The Eastern Front

90% of all Soviet equipment and infastructure was provided by the US. Without it the Soviets literally would've rolled over and died, like they were doing until winter despite outnumbering the Germans 12 to 1.

The first and greatest communist state owes its continued existence to a capitalist state. Why are commies such beta losers?

>>1801072
>The first and greatest communist state owes its continued existence to a capitalist state. Why are commies such beta losers?
Because Churchill wanted the Soviet Union to enter the war on behalf other Allies since like day one, to remove the threat of German invasion of England.

>>1801060

Because the German preparations were predicated that if you bashed the Soviets enough, they would fold the way they did in WW1.

They didn't.

And when they don't, you've got a problem. Trying to occupy the USSR is like trying to occupy the Atlantic ocean. There just aren't enough men and things are too spread out for it to be practical. Yeah, they had no qualms about rounding up and killing partisans. Guess what? Partisan attacks kept increasing in frequency, not decreasing. Yeah, the Germans kept pushing ahead for roughly 18 months, but each kilometer became harder and harder, especially as the Soviets tore up track and hauled away rolling stock. It got so bad that by the time they cleared the Pripet, it took a liter of fuel just to ship a second liter of fuel to the front lines. And all the force in the world doesn't matter if you cant' effectively project it to the center of mass of the enemy, and the Germans just couldn't.


The Soviets won WW2 with Stalins' centralization of absolute power around himself in the 30s. Once that happened, it would take a hell of a lot more resources than the Germans could muster to put them down.

File: Lend Lease to USSR dates.png (278KB, 3168x4094px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 3168x4094px

>>1801072


[citation seriously needed]

Because when you compare pic related to

https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ww2overview1998.pdf (Pages 27 and 34 being most pertinent)

You don't get anything near that.

>Without it the Soviets literally would've rolled over and died, like they were doing until winter
You mean, before LL came in any meaningful quantity?

> despite outnumbering the Germans 12 to 1.

You do realize Barbarossa saw the Germans outnumbering the Soviets, right? And that even if you count all the mobilization (implying it wasn't disrupted and ad-hoc and having people overrun while mobilizing such that you never saw a coherent fighting force of that size) you'd only have about a 1.9:1 advantage to the USSR.

General December, of course.

shameless bump

>>1801097
He's literally memed on you.
He almost every eastern front meme possible in that post

>>1801072

>outnumbering the Germans 12 to 1.
Nice, 12 vs 1, impressive knowledge of history.

The population if soviet union was aroun 190 mil. Population of germany was around 90 mil. However, germany had alot of friends, romania, finland, hungary, italy. Also ukraine and belarus were more or less fully occupied and therefore the effective population of the SU was considerably less, since those two regions are populous. So it was roughly equal.

>>1801072
This is one of the rare posts on /his/ which transcends the shitty quality of the board with its even greater shittiness.

>>1801072
R U S E D
U
S
E
D

File: Map_Soviet_1941_Winter_counteroffensive.jpg (197KB, 1256x956px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1256x956px

>>1801097
I was gonna post this but you beat me to it, the Soviets performed a military miracle by surviving the initial German onslaught when the Red Army wasn't even mobilized and couldn't hope to fight back for weeks


Germany could either win or lose in 1942, and the fact Moscow wasn't even touched spelled the doom for Germany, at that point nothing could have saved them from the sheer absurdity of Soviet production in tandem with American surplus, and Stalin's (inhuman) forced migration of Soviet industry to east of the Urals


>Yo Heinz how many fronts you want?

>Just fuck my shit up Sergei

>Say no more

>>1801459
What's interesting is that of the 3.5m axis troops that set off for Barbarossa, almost a million were non-German. As you mentioned, Romanians and Finns were the majority.

>>1801060
The reasons why it became such an upset was because Hitler and the chiefs of staff severely underestimated the USSR's industrial potential to produce armor and other war material, believing that once Ukraine and the Donbass regions fell, Russia would be no different from the backward shithole it was in 1914.

But most of Germany's woes were self-inflicted, one was underestimating the USSR's ability to equip and arm their men, initially expecting the Soviets to only have enough material to fully equip 150 divisions, where the Soviets fully equipped closer to 830 divisions throughout the war.

The Germans also had very few arrangements made to replace lost armor and trucks, with nearly 2/3'rds of Germany's mechanized vehicles either destroyed or rendered unusable by the time they approached Moscow, meaning by the time they made the final push, the grand majority of the Wehrmacht was doing so on foot.

Supply chains were also impossible to keep up with advancing forces, and exacerbated by the fact that the USSR uses a different rail gauge than in Germany, with Germany making absolutely no arrangements to produce or use trains with the USSR standard of 1,067 mm gauge.

Here's a video that catalogues all the major blunders Germany made in its preparation and execution of Barbarossa, definitely worth the watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_3R-Rkn_98

File: Soviet Victory in WW2 Part 2.png (92KB, 1894x748px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1894x748px

>>1801594

>>1801060
Russians knew that they were fighting for their survival as a nation.
It wasn't just fighting some stupid war for the Tsar like in WW1 that they wanted no part in it.
Shit literally got serious and everyone knew that it was to either fight or die.

File: 800px-Battle_of_Moscow.jpg (137KB, 800x558px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 800x558px

>>1801596
>Armed with heavy shovels, a hastily assembled work force of Moscow women and elderly men gouge a huge tank trap out of the earth to halt German Panzers advancing on the Russian capital. In the feverish effort to save the city, more than 100,000 citizens labored from mid-October until late November digging ditches and building other obstructions. When completed, the ditches extended more than 100 miles.

Would Americans today be capable of such feats?

>>1801619
Half of us would die from over-exertion due to obesity and the other half wouldn't even have broke a sweat due to an obsessive gym culture.

File: Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1981-149-34A,_Russland,_Herausziehen_eines_Autos.jpg (82KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 800x532px

>>1801060
Rasputitsa.

It wasn't the winter that doomed Barbarossa. It was the fall.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasputitsa

>>1801619
Not related to what your example, but seeing how Germany coped during the 4 years of WWI, my lecturer commented that today's living generations would be too soft to handle the conditions that Germany experienced in WWI.

File: Bane, really.jpg (109KB, 569x802px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 569x802px

>>1801689
Considering that they staged a revolution after those 4 years, I guess they were too soft to handle it too.

Too great of political goals, mostly.
The Germans in ww1 weren't out to conquer russia, setting up nationalist buffer states did wonders for securing the safety of their rear, allowing them to safely occupy formerly Russian territory for years. Nazi Germany could have done the same and got off a lot easier.
The easiest way to win a war is to limit your goals.

