stupid soviets lost to Finnish farmers then go on to beat muh

>>3344305
Soviet Union won the Winter War retard

File: winterwar.jpg (73KB, 309x499px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 309x499px

>>3344324
>outnumbered 5-1
>virtually no air power
>end of war have 5 times less casualties as enemy
>destroy over 2000 tanks

wow what a loss their friendo

>>3344337
And the Soviets won. Your point?

>>3344337

By literally the same standard the Axis completely destroyed the Allies and won the Second World War hands down.

>>3344403

Western allies' casualties compared to g*rman were absolutely minimal, even if you count the Pacific.

>>3344337
finland lost 1/3 of its fighting force in 4 months

i dont know how thats a victory

>>3344417

And if you count all the Allies, they got raped. Liter and figurative.

>>3344427
Of course the Anglo Alliance should be counted separately from the soviet scum

>come out of massive depression economic hardships
>fight virtually all the major powers by itself
>take over the vast majority of Europe
>unable to match the limitless numbers of the soviet horder
>lose

wow op Germans really were shit at war you're right

>>3344305
the soviets learned some very painful lessons in the winter war and adapted

>>3344449
fuck off wehraboo

The Soviet Union at the start of the Ostfront was a very different beast than it was by the end.

>>3344457
Nice meme. If they learned so much from winter war why did they get their asses kicked so hard in 1941?

>>3344443

And where does China fit in with your cherrypicked definition?

>>3344697
why did the Heeresgruppe Mitte almost got completely destroyed in front of moscow without a 2nd front or LL?

Face it there never was a chance and no it wasn't close.

File: 9f9[1].jpg (28KB, 613x533px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 613x533px

>>3344337
Are you seriously having a hard time understanding the concept of winning and losing wars? Or is it the concept of war itself you're having a hard time to grasp?

>>3344697
The same reason the British lost so hard in Malaya and the Germans surrendered in mass numbers during the allied invasions, they got surrounded and had no time to recover.

>>3344449
>Start a war you have no chance at winning
Agreed, it seems like someone who are bad at wars would do.

>>3344449
>Fight enemy with manpower advantage in 1941
>Fail to secure a tenable defensive line for the winter
>Do the same thing again in 1942, except this time you go full retard and fight over a city that's obviously a trap
So good at war

>>3344749
Too many videogames.

File: 1504757929177.gif (2MB, 352x217px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 352x217px

>>3344449

>how come the nazis were so shit /his/ ?

Lend Lease and the British empire, United States entry into war in europe made them lose. The soviets still lost a million soldiers in the last four months of the war when the germans were heavily demoralised and outnumbered.

>>3344324
But lost face and didn't add Finland to the soviet union like they planned

Soviets getting rekt by finns was the reason they were able to win ww2
Prove me wrong /his/

>>3344305
When Hitler told Ribbentrop that he was going to declare war on the United States (without absolutely no justification or reason in doing so), Ribbentrop was naturally shocked and quickly reminded Hitler that they didn't need anymore enemies at this time, especially the greatest industrial power on earth, etc

To this Hitler responded, "It does not matter"

>>3344841
it didnt. US would attack Germany nevertheless. Just like the USSR

>>3344449
>implying the massive depression didn't hit all of the western world
>implying they didn't ask for it
>implying human waves memeing

>>3344752
This from the board that haven't got over Napoleon...

>>3344840
Wrong, see >>3344822

>>3344841
The US was already at war de facto. German vessels were attacked by US vessels and the US supported the Allies massively even before officially being at war with Germany. It was just a matter of time, making it official at least gave the Kriegsmarine the ability/justification to fight the US Navy in the Atlantic.

>>3344822
But the Wehrmacht got reckd by the soviets in winter 41 without LL or a 2nd front.

Sooo yeah you are wrong and should read a book.

>>3344888
He's right though, the '41 counteroffensive is miniscule compared to Barbarossa. The Soviets persisted, but it wasn't until after Kursk (and the massive effects of LL) that they dominated the war. Saying that they "reckd" the Germans in '41 is hardly true.

You should look at Bagration or Vistula-Oder if you want to see what the Red Army was capable of.

The Winter War was a nice little premonition of things to come:

You can kill many times more your number, but it won't win you the war.

>>3344305
>USSR lost to white farmers
>US lost to yellow farmers
Is this a curse or something?
>inb4 murrican didn't vietnam war

>>3344910
By reckd I mean they anihilated every tiny chance of germany winning the war in front of moscow in 41.

If you take it into context the gean losses were in winter 41 were way more important than the millions the soviets lost in the summer.

And no son kursk wasn't the "turning point" the war was lost from the beginning on.

