WW II discussion

GarryB wrote:

Nazi were fighting alone against UK, US and USSR at the same time.

The Nazis were fighting the Soviets... the UK did fuck all and the rest of europe immediately surrendered.... and the US fought the nazis in Africa... not much use at all.

I wouldn't say fuck all, the North Africa campaign and the arctic convoys may not have been game changers for the soviets but nevertheless, providing aid and keeping a second front open in the European theatre still helped.

Spare us the crap, the West was financing Nazi Germany, the BIS was handing in the deposits of the occupied countries and that is much more important than distraction side acts, the essentially useless contribution in weapons (unusable old crap that never got to the battlefield) or paid for contribution in other industrial goods the USSR received. The West was helping both rivals to destroy each other as they actually explicitly stated, and on top of that, making money with it. The help of the West to USSR was equivalent to 7% of their industrial production, considering they organized the raise of the Nazis, funded them, fostered their full speed rearmament in the 30's, handed them the whole continental Europe without a fight and continued funding them during the war, I happily call BULLSHIT on saying that the West "helped" USSR against the Nazis. Some people really need to grow some critical thinking and stop being duped by Western propaganda like kids, for fucks sake...

The claim that the Nazis were fighting alone is hilarious revisionist BS. The Nazis had the whole of Europe working for them
in their factories. WWII was a conventional war so factories were super important.

One of the results of having captured labour making their bombs was that many were duds. But they still gained way more than
any sabotage could offset.

This whole "Nazis were fighting alone" BS is a western propaganda trope. It evident in the total discounting of the Nazi
allies (Hungary, Romania, Italy, Croatia, and others) whose soldiers died on the eastern front but are never counted
as losses by the German side when comparing to Soviet losses. You see, 1.5 million is not an important number
of casualties but western "sources" lowball German losses.

And now every western fcuk thinks that the Soviets actually used human wave tactics during WWII. Such tactics
were used by the Chinese in Korea.

kvs wrote:The claim that the Nazis were fighting alone is hilarious revisionist BS.    The Nazis had the whole of Europe working for them
in their factories.   WWII was a conventional war so factories were super important.

One of the results of having captured labour making their bombs was that many were duds.   But they still gained way more than
any sabotage could offset.  

This whole "Nazis were fighting alone" BS is a western propaganda trope.   It evident in the total discounting of the Nazi
allies (Hungary, Romania, Italy, Croatia, and others) whose soldiers died on the eastern front but are never counted
as losses by the German side when comparing to Soviet losses.    You see, 1.5 million is not an important number
of casualties but western "sources" lowball German losses.  

And now every western fcuk thinks that the Soviets actually used human wave tactics during WWII.   Such tactics
were used by the Chinese in Korea.  

There were more French fighting together with the Germans than in the "Ressistance", together with Dutch, Scandinavians, Spaniards etc etc... we could be piling layer of crushing facts upon another for one week, the size of Western distortion about WWII is just mind blowing

Wikicrappia and its sources do not include a single one of those groups in its list of Nazi allied forces. WWII had similar aspects
to the war in Syria in that hordes of Nazi jihadis joined the effort to invade and destroy the USSR. These irregulars are systematically
omitted from the war accounting.

So it is actually true that the USSR was fighting against Europe during WWII. But the key detail is that it was Europe that
instigated the war and was driven by hate.

LMFS wrote:Spare us the crap, the West was financing Nazi Germany, the BIS was handing in the deposits of the occupied countries and that is much more important than distraction side acts, the essentially useless contribution in weapons (unusable old crap that never got to the battlefield) or paid for contribution in other industrial goods the USSR received. The West was helping both rivals to destroy each other as they actually explicitly stated, and on top of that, making money with it. The help of the West to USSR was equivalent to 7% of their industrial production, considering they organized the raise of the Nazis, funded them, fostered their full speed rearmament in the 30's, handed them the whole continental Europe without a fight and continued funding them during the war, I happily call BULLSHIT on saying that the West "helped" USSR against the Nazis. Some people really need to grow some critical thinking and stop being duped by Western propaganda like kids, for fucks sake...

Some sources would be good. I'm aware of the likes of Ford having factories in Germany but more info wouldn't go amiss. Nevertheless, you state 'I happily call BULLSHIT on saying that the West "helped" USSR against the Nazis', so presumably in your mind, the invasions of Northern Africa, Italy and France (D-Day), as well as the USAAF and RAF bombing campaigns against German industrial centres and the $11bn of US lend lease aid to the USSR were all 'Western propaganda' and therefore fictional?

