>One man gets a rifle, the other gets ammo. When the man with rifle dies, pick it up and fight for the motherland!
Now where in hell did this deliciously tasty meme come from? The Soviets had more than enough rifles to arm everyone.
>>1260478
Makes things more dramatic.
>>1260478
WW1, IIRC, where the Russians did have endemic problems supplying basics, even small arms, to everyone.
>>1260478
Not to mention the image of a commissar blowing the head off anyone who didn't follow orders.'
I think it's anti-soviet drivel that spouted up during the cold war and has since been accepted as fact by the west over time.
>>1260478
Soviet conscript units actually did face these types of issues.
>>1260497
>implying NKVD weren't shooting soviet soldiers who ran away
>>1260478
What they lack is ammo, not rifle
>>1260478
It's not that the Red Army didn't have rifles, it's that they weren't equipped and often captured sitting in garrisons overrun by the German invasion.
1940-41 saw a massive expansion of the Red Army, including 125 new rifle divisions, triple the number of rifle corps, and 20 additional mechanized corps. Forming these new units required the disbanding of all independant motorized rifle divisions and brigades. These new units were still being formed and equipped when the Germans invaded in 1941, and virtually every one missing substantial numbers of personnel and equipment.
>>1260483
The Russian military was as unprepared for WW1 as they were for WW2. Ironically, nearly the same shopping list of supplies too.
>>1260478
Not always, from watching soviet war vet testimonies I found out that it is true that they had shortages, I mean I'm certain I've heard them mention it. Also pretty sure some guys were taken into the army and given a rifle without any training of course.
>>1260497
Tbh in real life it didn't have to be a commissar, once I heard a soviet war vet admit he killed a guy that started running away because his nerves broke loose.
>>1260524
NKVD and MGB did that even when soldiers weren't running away, shits just a typical tuesday for state security of the Stalin era
>>1260497
Leftist American college student detected
t. Ivan
>>1260478
Call of Duty Finest hour had this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AHBfg3caxs
>>1260497
It's a half truth. Field executions for desertion and cowardice was practiced but never on the level that's depicted in American media, and such things were more common in penal battalions than in regular line units.
There was actually a huge outrage amongst Russian veterans of Stalingrad when Enemy At the Gates came out because 90% of the movie was bullshit.
>>1260695
You also had tank units so poorly equipped that they became rifle divisions.
>The 26th Tank Division had barely started organizing when the war started. Formed without a base of equipment or personnel from a tank brigade or cavalry division, this 'tank' division had no tanks, no heavy howitzers, no antiaircraft guns, few trucks, and virtually no unit training. Effectively, it was a rifle regiment with a battalion of howitzers attached. By July the Soviet high command was officially listing the division as "without equipment", acknowledging that it was no longer had combat value. Division strength report of 7 July showed just 3800 men and 5 guns. it was destroyed in the Minsk pocket and disbanded in mid-July 1941.
>27th Tank Division was missing most of the support elements from the division: it had few light armored cars, but few trucks or tractors, no maintenance units formed, no antiaircraft guns, and no tanks. The only armor in the division was a single battalion of 25 training tanks. Reduced to the equivalent of an understrength rifle regiment, the division was disbanded on 1 August 1941.
>After 1st Mechanized Corps HQ was shut down in August, 3rd Tank Division came under the Novgorod Operational Group, fighting in the swampy forests just north of Lake Urnen. This was the worst possible terrain for armor, but the division had no armor left by then. In November 1941 what was left of the unit was redesignated as 225th Rifle Division.
>13th Tank Division was not disbanded until August, but after 10 July it was little more than a slightly-motorized rifle regiment with a handful of light tanks.
>20th Tank Division fought under 9th Mechanized Corps across the Ukraine until early September, when both were destroyed in the Kiev encirclement. By then the division was little more than a rifle brigade; in one of its last official strength returns, on 25 August the 'division' reported a total of 2400 men, 12 guns, 6 mortars, and 0 tanks on hand.
>>1260728
it was a pretty shitty movie senpai. we need more accurate movies of nazis and soviets breaking brains and notching numbers in the name of diversity.
>>1260718
It also had you shooting a commissar just so you could retreat a short ways and flank the enemy without risk of BLAM.
>>1260756
>you
Okay.
>>1260756
Source for that greentext? Is that from Glantz or something similar?
>>1260822
https://mega.nz/#!1Yw0gRxY!IwZQK-yXjvxrXFKD1lO6iWSNnjisLn7uryCjwmhmcMw
>>1260833
Cool, thanks.
>>1260718
I'm pretty sure they took it directly from enemy at the gates.
>>1260478
The myth probably came from the People's Volunteer divisions at Leningrad. They didn't have enough rifles and would instead equip volunteers with just grenades.
>>1260478
>Now where in hell did this deliciously tasty meme come from?
Barely formulated, zeitgeist-y reptilian brain feeling of "russians are backwards" makes content creators create memes like this which then become self-sustained by it's own variations
I was legitimately taught in my American highschool that this kind of shit was true. I very vividly remember reading paragraphs about Soviet soldiers being forced to fight at gunpoint, and remember seeing a picture of them on a train that had bars over them, because they apparently would try to escape. Funny.
How shitty was the WW2 Russian army, anyways? I remember some russiaboo awhile back posting shit about how the lend-lease didn't reach the Soviets until the later stages of the war, and how they were adequately equipped in actuality. That true?
>>1260885
>bars over them
over the train's windows, I mean.
>>1260885
>How shitty was the WW2 Russian army, anyways?
Depends HUGELY on what time and place you're in. The Red Army of 1941 was way different than 43 which was in turn way different in 45; and the Soviets probably had the biggest variation in the degree of quality from their best troops to their average troops of any major power in WW2.
>how the lend-lease didn't reach the Soviets until the later stages of the war,
That's not entirely false. I don't have my stats in front of me, but the amount that made it in from 1943 onward was like 3 and a half times what made it in in 1941-42 by gross weight anyway.
>and how they were adequately equipped in actuality.
Not without lend-lease, they weren't. Those massive counterattacks were made possible by it. I suppose theoreitcally the Soviets could have redirected some of their other industry to try to compensate, but it would have been nigh impossible to get them to take the offensive like that without it.
Although I suppose it might have stopped them from those idiotic "ATTACK ALL ACROSS THE LINE" plans they did from beginning until end.
>>1260885
Without lend/lease the Russians would have lost the war. It wasn't just weapons we gave them. Trucks, oil, food ,clothes, boots, the list goes on.
>>1260927
Wrong photo, sorry
>>1260769
At the very beginning after you get off the boat, if you turn around and head back to the boat, the commissar there will kill you.
>>1260497
>he doesn't know about Order 227
>>1260927
> americans completely UNIRONICALLY present their money as their greatest contribution to war
>>1260885
>How shitty was the WW2 Russian army, anyways?