>>1801689
the german homefront must have been hell

hallo hans vat is for dinner?

1) nothing
2) bread containing sawdust

pick one

>>1801689
>no food
>hyperinflation

not even considering middle class families, how would our droves of tenements and poor people handle it? No food equals no food, can't loot supermarkets if they're empty

God, i'm not sure what I'd do, I don't think most people would be able to grasp it either

>>1801704
Slavs ate wallpaper glue during siege of Leningrad. Also animals.

Also corpses and people.

>>1801072
The Lend-Lease was accounted for only 7-12% of all the resources which the Soviets have used in World War II, even a good portion of it was malfunctioning.Also, it only began to accumulate in the later stages of 1943,basically, in the year when the Soviets broke the Front.


One more thing, the kill/death ratio was barely 1:2, while taking into consideration that almost 5 million Russian prisoners were killed in internment camps.

can I just mention


>be Osterreich
>start two world wars
>50 million people die
>Millions of Soviets, French, Poles, jews are raped, killed and starved
>Deutschland destroyed, it's women raped into oblivion by Anglo / Soviet troops
>Osterreich relatively unharmed
>no division into military districts
>no Soviet occupation
>one of the highest living standards in world

I'm sorry we keep getting away with this

>>1801751
>>Osterreich relatively unharmed
>>no division into military districts
>>no Soviet occupation
That's a lie tho

Austria got buttfucked in 1945 and had Soviet Occupation in Vienna for several years after the war.

>>1801619
Why are they that happy in the picture?

Are they eager to soon take Franz's and Han's cock?

>>1801767
>As forecast in the Moscow Declaration in 1943, there was a subtle difference in the treatment of Austria by the Allies.[55] The Austrian government, consisting of Social Democrats, Conservatives and Communists (until 1947), and residing in Vienna, which was surrounded by the Soviet zone, was recognised by the Western Allies in October 1945 after some doubts that Renner could be Stalin's puppet. Thus the creation of a separate Western Austrian government and the division of the country was avoided

>On 15 May 1955, after talks which lasted for years and were influenced by the Cold War, Austria regained full independence by concluding the Austrian State Treaty in 1955

Okay, but treatment was far better and less occupation like

>>1801777
because the ghost of Alexander Nevsky will shoot them if they don't

>>1801723
That "7-12%" included essential supplies for the soviets, and without them they would not have beaten the Germans. The USA shipped 2.3 million tons of steel to the USSR during the WWII years. That volume of steel was enough for the production of 70,000 T-34 tanks. Aluminum was received in the volume of 229,000 tons, which helped the Soviet aviation and tank industries to run for two years. Lend-lease also supplied 53% of the Russian copper needs/used. Copper being used for electric motors (electric flaps/landing gear), telephone and telegraph wire, Electric motors for factory machinery, Alloy with Zinc for brass or tin for Bronze for cartridge cases and bearings/bushings, etc.

This isn't even including the amount of food that was sent to the soviets, which prevented wide spread famine and allowed the soviet citizens to survive.

>>1801777
seeing as that is a picture from moscow, the place the germans barely got in sight of, the only cock these women will be getting will probably come off a dead hans and franz

>>1801796
Oh so he wants people to be happy, or at the very least, smile as if they were?

Must explain why he's regarded as such a good guy, and a saint at that too.

>He was canonized as a saint of the Russian Orthodox Church by Metropolite Macarius in 1547.[2]

>>1801807
Ah precisely, thus why I minutely specified:
>Are they eager to soon take
They must've been sorely disappointed that the Germans never got to them.

>>1801809
Russians seem to have very loose standards for canonization given St. Olga of Kiev murdered like thousands of innocent people in rather cruel fashions

>>1801788
Well yes. Despite a majority of you voting for the Anschluss, it was seen as Germany forcing it on the country (because it was). So you got that twinge of sympathy. If you had voted yourselves in without German troops watching all the polls they might have been more harsh.

>>1801060
The three holy rules:
>Never invade Russia during winter
>Never get into a land war in Asia
>Never bet against a Sicilian when life and death is involved

>>1801060
They had intel that the Japanese were unlikely to attack Siberia again, and so were able to bring fresh, high-quality units into action against Germans who had outrun their supply lines. After that, it was just a matter of outproducing them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sorge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol#Soviet_assessment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow#Soviet_counteroffensive

>>1801459
"No". That anon probably asspulled some late war stats, but they were eventually outnumbered.

Which army group had it the worst? North, Centre or South? Each had their shitty moments

Really, June of 1941 was the second best time for Germany to invade the USSR. Second best only to May of the same year due to the weather. Attacking in May was the original plan, but Yugoslavia happened.

Any time before or after that would have been far from ideal for the Nazis. Before mid-1941 the German army was either not prepared for such an invasion or Germany was in a bad strategic position (no allies in Eastern Europe, having to deal with France). Any time after that the Red Army would have been overpowered and Stalin would have competed his industrialization plan. May/June of 1941 was that small window where Germany was fairly well prepared and the USSR was still not prepared.

With that said, Operation Barbarossa was not planned too well. Hitler split his troops too much, it would have been enough to send just one army group straight for Moscow and Leningrad. After failing to capture Moscow it was clear that Stalin's regime will survive and will eventually win. Also, Hitler's war aims were completely insane. Occupying almost all of European Russia all the way to the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line was impossible, and also no Soviet leader would have agreed to such a peace treaty. Even if they did, they could never hold all that land and the Reich would have probably collapsed some years later due to constantly fighting partisans.

The best they could hope for would have been a reverse brest-litovsk, where they get the communists overthrown and negotiate a favorable treaty (get the Baltic states and Ukraine) with a new white regime.

>>1802012
Probably army group south. Being involved in both Stalingrad and Kursk usually make for a shitty time.

>>1802087
Also, if Hitler didn't attack the USSR at all, a fully industrialized Soviet Union would have invaded Germany with a reorganized Red Army and completely smash the Germans (who at this point lost air superiority to the British and couldn't expand their industry and war machine in a very fast rate due to shortages of some resources unlike the Soviets).

>>1801806
Negligible in comparison to the overall and local production.

>>1802115

.t Suvarov

Remind me again what makes you think the Soviets "would have invaded Germany eventually"? Was it the treaty they signed divding up the areas between them? The massive amount of trade between the two? The training of the nascent Wehrmacht in camps in the USSR in the early to mid 30s? The lack of Soviet expansionism between Stalin's ascension and the MR pact?