And just to make clear, this isn't an anti-Russian post. I'm aware of the sacrifice made by the Soviet Union and their overall contribution to the war (e.g. building 24k tanks a month in 1943) which was ultimately crucial, just clarifying that the Western allies did help.

Finty wrote:

LMFS wrote:Spare us the crap, the West was financing Nazi Germany, the BIS was handing in the deposits of the occupied countries and that is much more important than distraction side acts, the essentially useless contribution in weapons (unusable old crap that never got to the battlefield) or paid for contribution in other industrial goods the USSR received. The West was helping both rivals to destroy each other as they actually explicitly stated, and on top of that, making money with it. The help of the West to USSR was equivalent to 7% of their industrial production, considering they organized the raise of the Nazis, funded them, fostered their full speed rearmament in the 30's, handed them the whole continental Europe without a fight and continued funding them during the war, I happily call BULLSHIT on saying that the West "helped" USSR against the Nazis. Some people really need to grow some critical thinking and stop being duped by Western propaganda like kids, for fucks sake...

Some sources would be good. I'm aware of the likes of Ford having factories in Germany but more info wouldn't go amiss.

Read em' and weep. The book in PDF form that exposed Western Robber Barons who financed Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler's rise to power. A lot of companies that aided and abetted 1930's era fascists have had serious rebranding's and go by different names now.

Facts and Fascism by George Seldes


https://archive.org/details/FactsAndFascism/FactsandFascism_BW

I wouldn't say fuck all, the North Africa campaign and the arctic convoys may not have been game changers for the soviets but nevertheless, providing aid and keeping a second front open in the European theatre still helped.

In terms of who they were killing the Soviets fought the German Army and the German Air Force. The US and UK spent most of their energy fighting the German Air Force and bombing the women and children and old men in Germany with their strategic bombing campaign... funny thing is that the bombing campaign of Germany against the UK failed and so did the bombing campaign of UK and US against Germany.

and the $11bn of US lend lease aid to the USSR were all 'Western propaganda' and therefore fictional?

If I win a gold medal at the olympics but I bought the food I ate during my training at your grocery store do I have to credit you with my medal?

It would have been vastly more useful for the Soviet Union if the west had kept all that lend lease crap and moved d day to 1942 instead of when the war was already fully decided.

Sure the west might have tripled the number of men they lost in that conflict but that would also have meant the Soviets would not have lost so many men either so overall it would have reduced the loss of life... but really the west liked the fact that the Soviets and the Nazis were fighting each other... the more of each other that died the happier the west was so don't pretend the west gave a shit about helping Stalin... they could easily have done more but they didn't want to increase their losses till it was clear if they didn't act they would be meeting the Soviet soldiers on the English Channel.

It is quite easy: you cannot understand WWII if you don't grasp what it was about: the umpteenth rise and use of a lethal fascist force by the West to finish off the Russians. This is the method preferred by the West, the same we see today in ME with the takfiri or with yet another crop of Nazis in Eastern Europe.

There are hundreds and thousands of really clear evidence I am not going to list here, but just as an appetizer:

> Why were all sorts of treaties signed with Nazi Germany during the 30's when they were on their knees, allowing them to become a military powerhouse
> Why fund them
> Why no outrage about their ideology in the 30's
> Why thousands upon thousands of European volunteer fighting with the Nazis
> Why no fight when they took Europe (they very Nazis at Nüremberg said they where outnumbered ca. 120 divisions to 15 in the West and England+France did NOTHING at the time Poland was taken)
> England the first to bomb civilian targets in Germany unleashed German half arsed retaliation
> US continued business with the Nazis during the war
> US declared interest in supporting the weaker side to ensure a more prolonged war with worst effects on belligerent countries
> No stop of financing for Nazi Germany during the war, cooperation of the banks, not a bullet fired against Switzerland
> Churchill negotiation in 1944 with Nazis to counter-attack against USSR
> Intervention in Europe by US when the Red Army had already won and the only thing at stake was the control of the continent, not the defeat of the Nazis
> Insistent demands by England to nuke the Russians right after the war
> Result of the war in clear favour of the Anglo establishment, with the total destruction of their geopolitical rivals and start of an era of US hegemony

Etc etc etc etc

Anything done outside the Eastern Front in the WWII is peanuts and irrelevant, at least in the European theater.