You can't really compare the Soviet military in 1941 to the Red Army of the mid-late war. They had the largest tank force in the world and saw 90% of it destroyed in less than six weeks. It wasn't until they were reorganized and resupplied that they turned it around, something they could not have done without Lend Lease. That they were able to recover from such a clusterfuck at all is almost unbelievable.
Marshall Zhukov himself said "[Lend Lease] shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.”
>I very vividly remember reading paragraphs about Soviet soldiers being forced to fight at gunpoint
Penal units were a thing in both the Wehrmacht and Red Army. Neither side had the time or resources to deal with military litigation as the vast majority of cases weren't significant enough to hold military courts. It was instead easier to place such men in penal units.
Order 227 was a thing, as were blocking units, but a penal unit of 200 men wouldn't be able to stop a division in retreat nor were they expected to. Death is a possible punishment for desertion/misconduct during combat in Western armies too, and extremely rare in all cases, regardless of nationality.
>>1260975
American production and Soviet manpower won the war. This is a consensus among historians. The only time I see it challenged is by anonymous posters on the internet, which says all you need to know.
>>1260718
>Finest hour
I'm sorry you had to play the butchered console version, anon
>>1260975
He didn't say money, he said guns, trucks, oil, food, clothes, and boots.
You try fighting a war without those things, why don't you?
Whether you believe his assertion that Russia wouldn't have won without lendlease is one thing, but don't be such a contrarian cunt and pretend supplies aren't important in wars.
>>1261009
>Yes, US provided soviet with incompatible ammo to their rifles and they shipped millions of us-made T34 and IL2
Don't forget nearly 2 million tons of food and 2.5 million tons of oil, among other things. Try driving T-34s and IL2s without gas or a crew.
>>1261032
And in 1940, the Baku refineries alone were turning out 22.4 million tons of oil. American fuel aid was pretty irrelevant, anon. IT was the other stuff that really mattered, especially machine parts and trucks.
>>1261039
I'm glad we agree that it mattered.
>>1261032
http://youtu.be/anwy2MPT5RE
Yes, Spam saved the Soviets. Even Zhukov said it was important.
Video related; it's the American's biggest contribution from Lend-Lease.
Trucks were a huge part of Lend-Lease. They made the late war offensives of the Soviets feasible - or at least gave them longer logistical legs. Without them, you'll see shorter offensive sweeps. Red Army loved the Willy's jeep and the Ford truck (technically the 'home-grown' Zis truck was a copy of a Ford, anyway).
Really helped make the war shorter. Food aid was also of great help. Soviets loved them some spam.
However, it is worth noting that the Soviets stopped the Germans cold in '42 and 43 - before Lend-Lease really kicked into high gear. Where Lend-Lease helped the most was in those late war pushes.
>>1261017
i literally never said they weren't
i am just pointing out that americans are too hasty to undermine soviet victory on eastern front by instantly going "muh landlease", like pavlov's dogs
And proudly proclaiming shipping of spam as the most important achievement of the war from US side should logically be insulting to the memories of their own vets
>>1261085
I don't necessarily subscribe to "Soviets won because of lend-lease" I just think that a lot of people get so sick of the "America won WWII singlehandedly!" chest-pounders that they go so far in the other direction that it's just as retarded. It seems like when some people get sick of an opinion on this board they just jump ship to the polar opposite contrarian opinion.
>>1261085
>i am just pointing out that americans are too hasty to undermine soviet victory on eastern front by instantly going "muh landlease", like pavlov's dogs
>even the Soviets admitted they couldn't have won the war without Lend-Lease
>Historians hold the same consensus
>Some fuckboy on a mongolian vase art website says otherwise because he's a contrarian
Lad...
>And proudly proclaiming shipping of spam as the most important achievement of the war from US side should logically be insulting to the memories of their own vets
Except no one is claiming that. YOU are claiming that people are claiming that, but no one is. Things the U.S. is solely responsible for: Victory in the Pacific, salvaging Market Garden, Lend-Lease allowing the Soviets to hold on and eventually counter-attack, Victory in Italy, Victory on the Western Front.
Things the Soviets are responsible for:
Victory on the Eastern Front once they could manage on their own, subjugating Eastern Europe
Things Britain is responsible for:
Fucking up Market Garden and Victory in Africa
>>1261115
I don't think you know what "solely" means.
>>1261122
Britain and Australia were America's Italy in the war, don't kid yourself.
>>1261085
I said the shipping of Spam was the biggest contribution from Lend-Lease.
I am not taking away the contributions of WW2 Veterans. They've done so much and had to eat all that fucking Spam to the point they were legit sick of it.
>>1261009
>he doesn't know where the aluminum needed to make t34s came from
>>1261124
I'm not even trying to downplay that America was important, arguably vital, for the victory of the western allies.
Solely is still not an appropriate word, and you're fucking retarded if you think the British and their dominions didn't contribute to victory.
>>1261136
>and you're fucking retarded if you think the British and their dominions didn't contribute to victory
>Cuckstralia sits at home and watches their women get fucked by Americans
>Britain fucks up the offensive on the Western Front so badly that the war is extended by almost a year
Again, they get Africa and Canada gets a pass for doing what Britain couldn't. In Europe, Britain was to America as Italy was to Germany. The US won the Western Front and the Pacific.
>>1261115
> solely
> Lend-Lease allowing the Soviets to hold on
> once they could manage on their own
again these underhanded proviso-s keep >implying and diminishing soviet effort while bolstering bald eagle shaped feelings
land-lease program wasn't in full gear until fater soviets stopped german offensive dead on it's tracks in 41 and 42
but you still keep implying that US
> solely
had any hand in that
>>1260718
Call of Duty ripped most of it's elements straight from WW2 movies.
>>1261140
>In Europe, Britain was to America as Italy was to Germany
I'd like to see how Overlord would have went without the immense strategic bombing campaign conducted by bomber command to destroy German transportation and infrastructure, or the massive holding operation around Caen that allowed for operation Cobra to commence with minimal German resistance, or the immense decryption efforts conducted at Bletchley park, or the Royal Navy basically enabling the invasion.
America had the privilege of being the hammer in the hammer and anvil, but you need both.
If the only books on WWII you've ever read are books about Patton or MacArthur or some shit I can see how you could get it in your head that America singlehandedly won the war, but that isn't the case.
>>1261136
you're right, you helped evacuate retreating frenchmen from dunkirk
>>1261140
>What is Ultra
How are people this stupid?
>>1261173
If that's the only thing you've ever read about, you need to read more books.
>>1261179
There's a brand of stupid that ignores anything contrary to the conclusion they've already decided upon. Sadly there are a lot of Americans happy to buy into the "we singlehandedly won WWII" meme, so they just dismiss anything that challenges this theory.
>>1261155
>I'd like to see how Overlord would have went without the immense strategic bombing campaign conducted by bomber command to destroy German transportation and infrastructure
Because Britain was the only one doing strategic bombing amiright? You know, there's an old song that goes something like "USA by Day, RAF by night" because Britain could do fuck all with their strategic bombers unless it was night time.