>>1802288
Nice meme tier response. The US supplied 57% of the soviets aviation fuel, 56% aluminium, and 53% of copper. Unless you are pretending to be retarded, and think that the soviets could have won without half of the supplies needed to fly planes and make tanks, than its pretty clear that the soviets would not have won it alone.

Thread theme

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbBkMG1vFbQ

>>1801072
90%

more like less than 8% as far as I know

When the SU won the war in the east (counterattacks winter 41 in front of moscow) there was absolutely NO lend lease.

Stop trying to americanize their victory you lil shit

>>1802419
>When the SU won the war in the east (counterattacks winter 41 in front of moscow) there was absolutely NO lend lease.

Your European """""education""""" is showing. Half the tanks in the battle of Moscow were from Land lease, as well as hundreds of aircraft.

>>1802438

Actually, some 35-40% of the medium and heavy tanks were British, (not Lend Lease), but of course, 85% of the tanks involved were light tanks, BT-7s for the most part.

And the primary reason you had the Vyzama counteroffensive was that the weather was grounding planes; not to mention that in the heavily forested and not particularly mobile fighting, infantry and artillery were the dominant arms, not armor.

>>1802438
Maybe our American education is wrong, not like we have some national or continental standard on education until Common core came around


US textbooks don't even mention the Philippine Insurrection, I'm not saying we take a very Pro US view of history in our country but maybe we really over exemplified the lend lease too much

>>1802438
implying tanks were essential in that offensive

keep trying to claim this war for the us you insecure shitlord

if you are done meming and jerking off on your flag

read a book some day and get some of that european education it would help you not posting autistic opinion based propaganda on /his and getting your ass handed to yourself by the community

They should have been more friendly to the Ukrainians and other minority peoples. In the beginning the Germans where viewed as "liberators" by many but then the Germans started going crazy to prepare the land for German colonization. They made potential allies in to enemies.

>>1802496
Half the fuel for soviet planes and supplies to make tanks were supplied by the US, so yes it was US aid that won the war. When you are done throwing a tantrum i suggest you read some history books, most credible historians agree the USSR could not have won the war alone without US aid.

>>1801060

I never understand the point of that lanyard. Why does a pistol need a lanyard?

>>1802438
>half the tanks in the battle
Do you realize how impossibly big of a number that is?

Literally the biggest tank battles in all of human history were all on the Eastern Front.

>>1802589
who do you think supplied the material to built all those tanks? The Soviet Union had no large amounts of aluminum, they were reliant on the US.

>>1801060
The Germans attacked 6 weeks too late because they had to help Italy with its failed invasions in the Balkans.
Hitler kept diverting resources from the important objectives to take Leningrad and Stalingrad. He also prevented the Germans from retreating and regrouping with his no retreat policy. The German increasingly had to move resources around to combat the British. The Germans didn't have winter equipment AND that particular winter was the coldest and fiercest in a century.

>>1802644

>The Germans attacked 6 weeks too late because they had to help Italy with its failed invasions in the Balkans.

Italy staged the anti-Axis coup in Yugoslavia?

News to me.

>>1802672
>half the fuel to fly planes and resources to make tanks is negligible

Are all Europeans this dumb or is it just you?

Nothing quite like seeing a victor's history unraveling.

What a time to be alive.

>>1802382
You're sorely misled if you believe that you can credit their victory over the bulk of the German army to some negligible amount of resources which you've sent them.

>>1802601
And the Allies were reliant on the Russians defeat the bulk of the German army, including it's allies and elite troops.

>>1801060
German military was just not that strong or modern. Their 20 or so mechanized divisions could push the Soviets back but the following infantry were unable to close to the gap and annihilate the Red Army or advance without taking enormous losses.

>>1802581
you can use it as a flail in a pinch

>>1802581

You're probably better off asking /k/ but at a total layman's guess, probably to help you retrieve it in case you dropped it in the chaos of a firefight.

File: 1475776420973s.jpg (7KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x250px

>>1802581
>he doesnt use his pistol has a sling

>mfw

File: 1476027060074.jpg.jpg (61KB, 500x329px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 500x329px

>>1801072
>90%
>12 to 1

File: 1472530355481.jpg (38KB, 613x556px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 613x556px

>oh look it's another thread where we regurgitate factoids we learned in history textbooks to try to look smart

>>1803590
Well yeah, thats what this board is all about

>>1801060

What I don't understand is why the Eastern front was so loathed compared to the Western front. Were the Americans/Brits really so nice compared to the Russians?

>>1803655
Yes. Russians were animals

>>1803687
Their behavior was mostly reciprocal, thus justified.

>>1803590
It's only bad when people regurgitate memes or things they saw on the internet.

>>1803590
Lol as opposed to sourceless jpgs and memes? Where do you acquire your history anon?

Nonetheless where do you think textbooks get their material? There's an extensive source list in every textbook, what is your post even trying to say? It's a history discussion board, would you rather see shemales and memes you fucking retard?

>>1803705
I'm gonna copy your trip and there's nothing you can do about it

File: 44723317.jpg (269KB, 900x1000px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 900x1000px

>>1801097
>Only 5m for an entire fucking military's worth of nuggets, tanks, and planes
>Thats like $1 per nugget
>Today nuggets are $200-250
Why even live senpai.

>>1802397

No.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLi0Fxfqtdk

>>1802498

That was simply impossible for National Socialist ideology though, such things could never be allowed.

>>1802691

>Its the "History is written by le Victors XD" meme again.

This meme needs to die, its a crutch for the intellectually lazy. Fact is, most of the reasons why Germany lost are correctly identified in this thread.

>>1803777

>In thousands of dollars

>>1803899
>Over $5,000,000
>In thousands

>>1801060
Soviets learned fast or died. Also while Stalin's purges had left the officer corps gutted, the Soviet army still had many men under arms, had rapidly modernizing equipment, and a number of officers with a great talent for large-scale setpiece logistics (ex. Zhukov).

>>1801072
AMERICAN EDUCATION

>>1801060
The germans had a chance to win against the soviet union. Moscow was a huge transportation hub and if the germans captured it they would have won

>>1803655
It was just so much bloodier

File: 1475986303655.jpg (26KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 320x320px

>>1801072
>90%

>>1801060
http://www.tandfonline.com.sci-hub.cc/doi/abs/10.1080/13518049408430160

Without the help of the Americans and the Anglos, they couldn't.

>believing in Soviet historical revisionism

>>1801060
>They had no qualms about rounding up and killing partisans
Partisans are just wartime name for terrorists.