England and Anglo establishment was, is and will be a mortal enemy of Russia. They used Nazi Germany against them, like they now want to use the limitrophes and Eastern Crazes. And their excuses back then for "allowing" the rise of the Nazis are the same lame BS they use today to regret the destruction of Lybia, the invasion of Irak etc etc. that they themselves provoked.  Like said, if people don't get this about WWII, then in all honesty I think it is useless for them to know every date and every battle. And it is specially sad, since the motives and tactics have not changed at all and still today are being used to provoke one more war against Russia.

The Soviets didn't always cover themselves in glory. Let's not forget the invasion of Finland, annexation of the Baltic states, division of Poland, the Katyn incident and sitting by doing nothing as the Warsaw uprising happened (admittedly Britain and France did eff all when Poland got invaded in Sept 1939, hence the phoney war), so it's no surprise that the West didn't always have the best opinion of them. As for what happened in the 1930s, the lack of action from France/UK in containing Germany can partly be put down to incompetence and not wanting another war until it was too late. It is true that Germany was viewed by some as a bulwark against communism in the 1930s and therefore not an enemy to whoever believed that.  Supporting Germany was self-serving for some in the west and perhaps Switzerland should have been dealt with more firmly. At a minimum, they were supplying Germany with ball bearings.

This idea of having enemies as friends against communism reminds me of Vietnam. It was rather shameful what happened there after the second world war where Ho Chi Minh and Americans sympathetic to their cause were disregarded due to a rather irrational fear of communism here which led to the allies arming Japanese POWs to fight their old allies, the Viet Minh.

Pro tip: coincidences do not exist in politics. Forget all those phoney Western excuses, they are all BS of the highest order for illiterate people. State thinking is older than farting, it is all invented and known since millennia by any non retarded player, and these gentlemen ruling the world for some centuries now are all but stupid. Who would have thought that creating a nazi russophobic monster, fund it, turn it into a military juggernaut and throw it against the USSR would have resulted in a war? Who would have thought that bombing Libya into a gang-ruled shithole may be detrimental to its statehood and well-being of their population? The consequences of their "naivety" and "misjudgements" are interestingly always to be borne by other and never by themselves. I don't know what you think, but 100% correlation is causality and not coincidence in the world where I live...

The whole "conspiracy theory" smear is brainwashing by the establishment to discredit serious analysis of the behaviour of hierarchies.
Society is a freaking conspiracy theory. Your job and the food you eat are all conspiracy theories. The idea that some sort of
order emerges from pure stochastic noise is beyond magical thinking, it is retarded. This BS is what is claimed to operate under
capitalism. As if robber barons, tycoons and oligarchs never existed under capitalism and everything was determined by competition
of mom and pop corner stores and garage entrepreneur startups. The West Virginia coal miners were not serfs on a de facto
feudal plantation, they were totally free and just chose to make themselves poor by paying the company their last dollar for food
and rent.

In the real world, state meddling and conspiracy to control resources around the world to gain riches is as old as history itself.
Russia was never part of the "us", it was a competitor "them" that needed to be eliminated. This has not changed for the last 1000 years
and the west is like the endless surf on the seashore pounding at the rocks and sand. The west's drang nach osten is fundamental
to western society. Every set of western elites always runs into the Russian wall because it thinks it can control the planet.
There is no "live and let live" and any acceptance of other major actors controlling domains that are to be left alone. China
knows this. It either submits to western ownership or it resists. There is no middle ground. So the falling out with the western
elites over the last 15 years was predictable.

It is impressive how easy it is to control public opinion. But it makes sense since humans are tribal. So there is no incentive
to deeply analyze and criticize one's tribe. It only becomes an issue if the public perceives a threat to its own well being from
some tribal elder policy. But that is a vanishingly small set of instances.

The Soviets didn't always cover themselves in glory. Let's not forget the invasion of Finland, annexation of the Baltic states, division of Poland, the Katyn incident and sitting by doing nothing as the Warsaw uprising happened (admittedly Britain and France did eff all when Poland got invaded in Sept 1939, hence the phoney war),

The part of Poland the Soviets took was the part of Russia the Polish seized in their conflict just after WWI... the land the Soviets took was former Russian land stolen from them by Poland. Finland was also part of Russia as were the Baltic states.