> or the massive holding operation around Caen that allowed for operation Cobra to commence with minimal German resistance
You mean fail to capture the city and thus put it under siege because you fucked up. That's some spin you got there britfag.
>or the immense decryption efforts conducted at Bletchley park, or the Royal Navy basically enabling the invasion
It's almost as if the British didn't do any of this alone.
Either way, I was referencing Market Garden. The biggest fuck up of the war. Break an arm jerking yourself off if you so desire, Britcuck. You fucked up the offensive so badly that the war lasted another full year.
I wonder what the war would have looked like without American L&L.
A German victory is right out, I think - Moscow and Stalingrad were won before any help (or any meaningful help anyway) reached the SU.
But then again so are the sweeping counterattacks of 43 because you don't have the trucks to move stuff. You also have far fewer supplies and food and materiel in general, because you.
Maybe some kind of a terrible attrition warfare, with precious few offensives, with both sides bleeding out for a couple more years and Soviets edging it on numbers with an absolutely impoverished and starved country?
>>1261140
>In Europe, Britain was to America as Italy was to Germany
what the fuck
>>1261254
Takes some balls to talk about spin while moving the goalposts like this.
Why don't you take a quick look at what sort of resources Germany poured into Caen while the US army worked its way around? Get your head out of your fucking ass. Caen was a shitshow because the Germans put so much effort into defending it, they considered it the key to Paris. American success in Cobra hinged on the Germans being occupied in the Caen area. Encirclement at Falaise depended on the Germans being locked into the Caen area so they could be encircled. The destruction of the German army in France needed both the hammer AND the anvil.
As for day bombing - so what? Read about the tonnage of bombs dropped on major German cities by the RAF. We're not arguing about who more willingly threw themselves at German anti-air fire and interceptors, we're talking about bombing operations. You have to be a real cunt to pretend like the RAF didn't pull its weight in strategic bombing. As far as strategic bombing was concerned this was not even close to a singlehanded American effort and you need to intentionally be being retarded to consider it so.
>It's almost as if the British didn't do any of this alone.
Are you going to try to take credit for Ultra now? Fuck right off.
>Either way, I was referencing Market Garden
A fucked up offensive doesn't magically make Britain not contribute anything to a war effort.
>Break an arm jerking yourself off if you so desire, Britcuck.
I'm not British, and I'm not jerking myself off. You're the one making the outrageously stupid claim that America singlehandedly won the war in Europe. I'm simply asserting that British wasn't as useless as you're trying to pretend. Who's jerking off here, dipshit?
Also, do you think Italy could have happened without victory in Africa? Where do you think the invasion was launched from, fucking Massachusetts or something?
>>1261133
> aluminum tanks
>>1260927
Just stop this bullshit. All lend/lease did was have the war end earlier than it would have and it was metals that made any kind of difference not weapons.
>>1260885
I never learned any of that shit in highschool, Let me guess your history teacher was in his 50s wore a coat with elbow patches and talked like some tough-shit no-nonsense teacher who was actually clueless because he gleaned his knowledge through hollywood and his macho-man rose tinted glasses
that or you are falseflagging
>>1260478
>Now where in hell did this deliciously tasty meme come from?
From WW1. Back then it was a thing.
>>1260885
>I remember some russiaboo awhile back posting shit about how the lend-lease didn't reach the Soviets until the later stages of the war, and how they were adequately equipped in actuality. That true?
Not at all. There is a misquote from 'The War Economy of the USSR during the Second World War' by Nikolai Voznesensky that says something like "Lend-Lease supplies only ever amounted to 4% of Soviet wartime production." but this is taken out of context and only meant to apply to a specific area of military production (and even then is blatantly wrong).
Some contradictory examples:
664,600 tons of canned meat - 108% of Soviet production
610,000 tons of sugar - 42%
1,900 locomotives - 426%
409,500 trucks
16,000,0000 pairs of shoes.
The real issue, and where the confusion stems, is that the bulk of Lend-Lease wasn't readily visible, (this is where the "lend-lease was too late to matter" argument comes from), as only 20% of Lend-Lease was in the form of military equipment. Resources and raw materials would make up the bulk. Aluminum (125% of Soviet production), for example, would be used in more than half of all Soviet-produced aircraft, though you wouldn't call these Lend-Lease airplanes because of this, or the same for tanks made with Lend-Lease sheet metal. Or any engine running only high-octane gasoline, something the Soviets could not produce.
These are all arguments presented by Russian historians, btw.
http://www.forbes.ru/mneniya-column/istoriya/288019-lend-liz-fakty-i-mify
>>1261387
>aluminum tanks
T-34 tank engine used aluminum alloys
Americans are this delusional (and ignorant, I know from experience)
>>1261310
>Where do you think the invasion was launched from, fucking Massachusetts or something
Malta. Gibraltar. Crete. Literally anywhere in the Med because the Axis didn't have control over anything strategic.
>>1260975
>>1261009
>>1261398
>I know better than Marshall Zhukov. Here, look at all my no sources.
"But you can not deny that Americans drove us so much material, without which we would not be able to form our reserves and could not continue the war. We had no explosives and gunpowder. There was not enough rifle cartridges. Americans really helped us out with gunpowder and explosives. And as they drove us sheet metal! How could we quickly establish a production of tanks, if not American aid steel?"
http://www.forbes.ru/mneniya-column/istoriya/288019-lend-liz-fakty-i-mify?page=0,1
>>1261441
Crete was lost
>>1261454
There is no reality in which the Germans could have won. It's a miracle they lasted as long as they did.
>met person once who claimed this was true for all ruskies in the entire war
>>1260728
Remarkably parallel to Pearl Harbor in that regard.
The Nazis sneak attack took the Soviet Union by surprise and resulted in disorganized chaos so it is completely feasible that during operation Barbarossa mistakes happened and soldiers ended up without rifles.
However by Stalingrad they had reorganized and in theory any reasonably competent member of staff would never make that mistake. Soviet military law wasn't strictly hierarchical and soldiers could go over the head of an immediate superior to report to a higher rank, if there was enough evidence those responsible would have been promptly charged with military incompetence and executed.
>>1260728
And then Russia made its own movie about Stalingrad, which was brilliant, respectful and accurate.
The end.
>>1260478
It's an amalgamation of several factors like: Operation Paper clip-influenced Cold War propaganda,Enemy at the gates,forced American point of view of 20th century history and the influence of various video games such as Call of Duty I and II,Company of Heroes 2 etc.
But then again,they did send newly formed Siberian and Prison units to soak up the German artillery and ammo.
>>1260927
Highly unlikely,considering that the Lend-lease was accounted for only 7% of all the resources which the Soviets have used in World War II.