What happens when you start killing more and more terrorists? Even more appears.

Same thing.

>>1802697
Feel free to get in a time machine and argue that point with zhukov, then. He stated in no uncertain terms that they would have lost the war without lend lease.

>>1804257
yes no ll41 most important battle of Barbarossa was fought in winter 41 in front of moscow

just deal with it

>>1804621
The original statement was falsified, It's fairly longer in Russian and far more negative in it's content.

>Americans sell materials to a country fighting a do or die war
>80 years later they act like their kindness and generosity saved europe
>All they did was sell things to someone becoming filthy rich in the process
>To this day they brag about their act of kindness to all who listen
>Soviets pay back all the money they owe the USA
>Haha Ivan you sure are lucky to have us around!

>>1806481
>>Soviets pay back all the money they owe the USA

This is how I know you are a memeing retard. The USSR never paid even close to the full amount back for land lease.

>>1802697
>You're sorely misled if you believe that you can credit their victory over the bulk of the German army to some negligible amount of resources which you've sent them.

Half the fuel to fly planes is "negligible"? 56% of aluminum the soviets depended on to make their tanks was also negligible? Are you pretending to be retarded or is it just a European thing?

>And the Allies were reliant on the Russians defeat the bulk of the German army, including it's allies and elite troops.

The western allies fought Elite German troops as well. The difference between the soviets and the western allies is that the soviets needed the western allies to win, the western allies just needed America to win.

>>1806586
Because you've attempted to use it to claim all the credit for their victory against the Axis.

File: 1458944016820.jpg (2MB, 2197x1463px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2197x1463px

>>1801072
>12-1

>>1801714
Nigga, wallpaper glue is literally starch+water.

>>1801060
>one of the greatest military upsets in history
Nah man, i personally believe germany didn't have a chance in that conflict. The only argument i've seen from wehraboos is that soviets would have surrendered if moscov had fallen, which i don't buy. Just open a map and look how vast the eastern europe is compared to the rest. Germany had no way to keep the momentum going or maintain adequate supply lines.

>>1802575
I bet your gold standard for a "credible historian" is whether they agree with you or not.

>>1801701
>2) bread containing sawdust
Modern Americans are already used to this.

>>1806600
Interesting, it used to be 35%, now it's half?

>56% of aluminum the soviets depended on to make their tanks was also negligible?
Certainly, because most of it began arriving only after the Soviets have broken the Eastern Front, it was more a supplement than a foundation.

> The difference between the soviets and the western allies is that the soviets needed the western allies to win

The Soviets have fought against the bulk of the German army.Initially it was 80%, but 8-10% had to be re-positioned to Yugoslavia and Greece.On the other hand, you fought against heavily outnumbered Germans and incompetent Italians in North Africa and later on, against tired and overburdened veterans of the Eastern Front and forcefully conscripted civilians.To make matters worse, you've only launched D-day several months after the Russians have defeated the bulk of the German forces stationed on the Eastern Front.Don't even dare to think that you've done anything of remote importance in Europe, not even in North Africa for that matter.

> that the Soviets needed the western allies to win, the western allies just needed America to win

Western Allies were largely useless throughout the first two years of the war in Europe, with Britain being confined to it's island and Americans pretending to be "neutral" while making lucrative deals with the Germans, even doing all they can to make sure that the Soviets lose as many resources as possible, which backfired at them once they've seen that the Red Army, if not stopped, won't just consume Germany, but the rest of Western Europe as well, hence you opening an additional front in Europe.The Russians are irrefutably the main reason why Hitler's Germany was defeated and no amount of containment policy-themed revisionism can change that.

Stick to your comic books, World Wrestling Entertainment and other filth that you call "culture", empiricism isn't up your alley.

>>1802575
Name four non-Western historians who'd agree to that assessment.Before you begin, just keep in mind that your community college professors don't count.

>>1801072

Here comes the /lit/ brigades ready to trash anything that isn't pro-USSR. Amazing how basic knowledge from any of the popular standard histories is completely mocked and shit on on this board.

>>1801806


>muh red army

commiboos are worse than /pol/

>>1802087
Hitler's plan was based on the assumption the USSR was unpopular and would collapse once the germans attacked similar to how the old regime had collapsed in the first war.

Didn't happen. Thanks to American supplies. Ironically enough.

>>1802449
>US textbooks don't even mention the Philippine insurrection
Don't know what history textbooks you had, but all of mine at the very least made reference to it.

>>1807319
Idk what that is. My High school teacher was fired for mentioning FDR's motivation for war might have been economic and for showing a documentary on Unit 731 or whatever the number is.

My high school education on the war was vague, didn't make much sense of it, and very very pro-American.

It also described nationalism as patriotism but patriotism is good and nationalism is bad.

Literally all it said. I didn't learn what it actually was until I read history books on my own.

Although, what does a normie need to know about history anyway? All they care about is alcohol, women, and living decadent lifestyles. How and why they are able to live luxurious lives is of no importance to them.

>>1802644
No, they attacked pretty much as soon as they could because of the weather and supply situation. The Balkans intervention did not postpone Barbarossa by "6 weeks".

>>1804183
They couldn't take Stalingrad with an entire army assaulting the city. What makes you think they could take an even larger and an even more important city when only fragmented elements of the most forward units with no supplies, no winter equipment, no support came anywhere close to it?

>>1806927
>Certainly, because most of it began arriving only after the Soviets have broken the Eastern Front, it was more a supplement than a foundation.

The Germans were beat in 42? News to me, Here's David's glantz take on it.

"1942-43 was also the period in which significant amounts of Lend-Lease aid began to reach the Soviet Union. The standard Soviet estimate of Lend-Lease is that it represented only 4% of Soviet production, but in reality it was far greater. The United States and Great Britain willingly provided vast quantities of aluminum, manganese, coal, and other material to replace the supplies captured by the Germans in 1941, thereby allowing Soviet manufacturing to recover much more rapidly than might otherwise have been the case. In addition to raw materials, the Allies shipped 34 million uniforms, 14.5 million pair of boots, 4.2 million tons of food, and 11,800 railroad locomotives and cars.......the Allies poured materials into the Soviet Union between 1942 and 1945, prompting one recent historian (Brian Moynahan Claws of the Bear) to remark, The Allies bought the German defeat with Russian blood and paid in Spam."

I like how you didn't even touch my point about aviation fuel, I guess you concede defeat there.

