You're not answering my question:
Britain got 3 times as much aid from Lend-Lease than the USSR. If Lend-Lease is the main factor behind the Soviets defeating the Nazis (as proven by Nazis suffering 80% of their dead soldiers in the Eastern Front), why didn't Britain kill many more Nazis?
Lend-lease, it's USA policy.
Answer my question: if lend-lease won the war, if Britain received $30bn and the USSR received $11bn, why didn't Britain win the war?
I provided you sources with NUMERICAL DATA contradicting your statements directly. Until you prove otherwise with evidence, don't continue this conversation. This is a community about history, not vibes-based analysis.
I did recognize that lend-lease was very significant. However, Britain got times as much aid from Lend-Lease and they weren't the ones who won the war.
every factory that could be disassembled was systematically sent to Russia
Then why was GDP per capita higher in Estonia and Czechoslovakia higher than in the USSR? Why did Romania go from having 40% of industrial workers to 20% after the 1990s? What's your source for this?
ressources were systematically sent to Russia
I already proved, with sources, that it was backwards. The net material balances were extractive from the USSR which gave resources like metals, gas and oil at subsidized prices to the COMECON countries. Think about it for just one second: the USSR does not need resources, it's the largest country in the world, a fossil fuel exporter, and has immense material wealth from the extensive mining complexes in the Urals. Why would the USSR need raw materials from tiny countries in its orbit? But again, if you don't believe me, you're free to read about it. This is a history community, not a "let's make up reality without sources" community. I provided you sources.
For its many mistakes, the USSR didn't pillage the resources of any country, the only argument you could make in this direction are postwar reparations against Nazi countries such as Hungary. After 1955 especially, the trade policy inside the COMECON was one of the USSR supplying raw goods at subsidized prices in exchange for industrially manufactured goods. This policy is detailed with numbers in Robert C. Allen's "Farm to Factory" and Albert Szymanski's "Human Rights in the Soviet Union". What's your data source for claiming the Soviet Union pillaged any country?
Poland had invaded these territories in the Russian Civil War and annexed them, as you see on one of the maps I provided those territories had ethnic majorities of Belarusian, Ukrainian and Lithuanian peoples at the time, what makes you think they were Polish territories?
The fact that the Soviets didn't manufacture trucks is because they got them from the USA, not backwards. A truck is significantly cheaper to manufacture than a tank.
we sent them
The US sent a total of about 7 thousand tanks to the USSR, but the T-34 Soviet tank saw about 80k units built in total, so while lend lease was very significant, the vast majority of war material of the Soviets was of Soviet origin.
uneasy pact with Germany
This is a widely repeated misconstruction of the events in Reddit and Lemmy. I'm gonna please ask you to actually read my comment and to be open to the historical evidence I bring (using Wikipedia as a source, hopefully not suspect of being tankie-biased), because I believe there is a great mistake in the way contemporary western nations interpret history of WW2 and the interwar period. Thank you for actually making the effort, I know it's a long comment, but please do engage with the points I'm making:
The only country who offered to start a collective offensive against the Nazis and to uphold the defense agreement with Czechoslovakia as an alternative to the Munich Betrayal was the USSR. From that Wikipedia article: "The Soviet Union announced its willingness to come to Czechoslovakia's assistance, provided the Red Army would be able to cross Polish and Romanian territory; both countries refused." Poland could have literally been saved from Nazi invasion if France and itself had agreed to start a war together against Nazi Germany, but they didn't want to. By the logic of "invading Poland" being akin to Nazi collaboration, Poland was as imperialist as the Nazis.