Also,they've defeated 80% of the German army several months before you've decided to play hero on the newly opened Western Front,which was ironically opened up to stop the Russians from occupying Western Europe.
>>1260993
No it's not,considering the fact that the Soviets have outproduced everyone else in the later stages of World War II.
>The only time I see it challenged is by anonymous posters on the internet
Every single non-American historians that has amounted to something begs to differ.
>>1261115
>Things the Soviets are responsible for:
>Victory on the Eastern Front once they could manage on their own, subjugating Eastern Europe
You mean,defeating the bulk of the German army,approximately 80% of it and entering Berlin while you were busy brutalizing undermanned and overburdened German veterans of the Eastern Front?
Also,the Soviets would've never taken Eastern Europe if you and the British didn't assure them that you wouldn't be taking any actions against them during the conference of Yalta.
>>1261610
Many seem to have forgotten about that fact,some even intentionally.
>>1260478
That happened in China actually, in both Communist and Nationalist guerillas.
But the logic being "here, use this spear/sword. We with the guns will pin the Japanese patrol down. Then, you guys rush in and try to kill as many as you can. Then take their guns."
>>1260478
Happened with the 1st aif north africa thats why the 6th divvy engaged the french, the 7th didnt have the rifles
>>1261692
Called?
>>1261846
Holy shit those cats look miserable. Like they all know they're going to die..
>>1261818
Then why can't you produce a single source?
>>1260497
You're right, it wasn't a commissar, it was sentry emplacements (better supplied than normal infantry) whose job was to kill deserters
>>1261878
Because there is no point in enlightening those who're more than fond of embellishing their historical illiteracy,plus,we both know that you won't even glance at them,let alone read them.
>>1261254
It's true that the Brits did a shit ton of retarded things that was literally Italy-level at times, such as splitting the tank into cruiser and infantry support lines even though there was literally no need and firing the guy who created Britain's first tank units because MUH HORSES, but Britain did contribute to the war effort, yanno. RADAR was primarily British, as is the entirety of Bletchley Park.
>>1261818
What about food production? What about the literal fucktons of Spam lying in Soviet stores that was shipped in 1941 and 1942?
What sources say that the Soviets fucking produced enough food to feed all the Soviets that were not dead or captured in WW2?
Which non-American historians say that the Soviets produced more food than what Lend-Lease gave?
Most of Russian history is one big myth in West. What's funny is that even Russians themselves believe some memes.
Like Ivan IV blinding his architect.
>>1261692
Which one?
>>1261846
>>1261866
>>1260927
Great shitpost anon!
>>1261454
>Zhukov
Fucking Stalin could have said it and it wouldn't have changed the fact that only 7% of total Soviet war products were Lend Lease.
Statisticallh
>>1262267
Honestly could be more effective than guns in certain situations.
>>1262225
>What sources say that the Soviets fucking produced enough food to feed all the Soviets that were not dead or captured
From the top of my head: History of the Second World War (104 volumes), Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London 1949 to 1993 and Kumanev, G.A., "War and the evacuation of the USSR: 1941-1942", New Age, 2006
"What about food production? What about the literal tons of Spam lying in Soviet stores that was shipped in 1941 and 1942"-The Lend-lease has only been accounted for only 7% of all the resources which the Russians have used in World War II,and it wasn't merely given,but bought with gold.
"Which non-American historians say that the Soviets produced more food than what Lend-Lease gave"-You're clinging to the argument of food because that's the only thing that has truly made a difference,together with the steel that you've sent,but that's where your "assistance" ends.
Also,there is a reason why I've said in "the later stages of the War".during the first two years,the Soviets had to relocate their entire industry to the Caucasus and other,southernmost regions of their country,in order to protect it from German areal bombardment.
Here comes the Russian Army.
So when do the atrocities start?
>>1262397
Not him, but it was really more just good old fashioned overrunning by ground troops.
Luftwaffe strategic bombing capabilities were pathetic, and the Soviets mostly ignored what few raids they mounted. (Their CAS, on the other hand........)
>>1261150
This.
The Vendetta mission in World at War was so obviously Enemy at The Gates based that it actually took me out of the game for a while.
That being said, World at War is still my favourite CoD campaign. The atmosphere is unmatched.
>>1261140
>What was the Burma campaign?
>>1261115
>Things Britain is responsible for:
>Fucking up Market Garden and Victory in Africa
What about curb-stomping the Luftwaffe during the battle of Britain?
I'm an American and I think it's improper to suggest that the allied victory was anything but that: the result of allies willing to put aside their differences and pool their resources in the face of a larger foe. I take issue with mouth-breathing burgers who think America single-handedly won the war, and I take issue with people who think Russia did all of the work and America arrived just in time to hog the credit.
>>1260497
NKVD had special battalions. When a troublesome unit (low moral soldiers) were sent to the frontline, one of these special NKVD battalions were stationed just some distance behind them, to shoot anyone who deserted. In one incident, a small group of soviet soldiers decided to surrender to the germans. A soviet soldier on guard duty told to to halt, but the deserters threatened to kill him if he didn't also desert, so he went with them. Just before they reached the german lines the guard soldier ran back to his own lines, the deserters shot at him and tried to kill him but missed. When he came back to his own lines he immediately went to his officer to report the deserters. He (the guard) was executed for "letting them desert over to the germans.".
source: Antony Beevor - Stalingrad
>>1261420
BTFO. Great post. Amateurs think of tactics while professionals discuss logistics, and while it's not sexy to discuss the importance of money in winning wars, the truth is that you need a lot of it if you actually hope to win.
>>1262625
This guy gets it.
It was an allied campaign. Britain did all the work and its 'allies' showed up just in time to hog the glory.
>>1261846
wew
>>1262808
>Japanese """tanks"""
>>1262386
>Honestly could be more effective than guns under extremely limited circumstances.
fixed it for you
>>1262171
>I'm not posting sources because you wouldn't read it anyway!
>aka: my source is shit and I don't want you to pick it apart
Typical.
>>1262596
Irrelevant is what it was. It did absolutely nothing for victory in the Pacific.
>>1261133
iirc the US supplied plenty of high octane fuel used by Soviet aviation (they obviously had the crude oil, but not necessarily the ability to refine it in sufficient quantities) as well as a very significant proportion of the raw materials used to make explosives etc (eg for artillery)
>>1262685
What happened to these penal battalions and deserters after the war?
>>1260497
>I think it's anti-soviet drivel that spouted up during the cold war and has since been accepted as fact by the west ov
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._227
>>1261112
we did win singlehandedly. WWII ended in the early 90s, With America on top and Soviets under heel.
>>1262381
That quote says nothing about products. You can't make a tank if you have no raw materials.
>>1262171
What would they do if the ammo carrier died first? Their instructions weren't very clear
Best mission in COD.
>>1260718
i loved this game to death
>>1262381
I'd like to see you build a tank without ball bearings.
