventually was able to out produce the axis but in the beginning the logistical support given by lend lease was crucial. The trucks that moved the industrial base from the urkraine to beyond the urals had the word Dodge on them.
The tanks and airplanes were good stop gaps, but it was the logistic support that really mattered.
Now would that have won or lost the war? That is very hard to say. It definitely enabled the Russians to move to general offensives earlier then they would have if they had to build their own logistics train.

Attached: RookieNumbers.jpg (500x342, 107K)

Without the strategic bombing offensive bleeding fighters from the front Russia would not have been able to maintain any offensive and they were losing men at a higher rate than the germans. They were almost bleed dry by the end of the war.
The strategic bombings actual effect on production was debatable.

lol they end up cucking themselfs in US being white male is now crime. These idiots even invade Iran to use its train system to assist cuckhold unio i mean soviet union.
>pic iran militaryin ww2

Attached: 9da5242b69cf9909f1ffeba380244a85--iranian-warfare.jpg (624x480, 65K)

good job killing those poor German soldiers.
>Pic

Attached: race_japhomefront01.jpg (500x369, 118K)

>Japan will have gained an unconditional surrender from the Australians as the Aussies almost surrendered in the war anyway but didn't because the Japs attacked the US islands instead of mainland Australia.

Japanese movement towards Australia necessitated the taking of American possessions in the region & would have brought America into the Pacific War. A scenario where the US isn't involved in Europe/the Mediterranian just means Japan would have been crushed much quicker.

Probably. Those Russians are tough bastards. I mean all we did was give them trucks and food.

>400k trucks did nothing.
>More than 1 million boots did nothing
>7 thousand tanks did nothing.
>nearly 3 million tons of petroleum did nothing.
>4.5 million tons of food all of which would have been eaten did nothing.

With the way the soviets literally throwing russian waves at the germans, no fucking way they would have won without the support of lend-lease.

Attached: BattleOfKursk.png (311x679, 37K)

saved

>He thinks Moscow would've won the war

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA

No, it would have ended with either a stalemate between the USSR and Nazi Germany or a very slow and bloody soviet victory.

Attached: WW2 Timeline.webm (500x280, 2.49M)