As a Spaniard leftist it's so infuriating when the Soviet Union, the ONLY country in 1936 which actively fought fascism in Europe by sending weapons, tanks and aviation to my homeland in the other side of the continent in the Spanish civil war against fascism, is accused of appeasing the fascists. The Soviets weren't dumb, they knew the danger and threat of Nazism and worked for the entire decade of the 1930s under the Litvinov Doctrine of Collective Security to enter mutual defense agreements with England, France and Poland, which all refused because they were convinced that the Nazis would honor their own stated purpose of invading the communists in the East. The Soviets went as far as to offer ONE MILLION troops to France (Archive link against paywall) together with tanks, artillery and aviation in 1939 in exchange for a mutual defense agreement, which the French didn't agree to because of the stated reason. Just from THIS evidence, the Soviets were by far the most antifascist country in Europe throughout the 1930s, you literally won't find any other country doing any remotely similar efforts to fight Nazism. If you do, please provide evidence.
The invasion of "Poland" is also severely misconstrued. The Soviets didn't invade what we think of nowadays when we say Poland. They invaded overwhelmingly Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian lands that Poland had previously invaded in 1919. Poland in 1938, a year before the invasion:
"Polish" territories invaded by the USSR in 1939:
The Soviets invaded famously Polish cities such as Lviv (sixth most populous city in modern Ukraine), Pinsk (important city in western Belarus) and Vilnius (capital of freaking modern Lithuania). They only invaded a small chunk of what you'd consider Poland nowadays, and the rest of lands were actually liberated from Polish occupation and returned to the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian socialist republics. Hopefully you understand the importance of giving Ukrainians back their lands and sovereignty?
Additionally, the Soviets didn't invade Poland together with the Nazis, they invaded a bit more than two weeks after the Nazi invasion, at a time when the Polish government had already exiled itself and there was no Polish administration. The meaning of this, is that all lands not occupied by Soviet troops, would have been occupied by Nazis. There was no alternative. Polish troops did not resist Soviet occupation but they did resist Nazi invasion. The Soviet occupation effectively protected millions of Slavic peoples like Poles, Ukrainians and Belarusians from the stated aim of Nazis of genociding the Slavic peoples all the way to the Urals.
All in all, my conclusion is: the Soviets were fully aware of the dangers of Nazism and fought against it earlier than anyone (Spanish civil war), spent the entire 30s pushing for an anti-Nazi mutual defence agreement which was refused by France, England and Poland, tried to honour the existing mutual defense agreement with Czechoslovakia which France rejected and Poland didn't allow (Romania neither but they were fascists so that's a given), and offered to send a million troops to France's border with Germany to destroy Nazism but weren't allowed to do so. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a tool of postponing the war in a period in which the USSR, a very young country with only 10 years of industrialization behind it since the first 5-year plan in 1929, was growing at a 10% GDP per year rate and needed every moment it could get. I can and do criticise decisions such as the invasion of Finland, but ultimately even the western leaders at the time seem to generally agree with my interpretation:
“In those days the Soviet Government had grave reason to fear that they would be left one-on-one to face the Nazi fury. Stalin took measures which no free democracy could regard otherwise than with distaste. Yet I never doubted myself that his cardinal aim had been to hold the German armies off from Russia for as long as might be” (Paraphrased from Churchill’s December 1944 remarks in the House of Commons.)
“It would be unwise to assume Stalin approves of Hitler’s aggression. Probably the Soviet Government has merely sought a delaying tactic, not wanting to be the next victim. They will have a rude awakening, but they think, at least for now, they can keep the wolf from the door” Franklin D. Roosevelt (President of the United States, 1933–1945), from Harold L. Ickes’s diary entries, early September 1939. Ickes’s diaries are published as The Secret Diary of Harold Ickes.
"One must suppose that the Soviet Government, seeing no immediate prospect of real support from outside, decided to make its own arrangements for self‑defence, however unpalatable such an agreement might appear. We in this House cannot be astonished that a government acting solely on grounds of power politics should take that course” Neville Chamberlain House of Commons Statement, August 24, 1939 (one day after pact's signing)
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this
And that's where we stop arguing. There is no evidence of higher rates of sexual assault by Soviet troops than by any other, and the whole "rapist hordes" stems from Nazi wartime propaganda and has been picked up by racists like you.