>>1260497
15k were executed by commisars in stalin grad
>>1261401
California highschool, 2011. He also tried to capture out interest with conceptions like Polish cavalry vs. tanks and ich bin ein berliner,
>>1260975
You're retarded if you don't know that the flow of goods was by far the largest factor in every battle in ww2.
The African front would yield a victory because enemy tank pins melted in the desert, then defeat becayse your tanks have no fuel. 75% of rommels supplies was destroyed.
>>1262625
They didn't. Hitler tactically slowed bombing Britain to divert resources elsewhere.
>>1262685
Can second this with a different source
Catherine Merridale - Ivan's War
>>1265423
Yeah, I'm sure losing almost more planes, far more aircrew, against a country that could build planes and train pilots faster had nothing to do with it.
>>1260478
litterally CoD...
No really, mostly pop culture, the "eternal slav hordes to berlin" also has a nice dose of revisionism to it.
They might have done it in the early stages of the war, when they were in a despereate defense, but when the SU gained the initiative, underspullied slav hordes are just plain bullshit.
T 34s for days...
Was he justified in his actions during WW2, /his/?
>>1262381
>>1262171
During the war:
>'[Great Britain and the United States have] decided systematically to assist our country with tanks and aircraft. As is known, we already have begun to receive shipments of tanks and planes on the basis of this decision’.
J. Stalin, Speech given November 1941, The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union, p. 32
>'Now we shall win the war!'
Maxim Litvinov, Soviet Ambassador to Washington, after negotiating the Lend-Lease Agreement, Russia’s War, p. 238
>‘Without exaggeration [Allied aid] had considerably facilitated the successes of our summer campaign’.
J. Stalin, November 1943, The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union, p. 103
>'On the third anniversary of the Soviet-American Agreement on the Principles Applying to Mutual Aid in the Prosecution of the War against Aggression, I beg you and the Government of the United States of America to accept this expression of gratitude on behalf of the Soviet Government and myself. The Agreement, under which the United States of America throughout the war in Europe supplied the Soviet Union, by way of lend-lease, with munitions, strategic materials, and food, played an important role and to a considerable degree contributed to the successful conclusion of the war against the common foe-Hitler Germany.'
Joseph Stalin to Harry Truman, 11 June 1945, Stalin’s Correspondence with Roosevelt and Truman 1941–1945, p. 244
>‘Had it not been for lendlease[sic] it is anybody’s guess what could have happened’.
V. M. Berezhkov, At Stalin’s Side: His Interpreter’s Memoirs From the October Revolution to the Fall of the Dictator’s Empire, p. 318
>>1265750
Post-war pre-collapse
>‘Right after the war an unofficial “guideline” was set to prove that the Lend-Lease did not play a somewhat noticeable part in the Russian victory over the fascist Germans.’
Igor Lebedev, Aviation Lend-Lease to Russia: Historical Observations, p. 11
>‘Let’s give all the transport equipment that we produce to the military because it’s simply embarrassing to see a parade going by and all the artillery is being towed by American trucks’.
N. Khrushchev (on US aid displayed in Soviet parades), Memoir of Nikita Khrushchev, p. 647.
>'When we entered the war, we were still a backward country in the industrial sense. Today some say the Allies really didn’t help us. But, listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war. To believe what they say today, you’d think we had all this in abundance!'
Zhukov’s off-the-record statement to Russian journalist Konstantin Simonov in 1963.
>‘Even in the late 1980's Lend-Lease was still a subject of which the regime would not permit open discussion’.
R. Overy, Russia’s War: Blood upon the Snow, p. 238
>'The fall of socialism in Eastern Europe and the crisis of the Soviet economy have thrown into question Marxist ideas that previously underpinned historical scholarship.'
E. Foner, Who Owns History?: Rethinking the Past in a Changing World, p. 80
>>1265753
Post-collapse
>'We must honestly acknowledge the contribution our allies made to the defeat of Hitler. If they had not given us that assistance, we might not have been victorious.’
N. Khrushchev, Memoir of Nikita Khrushchev, p. 648
>'[In 1941 the British and the United States] made every effort to help us. When I saw the vehicles we were beginning to receive, I couldn’t believe my eyes.'
N. Khrushchev, Memoir of Nikita Khrushchev, p. 641
>'We had no conception of modern electronic [radar] equipment, but the British did, and they passed on a certain amount of this equipment to us.'
N. Khrushchev, Memoir of Nikita Khrushchev, p. 648
>‘Despite the many humorous comments about Spam, we still ate it. It would have been very hard to feed our army without it’.
N. Khrushchev, Memoir of Nikita Khrushchev, p. 648
>"Stalin remarked on several occasions that ‘if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war.' I don’t think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. When I listened to his [Stalin’s] remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so."
N. Khrushchev, Memoir of Nikita Khrushchev, p. 639
>>1265755
>‘It is necessary to emphasize that free access to the archive materials on the problem in question became possible in view of the democratic changes in Russian society’.'
Igor Lebedev, Aviation Lend-Lease to Russia: Historical Observations, p. 12
>‘The second front was there long before it was officially opened—the USSR received considerable aid from the US in food and weapons’.
V. Putin, 'Putin: USSR’s role in defeating Nazi Unquestionable’, 6 July 2004
>'The Commander in Chief of the Russian Air Force, Colonel-General Deinekin, wrote the preface to Lebedev’s book, praising it for squelching ‘the official myth about the “insignificant” role of aircraft deliveries and their “low” technical and tactical characteristics. Due to the scientific analysis of the problem carried out by Igor P. Lebedev, the truth about aviation Lend-Lease has been considerably rehabilitated.’
Alexander G. Lovelace, 'Amnesia: How Russian History Has Viewed Lend-Lease', The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 6 Nov 2014
Lend-Lease Museum: http://www.lend-lease.ru/
>>1266090
>>1261825
It's like you don't know who took the first town in Germany or who sat halted on the Elbe for over a month while recon units and reporters drove unobstructed to the outskirts of Berlin.
>>1260483
Yeah, early on in The Great War the Russians (at the time not yet Soviets, so not what OP is asking anyways) did send people charging with wooden clubs with nails in them.
It worked fine, the Russians actually advanced more when they were bumrushing unprepared Austrians than they did later against German trench lines and artillery pushes.
>>1262145
Come on now.
>>1260478
Soviet Penal battalions were equipped thusly and that is probably were the idea came from. Though I doubt regular troops never suffered this fate, there are numerous german eye witness accounts of seeing this happen.
>>1266725
As if he is wrong. As disgusting as some the stories coming out of Soviet Russia are, they were probably the only way the country had any hope of coming out of the German's attack alive.
Stalin made batshit insane decisions for his country, but when it came to the military that insanity was needed.
>>1260718
Thats because COD has a habit of ripping shit straight from movies. This level in Finest Hour is basically a copy of the Stalingrad level from the first cod, which was lifted straight from enemy at the gates.