>Western Allies were largely useless throughout the first two years of the war in Europe, with Britain being confined to it's island and Americans pretending to be "neutral" while making lucrative deals with the Germans, even doing all they can to make sure that the Soviets lose as many resources as possible, which backfired at them once they've seen that the Red Army, if not stopped, won't just consume Germany,

Not once did I say that Soveits werent a huge factor for the allies victory, just that they aren't necessary. America has a greater mechanized military, an equally large population as the USSR, and a greater industrial base. The US could have won it alone, the Russians were just a nice tool to speed it up.

>>1801072
Not at all. Lend-lease was hugely important in the early years, but the Russian industrial output was massive. They produced more tanks, twice as much artillery, and a third of the entire US air force despite their industrial deficit and late start at aerial technology.

>>1807860
>the Russian industrial output was massive
You are confusing tank production with industrial output. Soviet industry was relatively puny, especially per capita, compared to advanced western economies like US and Germany, once you look at industry as a whole rather than a couple of areas they poured everything into.

>>1801072
Is this irony

>>1807934
Not really, no

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

Russian wartime output was massive, especially considering what Russian industry looked like just ten years prior to the war.

Check out Scott's Behind the Urals and Kotkin's Magnetic Mountain for a case study of Soviet industry in the 1930s.

>>1807857
>The Germans were beat in 42?

I've specifically said,"Breaking the Front", as in winning the battle of Stalingrad, Kursk, Prokhorovka and Fourth Battle of Kharkov in the year 1943.

> Here's David's take on it

David struggles between being an American and being an actual historian, the fact that someone like him is your most notable specialist on Slavic military history is proof enough that your entire historian society is laughable at best.

> 4% of Soviet production, but in reality it was far greater

Indeed, it was 7-12%, which is still minor in comparison to local production.

> I guess you concede defeat there

You should reread my initial comment again, it's literally in the first sentence.

> just that they aren't necessary

The Americans couldn't even land on a simple beach without losing tens of thousands of men in the process, they've made sluggish progress against tired and overburdened veterans of the Eastern Front and shoddily armed civilians,but you seem to believe that they could've taken on the bulk of the German army and win?

> the Russians were just a nice tool to speed it up

They were the hand, the blade and the hilt.

>>1807951
Germans outproduced the soviets by multiple factors in critical industrial goods like steel, aluminium, coke, coal, and fuel.
Germans also built 2000 uboats while the Soviets could focus on the army.
Soviet industry was small compared to German industry, and a midget compared to the US industry.

>>1807938
With Americans it's sometimes hard to tell

>>1801471
so was it simply a numerical superiority then considering both are hindered by the wide front?

>>1808051
But the 90% stat is utter bullshit. US production wasn't even double that of the USSR except (obviously) in the navy. While the Russians relied greatly on American assistance, this assistance did not account for anywhere near a majority of the equipment and resources that they used.

File: 1433845411322.jpg (7KB, 252x240px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 252x240px

>>1807857
>US could have beat germany alone

>>1808039
>Front", as in winning the battle of Stalingrad, Kursk, Prokhorovka and Fourth Battle of Kharkov in the year 1943.

Half of those battles were in 1943, so thank you for reinforcing my point.

>avid struggles between being an American and being an actual historian, the fact that someone like him is your most notable specialist on Slavic military history is proof enough that your entire historian society is laughable at best.

David glantz is one of the most hailed experts on the eastern front in ww2. To completely dismiss all of his well research work because of some unsubstantiated claim that being an American somehow makes his citable facts wrong, just proves how much of a bias Commieboo faggot you are.

>You should reread my initial comment again, it's literally in the first sentence.

You made a retard claim that American supplied aviation fuel only made up 34% of total fuel. The real number is actually closer to 59%.

>The Americans couldn't even land on a simple beach without losing tens of thousands of men in the process, they've made sluggish progress against tired and overburdened veterans of the Eastern Front and shoddily armed civilians,but you seem to believe that they could've taken on the bulk of the German army and win?

The Americans had a higher K/D than the soviets did fighting against the Germans. So saying that they had problems facing the wermacht, especially when they were fighting 40% in 1945, is completely unfounded. It's ironic you bring up beach landings to describe military competence. The soviets suffered huge causalities during the invasion of the Kuril Islands against under supplied, and numerically inferior Japanese forces.

The Americans had better air doctrine, better planes, better artillery, and better tanks than the Germans and Soviets. Winning the war without the Soviets is not only likely, it's inevitable.

>>1809788
Are you saying they couldn't?
>Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years.
Abraham Lincoln said that in 1838.
Remember, US population at the time was double that of Germany's, and their industrial capacity was several times greater.

>>1808039
>The Americans couldn't even land on a simple beach without losing tens of thousands of men in the process
Except the normandy landing didn't involve tens of thousands of American casualties.

>>1809866
>Abraham Lincoln said that in 1838
With sources like that, i don't know how i can argue against you.

the germans said something along the lines of
>but the power of russia was unknown

meaning, they knew what they see, but is that the best the russians can do?
many of them doubted it is and ofcourse it wasnt

it is only an upset to wehraboos
i really like the wehmacht for its commitment, competence but its somewhat popular to talk shit about the soviets, who became the greatest fighting force of the era

File: Svetovid as a child.jpg (500KB, 1200x1960px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 1200x1960px

>>1808039
>Indeed, it was 7-12%, which is still minor in comparison to local production.

Hey look it's Svetovoid and his outdated sources.

File: DSC_0477.jpg (140KB, 800x531px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 800x531px

>>1807934

It's also worth noting that Lend-Lease was actually the -third- time the West had been coerced into bailing Russia out in less than a century. Lifeline loans from Britain and France were the only thing keeping the ruble from completely collapsing after the pathetic showing in the Russo-Japanese War -- as it had following the Russo-Turkish War only a few decades prior.

In WWI their treasury had to ship most of its gold abroad as security for the British loans needed to purchase British and American equipment, facilitating a switch from gold-backed to paper money and turning 1914 into a clusterfuck of debt and mass inflation, creating a budget deficit of 80% by 1916. Worse, Russia refused to learn from these lessons and the shopping list of materiel needed in WWII was more or less the same supplies Russia had pandered for in WWI.

Lend-Lease was conceived partially to avoid such debts by provided interest-free loans w/ delayed repayment until after the war, with Russia finally paying off a smaller, negotiated, balance in 2006.

Why is anyone forcing the narrative "the Soviets would have lost without lend lease" if it's entirely beside the point?