Yes the front moved into a certain direction after kursk to the west but lets be honest only brainlets like you measure to current state of a conflict by looking at k/d ratios frontlines or won battles.

Now take your kingtiger-boner and fap to some ss porn you retard.

greetings from germany

>>3345176
>Finns
>not yellow

File: IMG_5177.png (1MB, 1080x1288px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1080x1288px

>>3345261
Curse of the Rice farmers.

File: Lend Lease USSR.jpg (250KB, 1508x876px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1508x876px

>>3345213
>By reckd I mean they anihilated every tiny chance of germany winning the war in front of moscow in 41.
Yes, the victory prevented a German vicotry in 1941, but that is all.
>And no son kursk wasn't the "turning point" the war was lost from the beginning on.
Only because Germany was at war with the UK (and later the USA) as well. Without the Western Allies the German Army could very well have won or fought to a stalemate favouring the Germans.
>only brainlets like you measure to current state of a conflict by looking at k/d ratios frontlines or won battles.
Yes, deaths don't matter at all and victories neither because someone on 4chan believes he's a genius. The Allies actually won the war by losing every battle, you know.

Without Lend-Lease, the Allied bombing campaign and the German ressources bound to the western and southern fronts the USSR would not have been able to win the war. Do you seriously believe with half as many trucks, 3/4 of all food, 60% as much lead (the material of bullets) and many more giant amounts of material the Soviets would have been able to pull off motorized offensives like Bagration nearly as successfull (or at all) as they did with all of this support?

Also:
>no son
>only brainlets like you
>Now take your kingtiger-boner and fap to some ss porn you retard.

Nimm mal deinen Mund nicht so voll du Internet Gangster, bloß weil ich die Auswirkungen der Westalliierten nicht so unterschätze wie du bedeutet das nicht dass ich ein Nazi-Sympathisant bin...

File: Lend-Lease Sherman.jpg (509KB, 2714x1809px) Image search: [Google]

509KB, 2714x1809px

>>3345365
*and without many more giant amounts of material

>>3344449
>it's another "germany didn't have any allies that provided manpower and resources without which they would have lost the war even faster" episode

File: Fiat G.50 training unit, Italy 1942.jpg (194KB, 1600x1106px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1600x1106px

>>3345381
>replying to Stormfags
also they weren't really allies, rather puppet states and occupied territories (except for Japan and Italy until 1943 ofc)

>>3345365
>Without the Western Allies the German Army could very well have won or fought to a stalemate favouring the Germans.

This is your brain on wherabooism... they fought the soviets without ll and a 2nd front they got destroyed but accepting obvious facts is impossible for brainlets like you right?

>>3345365
>Internet Gangster

Ab ins Bett Kleiner.

>>3345365
>Without Lend-Lease, the Allied bombing campaign and the German ressources bound to the western and southern fronts the USSR would not have been able to win the war. Do you seriously believe with half as many trucks, 3/4 of all food, 60% as much lead (the material of bullets) and many more giant amounts of material the Soviets would have been able to pull off motorized offensives like Bagration nearly as successfull (or at all) as they did with all of this support?

None of these were in effect in41 and germany still got destroyed, what does that tell us?

Implying Stalin would accept your fantasy peace-deal.

>>3345454
>they fought the soviets without ll and a 2nd front
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#British_deliveries_to_the_Soviet_Union
>In June 1941, within weeks of the German invasion of the USSR, the first British aid convoy set off
Shortly later US shipments began. Yes, they won 1941 mainly on their own, but long-term they wouldn't have been able to defeat Germany (which had the ressources of 3/4 of Europe at its hands)
>This is your brain on wherabooism
I'm not a Wehraboo.
>>3345458
Stark, du hast es mir richtig gezeigt!
>>3345464
>None of these were in effect in41
British support was (though it wasn't very substantial yet, to be fair)
>and germany still got destroyed
no, only their 1941 offensive got halted and pushed back a bit, they were able to launch strategic offensives in the two following years of the war.
>what does that tell us?
That German supply lines were overstreched and that their local forces were insufficient to capture the Moscow area in the Winter of 1941.
>Implying Stalin would accept your fantasy peace-deal.
Yeah man, as we know Germany didn't get defeated because Hitler didn't want to surrender.
You guys have to see that I'm neither a Stormfag nore a Burger saying the US (and UK) did it all alone, I'm just saying they were the deciding factor and definitely turned the table.


http://simhq.net/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1135719/1/Some_Facts_about_German_Aircra.html

>Distribution of Authorized German Fighter Strength January 1943 (note this is Authorized strength or Paper strength, not Operational strength)

>Eastern Front: 445

>Mediterranean: 280

>NorthWest Europe: 1045


>From this you can see 74% of German Fighter strength is concentrated against the Western Allies.