>>1260728
I thought Konig was a cool character and Ed Harris played hum well even without a silly German accent. Only good part of the movie, honestly.
>>1266912
>Soviet Penal battalions were equipped thusly
[citation needed]
>>1261115
>Things Britain is responsible for:
>Fucking up Market Garden and Victory in Africa
you also forgot
>fucking up stopping Germany at the Anschluss
>fucking up stopping Germany when they annexed Czechoslovakia.
>fucking up the defense of France (French can't into defending their right flank for traditional reasons. )
>Successfully evacuating their army from Dunkirk.
>>1260864
Looked it up to be sure. This is the only instance I've read about "infantry" armed w/o rifles.
>On July 4 it was decided to organize immediately three People’s Volunteer Army divisions. The initial plan to form fifteen divisions was abandoned when it became evident that the Red Army along the Northwestern Front was in desperate need of assistance. Each division had about 10,000 men, and the volunteers were organized into three infantry regiments, an artillery regiment and a tank battalion. Each division was provided with a few light artillery pieces and some machine guns. A majority of the men in the infantry regiments were issued rifles and the others were armed with hand grenades or Molotov cocktails (see Glossary—Molotov cocktail). In all three divisions nearly half of the men had no previous military training. Less than 5 percent of the officers had infantry training and the others were political appointees or reservists with technical specialization.
Albert Pleysier, 'Frozen Tears - The Blockade and Battle of Leningrad', p. 12
>"One men geets the penis! The oother men gets the penis!"
>>1266090
>>1266113
Oh my god.
You're really going to do this.
>>1260478
CoD
>>1260718
>console version
>>1261441
And that was possible because of the British ships and airforce securing the Mediterranean.
>the one Allied country that never gets invaded on the ground or by the sea and only got majorly attacked by air a single time (and not on its "mainland"), in large part due to its location, churned out a shit-ton of supplies for everyone else
>this is enough to celebrate being better than everyone else
I mean, not downplaying Lend-Lease, but would anyone have expected a different outcome?
>>1269933
ohhhhh nice pie chart you got there. I love how there's no citations so I can just toss it into the garbage, as it does not belong in my /his/ folder next to the screencaps which are.
>>1270117
But the US always had superior production numbers.
It's because Anglo society is inherently superior to slavic society.
>>1270144
>the country that just recently industrialized and got invaded by land produced less
You don't say.
>>1270185
>>1270140
Ok, new to this little conversation, but you're being retarded. The U.S. had superior productive capabilities before the war started.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
> Furthermore, America had some hidden advantages that didn't show up directly in production figures. For one, U.S. factories were, on average, more modern and automated than those in Europe or in Japan. Additionally, American managerial practice at that time was the best in the world. Taken in combination, the per capita productivity of the American worker was the highest in the world. Furthermore, the United States was more than willing to utilize American women in the war effort: a tremendous advantage for us, and a concept which the Axis Powers seem not to have grasped until very late in the conflict. The net effect of all these factors meant that even in the depths of the Depression, American war-making potential was still around seven times larger than Japan's, and had the 'slack' been taken out in 1939, it was closer to nine or ten times as great! In fact, accroding to Kennedy, a breakdown of total global warmaking potential in 1937 looks something like this:
Country % of Total Warmaking Potential
United States 41.7%
Germany 14.4%
USSR 14.0%
UK 10.2%
France 4.2%
Japan 3.5%
Italy 2.5%
Seven Powers (total) (90.5%)
>>1270199
Nowhere did I say it wasn't the highest. But what kind of team player doesn't export goods to their allies when they're fighting off invasions and you're not?
And on that topic, while supplies are vitally important, the men doing the fighting are also important. You can ship 10 trillion shoes, cans of spam, ball bearings or whatever, and they won't do squat if there's nobody to fight off Germany so they just occupy the entirety of Europe and all its resources.
>>1270247
I once read somewhere that the blocking battalions had the highest rates of desertion in the Red Army. Is there any actual truth to that?
>>1269933
>>1270117
>>1270144
The point is that Voznesensky's estimate in the 'Official Soviet History of the Great Patriotic War', that "lend-lease deliveries only amounted to 4% of Soviet wartime industrial production," is factually incorrect. There is no explanation for the basis of this figure, nor whether it refers to industrial production or to national income. It's contradicted directly by both Zhukov and Khrushchev in post-collapse writings and by numerous historians and scholars writing with access to the Soviet archives, access only available since the 1990's. We're also now aware of the methods used to diminish the role of Lend-Lease, once assumed to be a side effect of the cold war, but now understood as a result of Marxist-Leninist ideology that originated during the war itself.
That the numbers are often repeated here I can only assume is due to outdated understanding by those who don't have access to modern academic journals, as one of the better issues addressing Soviet Lend-Lease was only published in 2014.
>>1270662
Not any of the guys you responded to, but pie chart guy is substantially accurate.
The amount of goods shipped to the USSR was pretty impressive, but it was roughly 1/3 by rough market value of what was given to the UK. Then again, the shipping route was easier, and a lot of it was in substantially different form. Ships built and just given to the Brits (I know about Hula, but that was tiny in comparison). Plus, the U.S. did a lot of smelting work for the British: Pre-war, the UK usually imported ores, smelted them, used the refined ingots in whatever manufacturing processes, and exported the goods. Once the war got going, it was way safer to ship British colonial ore to the U.S., smelt it there, and then ship the finished metal to the UK for manufacturing (since that meant you got more useable material for the tonnage, which is important when you're shipping it through sub-infested waters), and all that smelting was tallied up as part of U.S. Lend-Lease contribution to the Brits.
>>1270674
It's accurate in the division of aid, my only issues are that it makes no mention of time scales, since Lend-Lease to the UK started earlier than to the USSR, and that the agreements relating to % of finished goods and raw materials would not have been the same.
It also gives the impression that only the USA was supplying aid when considerable British aid was sent both prior to and during the Lend Lease protocols, the importance of which is only now being studied with access to Soviet archives.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13518046.2013.844538
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13518040600697811
>>1270144
Is that why you had to deploy Slavic inventors to invent AC electricity and digital electronic computing,the foundations of all modern technology to come?
>>1263202
> my source is shit and I don't want you to pick it apart
You couldn't pick apart your diabetes ridden fingers from the floor,let alone something that requires preemptive thinking.
Also
>>1262397
>>1265750
The Lend-lease had it's uses,but only until the moment the Soviets were able to safely transfer all of their industry to the Caucasus,to protect it from German aerial bombardment.
>On the third anniversary of the Soviet-American Agreement on the Principles Applying to Mutual Aid in the Prosecution of the War against Aggression, I beg you and the Government of the United States of America to accept this expression of gratitude on behalf of the Soviet Government and myself. The Agreement, under which the United States of America throughout the war in Europe supplied the Soviet Union, by way of lend-lease, with munitions, strategic materials, and food, played an important role and to a considerable degree contributed to the successful conclusion of the war against the common foe-Hitler Germany
Telling the truth and saying what your ally wants to hear are marginally different things.