Finland had sided with the Germans so the west should have supported the Soviet attack on Finland, Stalin asked for land to improve protection and defence of Leningrad which was in an exposed location... the Fins refused so Stalin attack them and took what they wanted.

The Warsaw Uprising was an uprising by UK supported Polish factions that wanted to seize power ahead of the Soviet troops arriving so they could dictate terms and control Poland... why would the Soviets rush to save them.... just like the US and the UK delaying D Day till 44... let two enemies fight each other and wear each other out...

so it's no surprise that the West didn't always have the best opinion of them.

Have you read the books or seen the TV series Reilly Ace of Spies?

The west was no an ally by choice with the Soviets, they hated them only slightly less than they hated the Nazis... in fact today they try to equate them as being the same... yet pretended to be allies working together at the time.

At a minimum, they were supplying Germany with ball bearings.

They were producing AA gun shells to shoot down American and British bombers... it wasn't just nazi gold and blood diamonds...

This idea of having enemies as friends against communism reminds me of Vietnam. It was rather shameful what happened there after the second world war where Ho Chi Minh and Americans sympathetic to their cause were disregarded due to a rather irrational fear of communism here which led to the allies arming Japanese POWs to fight their old allies, the Viet Minh.

The irony of a people trying to be free and throwing off the shackles of imperialism were bombed by America... a country colonised by european colonial powers of Britain and France and Germany and many other countries... Vietnam is known as a war in the west rather than a place but which war... the first wars to get rid of the French, the war to get rid of the Japanese or when the French came back and then the Americans... if the Ho Chi Min had been supported by the Americans against the French things could have been totally different...

The amusing thing is that some blame communism for the wests antagonism against Russia but the Antagonism existed well before 1917... the British feared the Russians would steal India from them for a very long time and most British colonies feared the Russian menace... load of old poppycock.

There are western historical atlases that show the part contested with Finland running up to WWII was part of Russia 1000 years ago.
This is not some foreign land which Russia invaded. In fact, it was the Teutonic order that started the ethnic cleansing of
Russians in the region. This includes the Principality of Polotsk which was situated on both sides of Lake Peipus.

The story of how Ivan Grozny destroyed Novgorod is so much intellectual excrement. Novgorod would have fallen
into the hands foreign land grabbers if it wasn't for Grozny. As with Navalny, there is always some local whore that
can be bough for 30 silvers who then gets treated as the true leader. Like Guaido.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Self-serving historical revisionism is a western obsession. Given long enough we will have the commonly accepted view that
the New World aboriginals were migratory war tribes that tried to grab land from its rightful Europe derived owners.

GarryB wrote:The Warsaw Uprising was an uprising by UK supported Polish factions that wanted to seize power ahead of the Soviet troops arriving so they could dictate terms and control Poland... why would the Soviets rush to save them.... just like the US and the UK delaying D Day till 44... let two enemies fight each other and wear each other out...

The irony of a people trying to be free and throwing off the shackles of imperialism were bombed by America... a country colonised by european colonial powers of Britain and France and Germany and many other countries... Vietnam is known as a war in the west rather than a place but which war... the first wars to get rid of the French, the war to get rid of the Japanese or when the French came back and then the Americans... if the Ho Chi Min had been supported by the Americans against the French things could have been totally different...

The amusing thing is that some blame communism for the wests antagonism against Russia but the Antagonism existed well before 1917... the British feared the Russians would steal India from them for a very long time and most British colonies feared the Russian menace... load of old poppycock.

Of course the Soviet course of action at Warsaw was pragmatic from their point of view, it just didn't help their image in the West.

The French were the biggest crooks in Vietnam as they didn't want to lose the jewel in the crown of their empire and so ramped up the communist threat to get yankee support. Ironic really because the first American to be killed in Nam was a member of the OSS fighting alongside the Viet Minh against the French. Eventually their attitude changed but by then it was too late, America became more and more committed.


I'd say the mistrust towards Russia regarding its threat to the empire in the east wasn't completely misplaced, but perhaps was overestimated. Of course for Britain and Russia it was like a cold war in the 1870s, the great game.

magnumcromagnon wrote:The Nazi's were known for junk-science more than anything, and their race science said Slavic people were inferior to Germanic people.....surprise surprise, by the end of 1945 the great Slavic power (The USSR) ended up curb stomping the great Germanic power (Nazi Germany) to the point where Germany has yet to recover their former military greatness. Nazi's have been falsely attributed for "flying wings", when in reality a Soviet engineer by the name of Boris Cheranovsky flew the first 'Flying Wing' (the BICh-3) back in 1926.

