the allies could not say with any confidence that the nazis were broken by Moscow. some nazis knew but were too delusional or afraid to admit it i imagine. using a hindsight fairly disputed post-op point for when the nazis “lost” to prove lend lease wasn’t helpful or intended to help lacks historical perspective. imagine telling a soviet they’d won the war in january 1942. lmao

but you still haven’t explained why the US aided the soviets. okay we don’t want the Soviets liberating Europe… why’d they give them resources? could they not slow the advance of the Red Menace across the continent by turning off the tap?

at the core of this is a refusal to reconcile capitalist interests possibly overlying an antifascist project. some US firms were invested in nazi germany. they made out with US government reimbursment for damages, and keeping wartime profits. that section of capital did not make it so the US interest in defeating the nazis was not economical. on the contrary, it was a retread of WW1, a defence of investments and loans to France & the UK, a defence of their colonies, and by the end an appropriation of their capital and imperial interests. the Nazis were an obstacle to the majority of US capital expansion prospects. US favor to and shipping of war materiel to the UK prior to Barbarossa conclusively indicate this reality, separate from a enthusiasm members of the US bourgeoisie and government may have possessed for nazi snuffling of communists—the nazis still had to go, as competitiors in the imperial game.