"Russia carried the war"..."The U.S. wasn't that important." ... is it not true?) Our soldiers have made the greatest effort. USA went to war only in 1944. And land-lease... It was helpful, but not decisive. Thanks of course, but we would have won anyway, just would spend more time) No offence. By the way, I very respect your Normandy landings, that's really great.

Actually we came into the war in 1942, and before that kept you afloat with lend-lease as Germany tore your armies apart. If not for us opening up the Western Front with our invasion of North Africa and Italy, as well as fighting in the Pacific to keep the Japanese from invading and sandwiching you between them and the Reich, then yes, your nation would look very much like this map I posted.

You're welcome.

I dont think USA absolutely didn't matter. I just sure USA weren't SAVIORS of USSR) We had enough forces defend ourselves. Yourguys help us, distracted Japan and Germany attention to yourself. But against us Germans and Japans used forces, much greater than forces against yours! That what you are experiencing is not even half of what they threw at us.

You're half correct. Germany didn't commit the majority of it's troops to the Western Front, yes. However, they did commit around 25% of said forces, INCLUDING their allies in Vichy France and Italy.

In total, the Soviet Union fought against the Wehrmacht and Ostheer forces, while the United States fought Germany, Italy, Vichy France, and Japan.

Saying that the U.S. wasn't the most important combatant against the Axis is foolish at best, it fought against the combined might of EVERY Axis nation, on TWO fronts, while also supplying the military machines of it's allies INCLUDING it's own forces. Yes, I can easily say that the Axis would have won the war in Europe EASILY without help from the United States.

May be, but undeniable USA would looks like this map without our offensive to Germany forces from East. If we would lose then, USA can't withstanded Reich's onslaught by oneself, without our massive support in Europe, because Germany would throw over all forces against USA. Most likely, our support each other the same.

I never argued that the U.S.A. could solo Germany and it's allies without using other nations bulwarks as a buffer. But the idea that the U.S. wasn't the key factor in the Axis' downfall is silly.

But not THE ONE key factor) We fights against german satellits too. Against Japans and fachists's regimes in Hungaria, Horvatia, Bulgaria, Romania and others european countries. And Soviet troops liberated Eastern European city independently. Anyway, the situation on this map would not have happened because Russia is too big and has a huge variety of resources. If the Germans broke through our defenses, our guys have retreated inland and continued to build military equipment to factories in the Urals and Siberia, where they would not be able to get the Germans and the Japanese, and we would stop the offensive even in this case. I know that American troops fought in many places, but the main strength of the Reich (some about three quarters) was aimed against the Soviet Union. Allied Forces saved France, Holland, Belgia, and Scandinavia, but definitely not us - we repelled the attack of the germans in 1942, long before the United States opened the Second Front in 1944. We stopped the attack and counterattacked singly, without USA support. I don't underestimate the strong role of the America, but Red Army really liberated most of Europe, Mongolia, and China. This is enough to be considered a major force. Also, the US and Britain planned to attack USSR after the defeat of the Reich (there was even a maps of with plans to capture and occupation Russian territories it by British and American forces), so they don't have reason to help us. And USA even help Germany in war (as example, during the Second world war, none of the tanker "Standard oil" was sunk by German submarines, because meny tankers go to Germany). Of course land lease was really help, but people must be able to use it right. And russians were able. And still had huge stockpiles of resources, a lot of factories and people who know what they're fighting for.

We opened the second front in 1942, when we invaded North Africa.

We also kept the Japanese from attacking your eastern side, thus robbing the Axis of vital military assets that were once fully aimed at, and very capable of overtaking your armies, as they'd been doing since the initial invasion of the Soviet Union.

That's all there is to it.

Oops, sorry, of course I mean second front in Europe. I know americans landed in Africa and Italy in 1942) strangely, it seems we agree with each other, and it looks like we are arguing who is cooler Probably in real support was identical on both sides

No offense, but a video game isn't really solid proof of anything either way.

The title of the upload is also "Maximum Shitpost," so.

Love your stuff, by-the-by.

USA opened second front in only 1944, while Red Army already came to Germany. USSR destroyed German armies in East in 1943, long before Omaha landing in 1944. USSR liberated itself only one, without help: USA lost it's fleet and was forced to fought against Japan, Britain was in German blockade, Europe was occupied by Germans and Asia by Japanese. No one could help USSR in that warm, but Red Army destroyed 80% of Wehrmacht. I dont belittle achievments of U.S. Army, but really almost all of them were against Japan while in Europe American soldiers came after almost completely victory of USSR, when German teenagers and oldmen on Western Front gave up to J.I. without resistance. Chilly walking throught French gardens and three years of suffering, blood and fire are different experiences.

However, USA fought against Japan, but anyway Japan wasn't in war with USSR until 1945. Really, we can say that's European war was duel between Third Reich and USSR, beacause Germans even didnt consider Americans as enemies, rather as protectors and potential allies. Although U.S. invading in Europe helped Red Army to do final strike. (Without Omaha in 1944 Russian soldiers would came to Berlin long later, in 1946)

"USA opened second front in only 1944..."

False. North Africa, Italy.

Not to mention all of the lend-lease equipment and vehicles that American industry sent to the USSR prior/during the war. The United States was supplying the Soviet Union, on average, with at least 50% of it's overall military equipment/logistical supplies (food, gasoline, medical supplies). That's fucking nutty dude to think that a "world power" that needed to get the other half of all it's total supplies from another nation could've won a war by itself. To put that into perspective: The United States not only sent millions of equipment/vehicles/logistical supplies to all of the other nations Germany was fighting before/during the war, but it also produced enough supplies that it was able to fully equip it's own 16,000,000 soldiers.