I should also add that a Russian citizen (Alexander P. de Seversky) who migrated to America, in the same year (1926) invented the technique of aerial/in-flight refueling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_P._de_Seversky

Of course the Soviet course of action at Warsaw was pragmatic from their point of view, it just didn't help their image in the West.

A west that had already sold out Eastern Europe at Yalta in terms of which country could keep troops and dominate which region after the cessation of hostilities?

I doubt the Soviets could care less about their image in the west... it was never going to be good except when they were in the process of destroying the Nazis for them... soon afterwards the knives were out.

The French were the biggest crooks in Vietnam as they didn't want to lose the jewel in the crown of their empire and so ramped up the communist threat to get yankee support. Ironic really because the first American to be killed in Nam was a member of the OSS fighting alongside the Viet Minh against the French. Eventually their attitude changed but by then it was too late, America became more and more committed.

As usual, the US picks a side... often arbitrarily and then ignores all evidence to the contrary... look at Syria... the US is essentially on the same side as ISIS and Alquada... because those two groups are obviously card carrying members defending peace and democracy because they are fighting Assad.

I'd say the mistrust towards Russia regarding its threat to the empire in the east wasn't completely misplaced, but perhaps was overestimated. Of course for Britain and Russia it was like a cold war in the 1870s, the great game.

Funny it is OK to write off what the UK does as a great game... was what the Nazis did also a great game?

Lots of nazis got comfortable jobs and nice houses and got to hire lots of mates in the US making missiles and planes and all sorts of things... the Imperial Japanese doctors got the same treatment... there was no Nuremberg trials for Japan despite their many crimes...

Isos wrote:Germany much stronger than them on 1 vs 1 basis and they were very close to create nuclear bombs. Soviets needed on the other hand to wait for US traitors to give them nuks.

Stronger as in technologically more advanced? Possible because they spent years preparing for WW-II. USSR was not expecting this invasion. So when it happened they realized that the only way that they can win against an enemy this advanced is if they can outgun, out man the enemy. So the focus of the Soviet leadership more often than not was on quantity not necessarily quality.

Apart from that I'm not sure is there is any other interpretation of the word stronger. Even Indian soldiers (mostly Hindus & Sikhs) deployed in France by the Brits were able to defeat the Nazis.

That is a pure myth.

If the USSR was not expecting an attack, it would not have tried to get the British and the French to contain Germany.
But in 1938 at Munich they gave Stalin the finger and threw Czechoslovakia into Hitler's maw. Pooland grabbed a piece of
Czechoslovakia as well.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact as a brilliant delaying tactic that gave the USSR time to shift factories to the Urals
and to build up its military. The typical ignorant sap thinks that the USSR in 1930 was the same as in 1939.
The 1930s were a massive industrialization effort never seen in the history of the world. This industrialization
drive is what allowed the USSR to fight a massive conventional war.

The vaunted German technological superiority over the USSR is another pet delusion. The USSR had equipment
which worked at -40C. The Germans didn't. German tanks were over-engineered and not technologically superior.
That is why they had to be redesigned so much and still had pathetic engine problems. Soviet long range artillery
was in no way inferior to anything fielded by Germany. And the USSR had the only real MLRS system during WWII.
Germany's attempt at one was some sort of joke.

But, but, but, Germans had jet aircraft and the V-2. Did any of this even make a non-vanishing contribution to their
war effort? People who pimp Nazi superiority need to try harder. If the Nazis were so superior, they would have
had all that wunderwaffen at the beginning of the war and would have won their war.

And I forgot to add, that German vs. Soviet losses in terms of men comparisons spread around by the west are some
of most ridiculous twisting of facts to serve an agenda.

1) The German allies are routinely not counted.

2) The fact that Germans basically murdered all Soviet POWs is ignored. So we have 3.3 million Soviet POWs being
counted as KIA. About 20% of German POWs died in Soviet captivity.

3) Routine claims that the USSR used human wave attacks when it never did any such thing.

The idea that the USSR pulled a victory out of a hat when it was totally caught off guard by the German attack
is for imbeciles. These are the same ones who worship the General Winter theory.