Stalin, FDR, and Churchill all agreed on the same thing by Barbarossa: Keep the Soviet Union in the war

>>1810270
Besides, EVEN IF that were true, the Soviets still had to win the war and supply their own soldiers and officers

Probably the most important part of lend lease was aircraft. The Soviets loved the Air Cobra and the Liberator. Neither of those saw as much action in Western Europe, though.

>>1810188
You can't even spell a name right, least of all discern which sources "are outdated" and which aren't.

>>1809831
Subhuman, the "Breaking of the Front" is a reference to the year 1943.

>David Glantz is one of the most hailed experts on the eastern front

Certainly in America, but not anywhere else.

> To completely dismiss all of his well research work because of some unsubstantiated claim that being an American somehow makes his facts wrong

I'll dismiss him because his "research" is nothing more but a toned-down version of your already existing, 20th century containment-policy themed historiography.

>The real number is actually closer to 59%

I take it the number shall rise depending on the length of the discussion?

>The Americans had a higher K/D than the soviets did fighting against the Germans. So saying that they had problems facing the Wehrmacht, especially when they were fighting 40% in 1945, is completely unfounded

Not at all, and you certainly didn't fight against "40% of the Wehrmacht", you've fought against the surviving 40% of the initial forces that were stationed on the Western front and bolstered by the arrival of an negligible number of veterans of the East and conscripted civilians.They were tired, while your men were fresh and knew that they're gonna win, one way or the other.

I repeat, the Russians have fought and defeated the bulk of the German army, while you've fought against a significantly smaller portion of it which was "bolstered" by a negligible number of men from an another Front and a moderate number of civilian conscripts.

>The soviets suffered huge causalities during the invasion of the Kuril Islands against under supplied, and numerically inferior Japanese forces

The Soviets, while being outnumbered several times over, have only lost 548 more men, while they've captured 50 000 Japanese soldiers and the island itself.
1/2

>>1809831
>The Americans had better air doctrine, better planes, better artillery, and better tanks than the Germans and Soviets

You also forgot to mention that the American army suffers from one fatal flaw, it has deplorable human resources, but you're right on the point of air doctrine and better planes, but not so much in terms of tank and artillery quality.

>Winning the war without the Soviets is not only likely, it's inevitable

Your endeavors in Vietnam, Somalia and Afghanistan all beg to differ.You can't even deal with shoddily armed civilians, what gives you the right to claim that you could've taken on the German army at it's peak?

>>1809880
True, I've meant to say casualties.

>>1810302
>Afghanistan
>.You can't even deal with shoddily armed civilians, what gives you the right to claim that you could've taken on the German army at it's peak?

Remember how the USSR did in Afghanistan?

>>1810318
Quite well, given their kill/death ratio.Matter of fact, they would've rolled over them in 1988 if it weren't for those conveniently timed Geneva Accords.

>>1801060
Commie, pls

Making linear comparisons of the fronts is simply ignorance, they resemble each other only in the most rudimentary of ways and the same can be said for the armies.

The Eastern Front was primitive, fighting in mud and bare countryside, in marshes and over unimproved dirt roads with dilapidated infrastructure, with logistics dependent on horses (3.5 million in the Red Army, 1.1 million in the German Army), and operations tethered to rail stations and fuel dumps.

One only need look at the Normandy Campaign and the Falaise Pocket too see the glaring differences and advantages of a fully mechanized Army fighting across improved roads and modern infrastructure of "first world" Europe. That the Western Allies were the first in Germany and would famously halt on the Elbe, waiting for the Red Army, is testament to that.

File: Suka Blyat.jpg (70KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 320x320px

Is svetovid the most retarded poster on /his/?

File: 3a1.jpg (97KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1200x675px

>>1801072
> 90%
> not 190%

>>1802087
Excelent post.

I agree. The Nazis doomed themselves with their poor treatment of Russians and Slavs. If they had made their crusade about anti-communism rather than some misguided sense of anti-slavic racial superiority they would still be ruling Ukraine.

At first Russians and Ukranians treated Hitler like a liberator. It was all a matter of looking for a Tsarist heir to the throne or some White Army figure and setting up a puppet goverment Russians could rally around.

>>1801072
This isn't even good bait

>>1810342
>we would have won in Afghanistan if only we could mine MORE playgrounds and kill MORE children

Do you get paid per post, or are you on salary?

>>1802087
>Attacking in May was the original plan, but Yugoslavia happened.
No, weather and a lack of supply happened.

>>1810583
no that's definitely the roach

>>1810858
The roach is funny, though. His posts are joking.

>>1810858
Turkposters just bait retards like Svetovid.

>>1810583
That would be your average American, especially if he received his education from a community college, even more so if he attended a "state university".

>>1810840
Those were mainly the deeds of your "freedom fighters", any Soviet-hit playgrounds were collateral damage, not primary targets.

>>1811823
Which is why the Soviets dropped thousands of colourful bomblets, so that children would find them and take them to their parents.

:^]

>>1801060
>ukrainians

>>>/x/

Do you guys think Germany having a decent long range bomber force could have swung it?
>low losses and high success rate due to shitty soviet air defence
>managing to actually destroy industrial centres instead of watching them get packed up and relocated before their eyes
>crippling of railways hindering resupply and man movement
>destruction of population centres further reducing man power
>etc etc

>>1813663

Not if it comes at the cost of their tactical bombing, which got a huge amount of bang for the buck.

File: 1475629656532.jpg (33KB, 598x448px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 598x448px

>>1801072
>90%
Heh

>>1813663
No. Effective long range bombing required either
>very advanced radar guidance systems for night bombing
>sufficient fighter escort for day bombing

Both of which the Germans lacked. Plus, for anything to even begin to make an impact, they'd need thousands of aircraft to throw at strategic bombing and plenty of time to do it. Remember - even with the combined bomber offensive of the Allies, where you had 35,000 people killed in Hamburg by firebombing, millions fleeing cities and raids with up to 1,000 bombers coming fairly regularly, the impact was far from immediate and decisive.

And that's with the largest industrial powerhouse of the world backing the campaign. Germany barely had the resources to keep their tactical aviation going even at their peak, let alone run a strategic bombing campaign as well.

>>1801072
This.

inb4 butthurt Commies posting Soviet propaganda

>>1801813
What the fuck is wrong with you

>>1813765
Also, considering another giant advantage the Bombing of the Germans and the Japanese had: German and Japan are tight, clustered, densely urban population centers. Any heavy bomber fleet in the Soviet Union is going to have to be flying all over the place, hitting precise targets (good luck with that!).