The war in Europe was won by the United States, the idea that a nation which lost all of it's elite troops to Finland before getting its shit pushed in for better half of a year somehow won on it's own is a fantasy tale at best. Russian revisionism is a spooky thing, and the amount of people who un-ironically believe in it is dangerous.

Revisionism? Its obvious facts for all that Red Army was the first who stopped Wehrmacht, brought down the myth of the invincibility of the Reich, and liberated half of Europe, raised Red Banner over captured Berlin.

"The war in Europe was won by the United States" - but not the only one who won? In 1942 when G.I. came to Italy and Africa, USSR already stopped Wehrmacht near Stalingrad, Moscow and Leningrad, on Caucassus Mountains. Even in 1941 Red Army already hit Wehrmact a painful counterstrikes. In 1943 Paulus Army was fully destroyed near Stalingrad (long before Normandia landing). Concretely in Russia blitzkrieg was ruined, Germans began to retreat. In 1943 Red Army soldiers already kicked out Germans from USSR, already went through East Europe to West. In 1944, when Americans landed in Normandia, Red Army already was in Germany. I mean, Russians began to win over Germans long before USA came to Europe.

Kursk battle,
Stalingrad battle (btw biggest land battles in whole history, and biggest defeats of Wehrmacht which changed the war),
Moscow defence,
operation "Bagration" (completely destroying of Central and Southern Wehrmacht armies)
Vislo-Oder operation (fastest military offensive in history - every day Russian soldiers coming 20-30 km closer to Berlin)
kicking out Germans from whole East Europe, Austria, Denmark and Norway (47% of Europe only by Red Army force, +26% together with Americans and British)
capture Axis countries (Hungary, Romania, Finland)
capture of Berlin

Aren't all this enough to USSR can considered at least one of the winners in WW2? Are this less than Monte Cassino and Omaha?

Also after victory over Reich, Red Army still had strengh to help USA in Pacific front, and destroyed Japan Kwantun army in Manjuria, expeling Japanese soldiers from Mongolia, Korea and North China.

Of course USSR didnt fought alone and not the only one winner but impossible to deny that the Red Army caused the Wehrmacht the greatest damage and fate of Reich decided in snowy fields and forests of West Russia: against USSR fought 4/5 of all German soldiers. Yes, USA helped USSR sending weapons, fuel and vehicles, but those soldiers who use all it against Wehrmacht, were our people. Tanks cant win the war without people, and need to be enough brave to rule any tanks against much more stronger enemy. And USSR lost much more soldiers than other allies.

I dont want to look ungrateful for land-lease, I agree that U.S. Army attacked Wehrmacht enough too, but really main Allied forces came to Europe when Reich was already doomed after fatal strikes of Red Army.

Also are you sure that without USSR victories over Wehrmacht USA could stay alone against Reich? May be if USSR gave up, today Wehrmacht would marshed on Broadway.

And the Red Army would've never made that ground if not for the millions of American made resources sent to them. You mistake my shit-post as a claim that the United States was the only nation that fought in the war. My shit-post is just a shit-post. My claim is, however, that if the United States had sought true neutrality, then Japan and Germany would've easily conquered their objectives.

When I made this, people were going through a spiel of jerking off to this idea that the Soviet Union was the savior of Europe, that they single-handedly had won the entirety of World War II. This is revisionist, this is disgusting.

The sheer industrial output of the United States is what defeated Germany. Sure, those guns, trucks, etc. may have fought on the Eastern Front, but without them the Soviets didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell.

Of course American help was very important for USSR, however I doubt USSR would fall soon - Russian people could retreat to Ural and Siberia with picking up plants and building new equipment in the East. In addition in second half of war USSR began to manufactured enough count of it's own new equipment - Red Army soldiers got new uniform (including camo), new vehicles and new weapons. If in 1941 Russians could answered 1 mortar shot on 200 German shots, during capture of Berlin on 1 German artillery's shot Russians answered thousands of their own mortar shells. Also many millions of strong and trained adult men became to army during war time.

I dont know how much true our info is, but it says land-lease was only a 4% of all USSR resources (this info not blaming USA and Britain - they just haven't enough ships to send all resources they planned).

However, you right: USSR's situation was already dangerous, Reich used against USSR 80% of Wehrmacht personnel, 68% of artillery, 64% of tanks and 48% of Luftwaffe aircraft. British-American landings in Africa, Western Europe, Italy and Greece, and Allied bombings forced Reich to activate 1/5 of Wehrmacht against Western Allied forces. May be its saved USSR, because in war every unit is important, and if USA would be neutral, Hitler would throw against USSR all military power of Reich, and it's very doubtful that Red Army (even re-equiped and modified in 1943) could stay long (at least could stop for a while, but not counterstrike). If USA would not in war with Japan, Japan attacked USSR too as Germany did, and against too strongest armies of whole Eurasia USSR would be doomed.

I first time hear about Russian revisionism in WW2. Our official info thats USA, Britain and USSR winned together, just in different areas. Britain stayed against Reich first, USA won Japan and liberate West Europe, Western Allies liberated Western Europe, and USSR destoyed most count of Wehrmacht forces (80-93% losses by different countings). Of course Russians dont think USSR was the only one who win, but obviously thats really Red Army endure main and strongest strike of Germans and caused to Wehrmacht the most damage (70% of all destroyed German aircraft, 75% of lost tanks and 74% of lost artillery were in Eastern Front) Seriously, denying it is like saying that USSR won Japan by destroying Kwan-Tun Army, and of course this would sounds stupid becaus USSR declaired war to Japan only in 1945 after Hiroshima bombings, (when USA already won), while USA fought against Japan since 1942.