There are plenty of revisionists about.
Like this guy below you here.
The USA did save Europe not just from the Nazi's but also the communists and kept our countries afloat financially afterwards. Getting a bit annoyed with all the Anti American sentiment doing the rounds. As a Brit I'm incredibly appreciative of what the USA did for us. The Allies also saved the Soviets during World War 2 which is often forgotten.
Yes they lost the most people but that was because the Germans pretty much had a scorched earth policy towards their citizens and towns and used the Luftwaffe to dominate as well as Stalin's lack of concern for the average soldier. Stalin himself requested the aid of the west, himself pleading with the west to send arms , break the air superiority and food supplies admitting without this aid they would fall to Germany. Once the Germans were defeated Stalin agreed he'd help defeat the Japanese. Once we took control of the skies the Nazi air force weren't able to keep the eastern front supplied. The winter that hit left the German troops screwed whilst allowing the Soviets to regroup and resupply from the north Atlantic convoys. What allowed the Soviets to attack and head westward was down to the Allied air force taking control over the skies. This diverted the Luftwaffe from the east and allowed the Soviets to fight.
This whole we had it easy in the west is also pure bullshit as is the whole we ignored the victims of the Nazi regime. We organised and launched the largest invasion force the world has ever seen. US warships were sinking U-boats long before the USA officially joined the war. The vast majority of Royal Navy Ships in the Atlantic were ex US navy ships purchased in mass for a low cost to allow us to secure the Atlantic. Once the war finished the USA then loaned us the Money to rebuild, which stopped the communist dominance over Europe. Berlin itself, people forget was an island of western democracy well behind the wall that was supplied by aeroplane with the bill being picked up by the US.
The US didn't "save" Europe. The USSR defeated Germany, and the US and the other allies, like the UK and Canada swept in to stop the Soviets from occupying the whole shebang.
The Allies also, did not save the Soviets in WW2. The Soviets saved themselves. The aid the allies rendered to the Soviet Union allowed them to more speedily defeat Germany, but it did not facilitate their ability to win. That statement "The Allies also saved the Soviets during World War 2" Is one of the most uneducated, disparaging and frankly ignorant concepts that comes out of WW2. You don't see the Russians or former Soviet States/People saying "we saved the British" or "we saved the French" or "you were only able to stay in the war because of what we did". However here are some facts. North Africa? Impossible without the Soviets. Italy? Impossible without the Soviets. Overlord? Impossible without the Soviets.
Your entire post is just a train wreck. You are basically repeating the worst, and most incorrect propaganda that exists regarding the Eastern Front. Incoming wall of text.
Lend Lease from the United States of America to the USSR was approved by Congress on the 7th of November 1941. The first substantial shipments of said Lend Lease arrived in the USSR in or around February/March of 1942. The British sent obsolete tanks to the Soviets in 1941. Of which these tanks accounted for approximately 2% of the active "medium" and "heavy" AFV's that saw combat in and around Moscow. Alexander Hill, a Canadian Historian suggests this number is as high as 40%, however, he is classifying light tanks as mediums and medium tanks as heavy. The total number of tanks the British sent in this critical juncture were 466 if memory serves. These were Matilta, Valentine and Tetrarch tanks. All obsolete models from the African theater. Which were laughable when compared with the contemporary Soviet Tanks in use. T-34's and KV-1's.
Following the unbelievable success of Barbarossa in the opening months of the invasion of the USSR Germany was at its absolute zenith in terms of military strength versus the USSR. This differential was never going to be higher. The entirety of Red Army forces in the west were virtually wiped out. Another myth regarding the Eastern Front. Divisions form Siberia were moved to Moscow to take part in the Moscow Counter offensive in November and December. This is not true. Siberian Divisions were not used. New formations of men were simply raised for the defense. The Siberian Divisions stayed where they were.
So what happened in November and December 1941? The Soviet Union reformed armies in front of the German advance on Moscow and launched a bloody counter attack which effectively ended the German chance to win the war right then and there. I will add that the entire concept that Germany ever had an actual chance to win the war is a fallacy itself. However I will proceed with the popular conception the Soviet Union would have magically surrendered has Moscow fallen.
The German plan to defeat the USSR was to smash the army and capture Moscow and Leningrad. The expectation then was that government of the USSR would collapse. In reality the government was not going to collapse and the manner in which the Germans were burning, pillaging and murdering across the USSR ensured that the USSR would have to face total defeat before capitulation was possible. Total defeat entails the occupation of the majority of the USSRs manpower and industry (a mathematical impossibility).
To sum this portion up. At the USSRs absolute most vulnerable position in the entire war, at Germany's zenith in the entire war, the USSR stopped Germany at Leningrad and at Moscow. They did this by themselves. Facing the brunt of the Wehrmacht (which they did the entire war). If we believe that the USSR could have lost, and that had Leningrad and Moscow fallen the Soviet Government would have given up, then this was the only point in the entire war that this was a possibility. Without any measurable help from the West, the Soviet Union ended that threat on their own, by themselves.
From that point on, the war was a forgone conclusion.
Pulling another number from my ass (just a few % off at most) around 62% of all lend lease arrived to the USSR in 1944-1945. When you consider the lag time of disembarkation to the arrival at the business end of Soviet industry or the front the figure actually goes even higher. Goods sent late in 1943, arrived in 1944, but these goods are not counted in the figure I give. Even the most conservative historian will accept that the war was lost by Germany by 1944, at point at which the vast majority of all this "war winning" material arrived AFTER.
Referring to your comments regarding the air power of the western allies. The Red army also had a very large air force which battered the Germans. The actual German losses by front are fairly equal. According to my sources the western allies edge that category slightly. The Red Air-force inflicted a comparable blow to the Luftwaffe as did the Western Allies.
Something that most of you will probably not know but it is very important in understanding "losses" regarding German and Soviet numbers. The Germans only tabulated a tank or an aircraft lost, if it was actually irreparably lost. The Soviets accounted every tank, truck, aircraft that had to be repaired as also "lost". What this means practically is that Soviet tanks are frequently counted several times over as destroyed. So when you see figures that suggest the Germans killed 10 Soviet Tanks for every Tank they lost. These figures are based on this apples to oranges comparison.
The simple fact regarding WW2 is this. The USSR "won" the war in Europe with some help from the West. The USA "won" the war with Japan with some help from the Soviets. I'll even suggest the USSR would have won on their own, and the USA would have won on their own. The issue however isn't could they have, it is would they have wanted to have. Preventing millions of more casualties, I think the monkey pile on Japan and Germany was preferred by all parties.
To swing this around to American politics. The lessons learned from WW2 are exactly why the USA does what it does today. Yes they interfere, yes they destabilize. The US does this to try and prevent large scale wars from occurring. Even more important in a post nuclear age where "the end of the world" is a possibility if two nuclear powers get their jimmies rustled. Small scale low intensity conflicts are preferable to world wars IMHO. A necessary evil in that regard.