>>1266625
And it's like you don't know against whom you've fought(outnumbered,outgunned and overburdened German veterans and volunteers who've never seen a bullet fly near them) and against whom they've fought(the bulk of the German army).
>>1271684
>Lend-lease had it's uses,but only until the moment the Soviets were able to safely transfer all of their industry to the Caucasus
You cannot transfer Ukrainian farmland, nor industries that did not exist in the first place. Don't forget that the specifics of Lend-Lease deliveries were requested by Moscow out of genuine need. If it was simply a matter of moving industry then demand for items like trucks and signals equipment would decrease over time, yet the opposite is true.
>Telling the truth and saying what your ally wants to hear are marginally different things.
Which is why the later admissions from those like Zhukov and Khrushchev, men who had both first-hand participation in the management of the war and the depreciation of Lend-Lease following it, are important in correcting its history.
>>1262398
Probably about 3 years earlier in a Belorussian village
>>1262398
"atrocity" is relative on the eastern front.
>>1260756
https://youtu.be/JZD-ADArwXo
In case anyone was wondering.
LoL great picture!
>>1260478
what if the guy with ammo get shot first XD ?
>>1270294
From what I read, they often deserted the other way as deserting their posts into enemy fire.
They were decently equipped and were some of the most politically indoctrinated so often times they would desert their posts and join the fight at the frontlines, especially if the frontline was winning and they weren't needed to form a 2nd line of defense against a potential counterattack.
>>1261260
No it actually isn't. Look up the DEVASTATING losses the soviets recieved in their offensives in 43 and even in 44, yeah they had the manpower to sustain those losses but without lend and lease they wouldn't have been able to replace all the war material needed in those slaughterhouse operations. Sure they could have replaced the trains,trucks and high octane fuel needed for modern Planes they got BUT not without a massive impact on their production of other war materials. Oh and people tend to forgot that circa 40% of soviet food production was lost after barbarossa thats a MASSIVE starvation without food delieveries surely impacting the war industry.
All of this without the actual weapons the allies delievered. People act like the soviet industry was a huge juggernaut that was invincible to the germans and completly disregard the fact that it was allied help that enabled them to achieve the huge production they had. Without lend and lease they would be in deep shit somwhere in 43 or 44. I seriously doubt they would have been able to land the crashing blows they did giving the Wehrmacht considerably more breathing space for new offensives and a stronger defense.
>>1271880
Those that did exist were transferred and those that didn't were being developed as the war raged on.The demand for trucks and signals equipment did decrease over time,but that wasn't the case with food,which had to imported and received.
>Which is why the later admissions from those like Zhukov and Khrushchev, men who had both first-hand participation in the management of the war and the depreciation of Lend-Lease following it
Is that why Stalin and Roosevelt have vehemently argued about the actual percentages of the Lend-lease during the conference of Yalta?Roosevelt claimed 12%,while Stalin claimed 7% at best.
"are important in correcting its history"-Except your kind is not trying to "correct it's history",you're trying to make it sound as if canned food and malfunctioning trucks were the reason why the Russians have defeated the bulk of the German army,not their soldiers.
>>1273176
It actually is,and no amount of Operation Paperclip-themed revising,Cold War containment propaganda and sub-par public college education can change that.
People are not claiming that the Soviet Union a juggernaut of epic proportions because of it's massive production,but because of it's ability to produce surprisingly large amounts of resources given her incredibly difficult and seemingly hopeless situation.With all due respect,but producing 14% of all the resources that were used in World War II in their situation is one hell of an achievement.
" I seriously doubt they would have been able to land the crashing blows they did giving the Wehrmacht considerably more breathing space for new offensives and a stronger defense"-I know it's very difficult for your American(probably) mind to comprehend ,but after they've won the battle of Moscow and Stalingrad,the Russians have not just reorganized their army,but they've also realized that their enemy is not invincible and that revelation has caused a massive resurgence of morale,camaraderie,volunteers and sense of fanatical dedication that would later play a pivotal role in their mobilization towards Berlin.At that pivotal moment,the roles have changed.The once demoralized and unprepared Russian army has ideologically transformed itself what the German army was during the most successful moments of Operation Barbarossa.In other words,they've found their purpose.
There was absolutely no chance that the German army would've mounted new offensives because the bulk of their army was killed and captured at Stalingrad,the only option left to them was to retreat and destroy everything in their path just to slow the Russians down,which they did,for a limited amount of time.The Germans have lost,they've simply lacked the men to engage the Russians in the way they did during the early stages of the war and none of your convoluted attempts of downplaying the decisiveness of the Russian contribution will ever change that.
>>1273674
>There was absolutely no chance that the German army would've mounted new offensives because the bulk of their army was killed and captured at Stalingrad,
Not even him, but are you absolutely retarded? That is quite simply false.
Hell, the balance of forces in the field between the Wehrmacht and the Red Army was pretty even between Stalingrad and Kursk.
>>1263411
members of penal battallions were, after three months of service, fully restored in rank and awards.
Deserters where a) sent to the gulag (this was mostly the case) b)executed (this didn't happen all to often, only about 5% of the cases iirc or c) put in a penal battallion
I don't really have sources for these claims, so someone else, feel free to refute them.
>>1273681
Meme history quite simple. There were operations that were much more decisive then Stalingrad.
>>1273674
Actually i am not even american my dude. Its really interesting how you have no substantial knowledge about history and no insight about that. Its really funny how you drink the soviet cool aid and imply that others are revisionist. Again for starters: Just look up the operational history of the eastern front and stop sperging about Stalingrad. Stalingrad is vastly exaggerated in its importance. Other battles and operations brooke the Wehrmachts back.
Its not about downplaying the russian contribution and more about historical accuracy. Actually look up the loss of warmaterial in the operations after Stalingrad and explain again how the soviets could have replaced these without the help of the allies.
Also: Quite interesting that no russiabo ever admits that there would have been a famine without US help.
>>1273548
>canned food and malfunctioning trucks
W E W L A D thats one of the boldest way to be a revisionist.
>>1273674
>Muh Operation paperclip propaganda
>Implying soviet censorship and propaganda about lend and lease wasn't a BIG thing
Its always the same with you. Living on Western money and acting totally superior.
>>1273759
Highly unlikely,considering that the outcome of Stalingrad has changed the outcome of the entire war,it basically broke the bulk of the German army.
>Actually i am not even american my dude
That's why I've written probably,in case you're not American.
I'm not implying that others are revisionists,I'm just saying that they're opinions are influenced by competent revisionists.
"Its not about downplaying the Russian contribution and more about historical accuracy"-Highly unlikely,considering that Western historiography has always played a pivotal role in distributing misinformation about Russia in an attempt to dehumanize her and cheapen her achievements in the eyes of her peers.Forgive me if I don't trust their attempts of "finding historical accuracy".
