Comments by "Bullet-Tooth Tony" (@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-) on "Did the Soviet Union win WW2 alone?" video.

The British gave time, the US gave money, the Soviets gave blood.
105
@Anthony The Japanese were more powerful at sea than the Germans but not on land. A Japanese infantry division is not as well equipped as a German infantry division. The Japanese tended to fight lighter on foot ( for fast mobility through Jungle terrain) and didn't really have any motorised or armoured divisions.
15
@Stockfish1511 Lend Lease in todays currency is equivalent of 180 billion.
14
@Stockfish1511 Lend Lease was critically important at a few times and places. For instance, the Soviets lost most of their armoured vehicles in the 1941 campaign, In the spring of 1942, most of the armoured vehicles on the Moscow front were of British or American manufacture. Most trucks used by the Soviet Army were American manufacture. Most radios were of western origin. Try waging a modern war without trucks or radios. What's the point of having 10,000 T-34s if you can't keep them fuelled and the crews fed? Or if you can't command and control them? The west provided nearly all of the high octane aviation fuel used by the Soviets. Most tires used by the Soviets, whether truck, aircraft, or on other vehicles - were made with imported rubber thanks to lend lease. And Wheat. The USSR's war effort would have ground to a halt without Allied shipments of wheat and other food staples. The Soviets at best could win on the defensive, but they are NOT going on the offensive and getting to Berlin without any of that. Without Lend Lease it's a stalemate, with the Germans still inside the East.
12
I think this is an excellent point. If my numbers are correct, the LW has 3,500 combat aircraft in June 1941, and 2,500 of those are deployed in the East. From July 1940 to June 1941 the LW has already lost about 2,500 aircraft and pilots, 1,900 in the BoB, and another 600 in subsequent operations. (Greece, Crete, Malta, N. Africa, Channel, France, UK) So it would be reasonable to conclude that without those 2,500 aircraft lost, the Luftwaffe could have deployed at least double the number of combat aircraft to attack the USSR than it did historically.
4
@connerwomack9990 I see the Soviets winning, but not getting to Berlin, more like they beat the Germans on the defensive, but fail to drive them fully out of the East since it was Lendlease that gave the Soviets the trucks and equipment the ability to mount offensives.
3
@lyndoncmp5751 Certainly a better strategist and logistician than Rommel, Rommel was better in the tactical and operational department.
3
The Soviet Union survived '41-42, repulsed the last major German summer offensive in '43, and started making major headway taking back ground without major support from the US or UK. Does that mean they could have won the war alone? No, because the Germans were still deep in Soviet territory at this time.
2
@blakesutherland519 "The French plan was actually sound but the British failure to commit a larger ground army meant that the French couldn't form reserve units and we're stretched thin and had to use the area around the arddens as the weak point.' Wrong. It was Gamelin's decision to send the French strategic reserve ( the 7th Army) into the Netherlands that denuded the Allies of a force capable of parrying the German advance through the Ardennes.
2
@MisterBoggins Are you talking about Khalkin Gol?
2
@Stockfish1511 That's why after Khalkin Gol they never again challenged the Soviets.
2
@blakesutherland519 "the British army was simply hopeless in ground combat when fighting on the offensive. " Operation Compass and Operation Bluecoat says they're not hopeless. The British army advanced over 350 miles in just FOUR days after the Normandy breakout, a rate of advance unmatched by any allied unit.
1
With a population of about 70 million and an army of 13 million i wouldn't call that small country.
1
@gj1234567899999 Also imagine if they sent Rommel the Desert fox to lead those 27 divisions. Now you've got the cream of the crop of German commanders.
1
@executivedirector7467 The one thing the Japanese had that made them tough on land was fighting spirit from their Samurai Warrior tradition, but that alone doesn't stop tanks and close air support.
1
@hernerweisenberg7052 Yes the Germans did have more u-boats thats true, but the Kido Butai was formidable.
1
@Anthony-jo7up Was the A6M Zero better than the BF 109? I think the Zero was more maneuverable in the air sure, but the 109 had more fire power and was not as vulnerable to being taken out as the paper thin Zero. Fighting a non industrial nation in China is not the same as fighting industrialised ones ( Britain, France, Soviet Union) an average Japanese division would get chewed up against a Panzer division.
1
No.
1
@petervote7914 China, US, UK.
1