lol. the idea that the western allies could have won the war outright without the soviets (and that the soviets were doomed without "western resupply") is so utterly asinine and historically ignorant that i almost don't even want to bother refuting this objectively dumb post. but i will anyways, for funsies.
Ok, are you saying Russia would have won without the western allies, because they wouldn't have, or are you saying the western allies won because of Russia. Honestly they would have won without Russia. also it wouldn't have taken any longer (maybe a few more months to a year)-- At the end of the day D-day could have happened a year earlier. Or not happened at all- Because once the US got the bomb the war was over. Further as we know Japan didn't surrender until the bomb was dropped.
so the soviets are out of the war, let's say operation barbarossa simply never happens. the millions of casualties the red army inflicted on the german army don't happen and all those hundreds of thousands of german soldiers are not dead on the outskirts of stalingrad, leningrad, moscow, kursk, and countless other places in western russia.
where do you think those 3 million soldiers that the german army used to invade the USSR are going to be used instead? they're going to be used for the defense of italy and of france, which in reality was already a near-run thing in normandy (the vast majority of the german army being off in the east fighting the soviets at the time) before the allied breakthrough in falaise that started the rout back to the rhine.
if d-day had happened in 1943 with a year's less preparation and the full german army defending in the west it would have failed on day one just like the dieppe raid, so that notion is absolutely ridiculous.
but maybe d-day didn't have to happen at all? so then what - the americans do nothing in the entire war but invent the atomic bomb in 1945, drop a couple of them on germany and then the germans would just go "well we have millions of troops at full fighting strength and have conquered and occupied all of europe and aren't under any sort of invasion at all (let alone from both east and west simultaneously), but let's just quit now so our cities don't get bombed any more"? LOL. because, as we all know, hitler and the nazis definitely weren't openly prosecuting a total war with the full expectation and desire that germany would have to be literally completely destroyed for them to lose.
Now if we are talking WWI Russia pulled out of the war. The RR started in 17- In fact socialism almost lost WW1 for the western powers.
socialism did not "almost lose" world war 1 for anybody except the russians. the german spring offensive of 1918 had basically no chance of succeeding due to massive supply shortages (mainly ammunition) and total allied air superiority, it captured no strategically important objectives (not even the rail junction at arras), and it moved the entire german army out of strong defensive positions that they had been preparing for over a year (the hindenburg line) into a vulnerable bulge that could easily be choked off by a strong combined arms attack (which is exactly what happened on august 8 at the battle of amiens). it was an act of total desperation, a final throw of the dice by a mostly already beaten army to try to gain some leverage for a better peace deal before the american army arrived in large numbers. the notion that the germans could have won the war in 1918 is totally ignorant of the facts, and then to use that to say that it was explicitly due to socialism in russia is absolutely ridiculous.
1. VE was not depended on the USSR as without western resupply, victories in Operation Torch, sicily, sardina, and really tactical errors on the part of the Germans. the USSR had no chance.
yes, lend-lease was a thing. but none of the supplies that the west sent to russia arrived in any kind of large effective numbers until 1942, after the soviets had already stopped the initial german advance. the USSR had an enormous industrial capacity and were able to fully supply and equip their armies on their own by 1943.
operation torch, which landed in western north africa in november 1942 had no effect at all on the eastern front. the invasion of sicily in july 1943 might have had some small effect in diverting some troops away from the eastern front but it took place after the battle of kursk, when the germans were in full retreat and would be for the entire rest of the war, so it's not like those soldiers would have changed the outcome there anyways. and sardinia was never invaded by the allies at all (only some bombing of airfields and ports as part of the invasion of sicily) and the german garrison stationed there simply left willingly in september, so i have no idea why you even mentioned it.
2. VE without Russia was achievable albeit a bit longer once the US got the bomb (freedom and capitalism) the war would have been over anyway.
so again, the americans are just going to nuke germany with the two bombs they had produced in 1945 and then the nazi leadership is just gonna surrender even though they aren't being attacked on the ground on any front at all. okay.
the german army has millions of undefeated soldiers in the field from france to poland to norway to italy, but drop a primitive nuke or two on germany and hitler, a man who was known to have a tendency to surrender, would say "well we had a good run but a part of downtown cologne is now gone so let's give all that back, bring the army home and say we're sorry". that makes sense.
3. Socialism had no role in WW1 in fact it almost caused the west to lose the war (but also proving they could win with out Russia)
the entente did not "win without russia". in fact they almost certainly would not have won without russia, as the thousands of soldiers fighting on the eastern front against the russian empire would have been able to fight in verdun and flanders. the brusilov offensive almost broke the entire eastern german army and the russians advanced so far that they really only had to stop because they lost momentum due to outrunning their supply lines. even after the revolution and the treaty of brest-litovsk the germans still had to keep hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the occupation zones in poland, the baltics, and ukraine and somehow that all counts as "winning without russia". lmao please.
lastly, since you seem to think that the soviet contribution to the war was utterly meaningless, and since you seem to love statistics so much based on the NHL thread, go watch this video and then tell us again how it didn't matter
at all that the USSR was in the war against the germans:
)
was on with Colbert last night answering back at Mitch McConnell.
