hmmmm..
Without our intervention and support in the European theater, are you both of the belief that an unfettered Germany would have eventually been defeated by the Soviet regime and European forces?
If we had chosen not to provide the British and the Soviets with supplies and military assistance via a push from the other end of the European continent, would you still be of the opinion that the Soviets and the allies would have still prevailed?
Interesting. Thanks for your comments.
Absolutely.. Stalingrad was the turing point for the war with Germany.
Without our "supplies" and involvement, they would likely have suffered another million casualties and the war in Europe would have taken another year or 2, but Russia would have sacrificed another 20 or 50 million if that is what it would taken to beat Germany.
Germany was beaten before the allies hit the beaches in Normandy - it was only a question of time.
The Lend-Lease was not only to England, but to Russia. Fighter planes were built in the US, flown to Fairbanks, Russian pilots taking over there, and flown directly into combat on the front lines. Fairbanks was European Theater.
You’re talking alternate universe stuff here. I’m simply saying we didn’t ‘save the bacon’ of the Russians during WWII. The expression you employed doesn’t sum up the reality of the situation very well. It isn’t that cut-and-dried—unlike, say, the case of the French or the Belgians or the Dutch—whose bacon, brisket, ribs and hocks we did save, outright, directly, without dispute.
The US and the USSR were allies during WWII. The entire premise of a wartime alliance is to hang together rather than hang separately. So again, no, we didn’t save the Russians. We saved each other, quid pro quo.