>>1801060
1. The germans overestimated their capabilities, as people overestimate it even today.
2. The germans underestimated the soviet capabilities, where we overestimate them today.
3. The german ideology assumed that all of the "imprisoned nations" will rise up and aid them, where only few people did, and instead there was much partisan action.

tl;dr Should've handled Britain first, Russia later. Ask Napoleon about it.

Serious underestimation of what the Soviets could field, this continued well into 1942 resulting in the disaster at Stalingrad, at the time it wasn't believed that the USSR had the reserves to hold let along counterattack on the Don.

Poor decision making by Hitler, refusal to contemplate a winter campaign in 1941 until winter arrived and the Wehrmacht hadn't prepared at all for it. The demands of the Eastern front simply outstripped all preparations that had been made for it, replacing men&material, spare parts, equipment maintence, fuel usage. It was the largest rolling battlefield in the history of warfare and Germany simply couldn't sustain the demands of it, even in 1941. It's frequently forgotten that even during Barbarossa the Axis suffered 1 million casualties.

>>1814569
>tl;dr Should've handled Britain first, Russia later. Ask Napoleon about it.
But they couldn't handle Britain. Leaving them losers in both real life and the hypothetical scenario.

>>1814613
They were handling Britain fine, though. During that time the british people were raiding museums to arm themselves with muskets, stuff like cooking pans were confiscated to make into planes, people didn't have cars, they'd sit on the street with a bottle of petrol waving to some driver to give them a ride in exchange for the fuel.

It was pretty bad, and near collapse, and despite the government saying NEVER SURRENDER the people were just about ready to.

>>1814616
... you are literally memeing. Britain had built more planes and trained more pilots than Germany during the Battle of Britain. Germany had no navy to "handle" Britain with, let alone mount an invasion. The German subs had never managed to keep up the sunk tonnage numbers they would require to impact Britain. Actually, scratch that, they had managed that - for about three weeks total _during the entire war_.

>>1814621
Which part of what I said is wrong?
Britain was starved for metal, fuel, guns. People were getting depressed and tired of a conflict where they had nothing to gain, and surrendering would lose them nothing.

>>1814621
*months, not weeks, but the point stands.

>>1814626
>Britain was starved for metal, fuel, guns.
It wasn't. German subs could not sink enough tonnage.

File: 1475731618791.jpg (54KB, 612x612px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 612x612px

>>1801072
It's like every WW2 meme put together

>>1809894
>With sources like that, i don't know how i can argue against you.
Well I guess I have to spoonfeed you then.
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm

>>1814629
You mean cooking pans weren't confiscated, and people didn't walk around with tubes of petrol, and museums weren't raided so retired people armed with muskets can patrol the shores?
I want to have you deny these so it hits harder when I prove them.

>>1814658
No, I want you to stop memeing with statements like
>It was pretty bad, and near collapse

>>1814616
>>1814658
>>1814690
are you talking about a volunteer womens drive lol
its a scrap drive
you know like "BUY WAR BONDS"
protip america had them too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZDTXTWv-xk

>>1814569
>2. The Germans underestimated the soviet capabilities, where we overestimate them today.

I'd say it's the opposite, especially in the present times.

at what age did you realise that the soviets were the wrong people to ally with?

>>1814712
when i was 13 but then i grew up and realized i was just being a whiny bitch edgy teenager faggot

>>1814714
i never said anything about allying with nazis but ok

>>1814718
funny, me neither

could it be that your own slip of the tongue has betrayed you

>>1814724
your context clues gave it away

>>1814712
they were exactly the right people to ally with in order to defeat the nazis

not that i would want to be friends with them for any other reason other than extra terrestrial invasion

>>1814712
For Hitler, 52. Molotov-Ribbentrop was a terrible idea.
Now that I think about it, the Central Powers should have just torn up the treaty of Brest-Litovsk as soon as Trotsky admitted he still wanted to export revolution to the rest of Europe.

File: jew count richard.jpg (59KB, 533x290px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 533x290px

>>1814756
>as soon as Trotsky admitted he still wanted to export revolution to the rest of Europe
funny how it's always the same people behind these things ain't it?

>Americans and Brits amphibiously storm heavily fortified coastal region guarded by million-man army during Overlord
>slog through heavily forested terrain that the enemy has been fortifying for the past year
>suffer 226,000 casualties to inflict 450,000 on the Germans
>Soviets sweep through wide open plains of eastern Poland guarded by million-man army during Bagration
>enemy totally taken off guard due to shitty intelligence, haven't been preparing at all
>suffer 800,000 casualties to inflict 400,000-500,000 casualties on the Germans

How does this even happen?

>>1814878
underreported casualties by the germans
tactical competence and equipment availability on one front but not the other
many possible reasons

>>1806609

Putin - is that you?

>>1814878
>>1814912
You missed the biggest one, the Cold War era revisionism to discredit the russians and build up the germans as ingenious, industrious, competent to a fault so they can be used as a wall against communism. Incidentally gave way to the cult of nazis as cool and brilliant.

>>1814912
>"equipment availability on one front but not the other"
>all of Army Group Centre had fewer than 600 tanks and very few aircraft while the Germans at Normandy had 2,300 tanks and 2,500 aircraft
>"underreported casualties by the germans"
>conveniently under-reported in medical records for one front but not the other

>>1814878
Under-reported casualties by the Germans and a vast difference in quality of men, those on the Eastern Front were of far greater quality than those on the Western.

>slog through heavily forested terrain
More cover, protection and other strategic value for both sides.

File: 51asNlhBFvL.jpg (35KB, 335x500px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 335x500px

>>1801060

Highly recommend this book, op.

It's a bit of a microcosm as it focuses on Operation Typhoon and Army Group Center's annihilation of the Soviet Reserve, Western, and Briansk fronts, but the narrow focus works to its benefit as it's quite detailed. That it was only recently published (2013) means its one of very few books on the subject written with the slowly-increasing access to Soviet archives.

The candid correspondence with former senior officers is especially interesting as it displays the almost comical divergence between official Soviet "history" and the realities of the war. It's not pop history though, and it assumes some knowledge on the reader's behalf.

The author devotes some of the book to the disappearance of his father, a Red Army artillery commander, and his struggle to find credible information not tainted by political agendas amid the deliberately limited access to the military archives. Something that, 70+ years later, still plagues Russian historians seeking information, especially on individuals.

https://mega.nz/#!lBYRVCqT!Mt57sg5u4AvyoHqP_vaV1weSUKYJD0_2I3ZuE6kfPag

File: 2000px-Belorussia_Operation_Detailed.png (2MB, 2000x1365px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1365px

>>1814878
The casualties suffered in the Soviet 1944 Summer Offensive are skewed because they launched it across the entire front. Bagration steamrolled Army Group Center, but the closing stages of the operation blended in with the begging off the Lvov-Sandiomerz Offensive to the south, where the Germans were heavily entrenched (since that was where the Soviets were making it seem like the push would be happening all along).

