Little BaBy JESUS wrote:You honestly think that Germany could've defeated America, Britain and the commonwealth?
britain and the commonwealth - yes. america i think would've made a deal with nazies and be left alone - the ocean is quite an obstacle. i dunno how long that would've lasted though.
anyway, we are talking history here, right? and history does not operate in "what if..."-s.
Yes the Red Army were the largest contributors in Europe, no one is trying to deny that. But without the Germans fighting in North Africa, Europe and the Mediterranean, the losses of the Red Army would have been even larger. Honestly, if the Germans had focussed 100% of their forces in Eastern Europe and hadn't tried to fight on all fronts, they probably would've taken Moscow, and all of the important industrial, agricultural and resource filled lands of the western USSR.
ussr was about the only real contributor in europe. lend lease and all that shit was crucial in the beginning of the war because it supplied some critical resources (like aluminium for example), but altogether minimal if you look at it on the scale of the war.
as to "fighting on all fronts" i'll let you look at the numbers yourself.
The alliance of the USSR and the West was one of convenience. The war was certainly not an "enormous disgrace" for the west. Sure it was a military disgrace for France and some of Western European countries in the early years, but there you go again lumping everyone in together as "the west".
"convenience"? for whom? the enlightened west nurtured nazi germany hoping to have them crush the soviets. how horribly that backfired - that is a disgrace the west is still trying to lie their way out of.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.