Of course the Soviet course of action at Warsaw was pragmatic from their point of view, it just didn't help their image in the West.

Why would you expect them to take decisions and choose to do things from any other point of view?

3) Routine claims that the USSR used human wave attacks when it never did any such thing.

Worse than that... "documentaries" like "Enemy at the Gates" show a very slanted view of the eastern front... one guy gets a rifle and one guy gets a five round clip of ammo... does the guy with the rifle get any ammo too... they didn't seem to be handed ammo, and handing out loaded rifles is a serious breach of safety protocols isn't it?

So essentially you are giving one man a rifle and one man five rounds of ammo so neither can shoot at the enemy...

If we look at historical record however we can see the truth... Stalingrad was a trap a carefully baited and prepared trap... Soviet soldiers were not arriving directly from cattle cars and driven across the river to face Germany machine guns with a five round clip of ammo.

I mean for goodness sake how long would five rounds in the guys hand and the other five rounds in the rifle even last?

It is not a computer game where you run from position to position and find med kids and ammo dumps to keep you with enough ammo to fire at the enemy... the path you take has just been taken by thousands of men before you any ammo or health kits are gone.

If we actually look up the historical record at one point during the Stalingrad campaign they had to send a rushed group of soldiers across the river because of German advances and problems with ice floating down the river. The rushed group was not fully equipped... the description of which was that one in ten soldiers didn't have a rifle but all had grenades and ammo. Once they arrived on the other shore there was an abundance of small arms because every soldier who went over had a rifle or some sort of weapon and the ones that were killed by German fire no longer needed those weapons. In the buildings they held it was standard procedure to place weapons and their ammo at various firing points so soldiers holding the building could move from firing point to firing point using the weapons in those positions. By this stage of the war SMGs and pistols were available along with plenty of grenades which were ideal for street fighting. Rifles were not so handy but were powerful weapons able to shoot through heavier cover. LMGs were also popular of course like the DP-27...

This is why politics and public perceptions are such a steaming pile of nonsense. It takes actual education on various subjects to
understand them. Talking points and stereotypes are not thinking. They are a spasm reflex worthy of muscles and not brains.

The really sad thing, is that the vast majority believes that talking points and stereotypes are real thought.

Well put kvs. Just to add that during the 30's the West was preparing Germany for a war by signing treaties enabling them to develop their military an financing their industrialisation, such preparations are very lengthy and obvious to see for any observer, that is why USSR also did a titanic effort to industrialize too, and why the "purges" of 37-38 were critical and precisely timed to rout the 5th column in the state apparatus and military just when the fight was going to start. Of course they were perfectly aware of what was going on, since they were the main target in the upcoming war...

Sujoy wrote: Stronger as in technologically more advanced? Possible because they spent years preparing for WW-II. USSR was not expecting this invasion. So when it happened they realized that the only way that they can win against an enemy this advanced is if they can outgun, out man the enemy. So the focus of the Soviet leadership more often than not was on quantity not necessarily quality.

You are a sick person. Bogged by inferiority complex you try to make baseless allegations against Soviet Union.

We are talking about an industrialized nation and not a third world shithole like India that remained slaves of the British for over 200 years. USSR already had information about a possible German invasion. That's the reason why production of Tanks and Artillery units were stepped up two years before the invasion began.

I think that is overly harsh.   Thanks to the western propaganda juggernaut most of the world is simply unaware of such
details.   The USSR used the Molotov-Ribbentrop quiet before the storm to increase its war capacity by 40%.   Most people
have been fed the line that Stalin and Hitler were allies because of this non-aggression pact.   That must have made Poland
the allies of the Germans too since they had a similar pact.  

I recall the Ukr Banderite nazis in Canada bitching about how the USSR supplied the Nazis with wheat which they painted
as the worst thing ever.   But their beloved yanquis were financing and shipping oil to the Nazis during WWII and not only
before it.   Soviet wheat did not make Hitler.   American industrial and even political support helped Hitler a lot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II

The bombing of Germany started in earnest in 1943 when it was clear that the Germans were losing on the Eastern front.
The west did very little, including Lend-Lease shipment volumes, before 1943.   Clearly the hope was that Hitler would
win against the "rotten facade".   When it became clear that was not going to happen, there was a rush to prevent
all of Europe being "lost" to the Soviets.