You've also got a difference in how either side counted casualties. The Soviets included sick in their casualty counts, and some 600,000 of their casualties were listed as sick or wounded, meaning a significant portion of those losses weren't permanent. Meanwhile, the Germans don't list sick, and IIRC they only ever reported "permanent" wounds - ones that kept men out for the rest of the war. So their "wounded" reports are lower, but their killed and captured is significantly higher than the Soviets - some 300 to 500,000 depending on which sources you look at.

>>1815149

>In 1981 at the request of veterans of the 120th Howitzer Artillery Regiment, I wrote a short book about the regiment’s participation in the events at Viaz’ma. The highly influential son of the regiment’s chief of staff, who was killed in the encirclement (now he might better be called the book’s sponsor), proposed to have it published by a prominent press, but this required the agreement of military censors, and the endeavor broke down. We had to resort to an artifice, and a substantially redacted version of it, as required by the military censors of the Frunze Military Academy (we had to cut out all the data on the composition and equipment of the regiment, the losses and similar seditious material) was published at my expense under the guise of a training supplement in an edition of only 100 copies. These small booklets were distributed among the veterans and relatives of the fallen soldiers at their next reunion.

Why, in the 1980's, were they still concerned with hiding casualties and equipment loses?

I can sort of understand all the numerous revisions the censors made to Zhukov's memoirs in the 70's, but why keep such information from the average Soviet civilian trying to learn about friends and family members who died 45 years prior? Even the 1990 figures are based of Shtemenko’s shoddy figures. What a cluster fuck.

Operation Watch on the Rhine:

>Germans concentrate their best remaining troops for one last offensive in an attempt to regain the initiative
>despite being utterly outdone in intelligence in the previous operations, the Germans actually achieve surprise and the Americans are unprepared when they attack
>450,000 troops, 1,500 tanks, 4,200 artillery pieces, and 2,000 aircraft attack 610,000 Americans
>Americans win and take 89,000 casualties, lose ~750 tanks, and lose 650 aircraft
>Germans take 100,000 casualties, lose ~700 tanks, and lose ~800 aircraft


Operation Citadel:
>Germans concentrate their best remaining troops for one last offensive in an attempt to regain the initiative
>Soviets acquired the German war plans ahead of time and had extensively fortified the target area
>781,000 troops, 2,900 tanks, 9,900 artillery pieces, and 1,000 aircraft attack 1,900,000 Soviets
>Soviets win and take 178,000 casualties, lose ~1,800 tanks, and lose 460 aircraft
>Germans take 54,000 casualties, lose 323 tanks, and lose 159 aircraft

Seriously, why were the Soviets such shit? inb4 'Germans were super soldiers'.

>>1816068

Most sources written by Western authors all report 80-90k casualties for the Germans and 110-120k casualties for the Soviets. Also Germany frequently lied about their losses in men and material and only counted "Permanent" wounds as casualties and did not count tanks that could have been repaired, even if they did not recover the tank, and the wikipedia source you used cites a historian who got those numbers from Nazi German archives.

Why are most Americans so retarded?

>>1806936
Truth matters to a commie?

>>1807857
Bravo.

>>1818293
Bravo to what?He merely made a counter-argument, he has yet to respond to this >>1810286


>>1818281
Actually, I'm a nationalist and I'll ask again, name four non-Western historians who'd agree to that assessment.

>>1802575
The USA supplied the USSR with trucks, food and rubber. None of these directly increased the production of tanks and planes, as you claim.

>>1801060
It was awful

>>1801476
Does the continuation war count as barbarossa though?

>>1819666
I'm pretty sure they put themselves under the command of the Heer. I'm not certain, though.

>>1814651
Truly a magnum opus of the misinformed

>>1801689
There were writings by people immediately after the war that stated that the generation going through world war one was special. Basically they speculated that those people could only bear it because of the special circumstances that Europe experienced in the century leading up to the war that molded the people and culture. I wish I could remember the specific examples, it's a really cool idea.

>>1806609
You forgot the ironic :^) at the end of your post

File: japs.png (21KB, 314x552px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 314x552px

>>1816068
tactically, Russia was still recovering from The Great Purges well into the War- this was seen in lots of occasions

besides, the countries mentioned in the fighting operated on completely different doctrines- america's army was well versed in their firepower based doctrine, while Russia had used similar manpower based tactics since even before the soviets took over

in short, the soviet soldier compared to the american soldier
>less training
>less equipped per man
>less competent NCOs


i think people who blame it entirely on muh ideological grounds are idiots though- people disregard that russia during the tsars had used the exact same tactics and strategy against napoleon and even the germans during the last war

they weren't even wrong, russia in general has been backwards compared to the west infrastructure and industry wise since... well, even now, with only a comparable or greater population to make up for that

soviets (eventually) learned, however

>>1802581
So that you don't lose it. I imagine it would be extremely easy to drop your pistol in the mud and then never find it again.

>>1801080
Hitler also fucked up with his constant meddling. Army Group Center paused and helped AG South that had trouble. That gave the soviets precious time to prepare. And yet the germans came some 50 kms from the center of Moscow.

>>1821895
It's irrelevant that they got close to Moscow when they couldn't even take Leningrad or Stalingrad.

>>1821927

And if they don't stop to help AGS, they probably won't even take Kiev, certainly not in any sort of quick timetable, and leaving all those Red Army troops at your back seems like a bad idea.

>>1801072
Hello American.

>>1820797
I think responsibilty for lapland and reaching murmansk was given to like a couple houndred thousand german soldiers, and the karelian front was launched by the finns around the same time as barbarossa

>>1801594
>>1801595
Nice posts.

>>1802305
Stalin was fully aware that the Nazis hated their guts, especially considering that they'd spent the last 10 years calling communists 'degenerate' and slavs 'inferor', and he was fully aware that they planned to invade the Soviet Union at some point. The molotov-ribbentrop pact was a matter of delaying their eventual war just enough to give the USSR time to industrialise and prepare for war.

>>1824775
>>1824775
Even then soviet military build up was expected to be finished only in 1944 at best, plus german intelligence was so bad that they wouldn't see an invasion comming until it was already happening and Stalin, as far as I see it, liked to play it safe and would only make a move when a easy victory seemed likely.