>explain again how the soviets could have replaced these without the help of the allies
It would've been a very difficult task to complete.the war would've surely been prolonged for an additional year or so if they've decided to replace their material losses all by themselves.
>Quite interesting that no russiabo ever admits that there would have been a famine without US help
I'm no russiabo,but I'm more than willing to admit that the American donations which came in the form of canned and dried food,wheat and secondary medications were of great importance for the Russian soldiers on the Eastern Front,given the fact that the lush fields of Ukraine were completely inaccessible to the Russians for a prolonged amount of time.
>>1273848
>Forgive me for not caring about historical accuracy.
Ok m8. You can sperg about ebil westerners and Stalingrad all you want for what i care. Its simply wrong to claim stalingrad destroyed the german army. There were operations causing more than twice the manpower loss for germany.
>>1273835
Most of the trucks weren't prepared for the weather,engines would freeze or the reparations couldn't be done because the spare parts weren't compatible.
>boldest way to be a revisionist
It's not revision if it's true.
>Implying soviet censorship and propaganda about lend and lease wasn't a BIG thing
Just because the Soviets were notoriously known for their usage of propaganda doesn't mean that they weren't simply countering the American one in this particular case.
Russians are well known for not putting a great value on human life but ironically,they do put great value on the sacrifices of their dead and you're sorely misled if you believe that they're just gonna let the Americans revise most of the history of World War II and claim Russian achievements as theirs just because they've paid for a portion of the resources which the Russians have used on the Eastern Front?
> Operation paperclip propaganda
Has played a pivotal role in the creation of the infamous containment policies,the pillars of Western,mainly American Cold War propaganda.
>Its always the same with you. Living on Western money and acting totally superior
The Lend-lease wasn't free,it was paid for with large amounts of gold and other precious minerals and taking care of almost 80% of the German army gives them the actual to "act totally superior".
>>1273869
I'm not saying that it has destroyed all of the German army,but the Bulk of it,but that doesn't mean that the Germans were still completely defeated.
>Forgive me for not caring about historical accuracy
Western sources of Russian history are tendentious at best and that reduces their capability of being accurate at all.
I've never said that you're evil,just more than willing to commit acts of severe underhandedness just to protect the authority of your narrative,including ravaging the sanctity of one of the oldest social science known to Mankind.
>>1273928
> Hahaha soviets were notorious liars and uncaring about the life of the people subjected to their rule.
>Not in this particular case though! All the Information pointing towards lend and lease playing a pivotal role is simply wrong because i say so!
Face it stalin made a fuckload of political mistakes prior to WW2 and the Western allies saved his ass. Making shady Deals with the Nazis, then acting completly naive and Borderline retarded when they attack you isn't something to feel proud off. Allied help safed the soviet asses and was used to establish brutal totalitarian dictatorships all over eastern europe making the people there hate you more than the Nazis.
>>1273957
They literally started another offensive in 43 and endured several operations causing higher losses. Stalingrad was 250k german losses,while there were several operations leading to 500k or more losses.
Also it is really rich to claim that the west fabricates a narrative while the russians/soviets are much worse. Of course the west has biases but a free society will always have more accurate views of history than the parade of dictatorships that governed russia.
Did lend lease just stop the moment the war ended?
>>1273989
No, it continued on for a few months, IIRC. Stuff that had been slated to the USSR but hadn't arrived yet, for the most part.
>>1273972
>Stalingrad was 250k German losses
Close to a million actually,850 thousand to be specific.
>Of course the West has biases but a free society will always have more accurate views of history than the parade of dictatorships that governed Russia
Of which free society are we talking about exactly?The one that's forced to falsify all of it's translated information about a single country for the last 337 years just because she "won't learn her place" or the one that needs to create annual precedents and who is also forced to create a narrative in which she basically has to say that anyone who isn't like her isn't free?
"They literally started another offensive in 43"-The Donets Campaign was more of a series of counteroffensives with highly defensive purposes and objectives(securing several retreat routes for the more depleted German armies to go through relatively unharmed).Erich Von Manstein has held himself admirably well and the campaign itself was a successful counteroffensive against an overextended and overconfident enemy,but it did not amount to a strategic victory and the remaining German forces were forced to retreat and leave the city of Kharkov to the Soviets.
>All the Information pointing towards lend and lease playing a pivotal role
You mean Western information and cherry-picked statements made by Russian officials that were deliberately taken out of context for the sole purpose of political necessity?
"used to establish brutal totalitarian dictatorships all over eastern Europe making the people there"-The Conference of Yalta begs to differ,the Westerners have traded Eastern Europe for Western Germany,the Soviets would've never occupied them without the reassurance that the Westerners won't act against them if they do.
>>1274344
>Counting Romanian, Hungarian, Italian, and HIWI losses as Germans.
Are you stupid, or just very ignorant? I also like how the 850,000 figure, assuming you didn't grab it off of some website somewhere, comes from Craig Williams and his Enemy at the Gates (the book, not the movie), which includes wounded of all sorts, even the ones that returned to action, which aren't how usual military losses are tallied.
>>1265739
Yes
>>1273548
>you're trying to make it sound as if canned food and malfunctioning trucks were the reason why the Russians have defeated the bulk of the German army,not their soldiers.
I'm saying Lend-Lease played a major role in the Soviet victory. As is Zuhkov. As is Khrushchev. Why do you think they are lying? Their statements are far from vague.
Are modern Russian officials like Deinekin lying when they admit Soviet policy was to downplay Lend-Lease? What about contemporaries like Dmitriy Loza? Is it some conspiracy? Are these men double agents trying to rewrite history on behalf of the USA for blue jeans and Coca-Cola?
What about Russian historians like Boris Sokolov and Oleg Budnitskii who conclude in no uncertain terms that the Soviet victory was absolutely dependent on foreign aid?
Are there any Russian historians who refute this while citing post-1991 archival sources rather than parroting the state-approved "4%" statistics of Voznesenskii? Please share them if so.
>>1273548
>malfunctioning trucks
Even the pre-war trucks were largely American licensed designs.
It specifically comes from a single Guards Division that was shattered in the fighting against the Germans. By Stalingrad, the unit was being reformed and ended up regrouping near Stalingrad.
When the Germans took the city they were committed to the counterattack, the unit was below strength and only equipped with 1/3rd of its rifles when it arrived. It was expected (and surely did) find arms there. This is the only case outside of Barbarossa where a Russian unit was sent into battle without an adequate amount of small arms.
The Russians lacked many things, but their small arms production almost outstripped demand. Almost. As the Orks say, you can't ever have enough dakka.
>>1261039
Not quite. The fuel the US sent was high grade stuff, 100% of the high octane fuel used by the VVS was from the USA, they couldn't afford to produce the stuff themselves.
>>1262381
That number has greatly been called into question as of recent years, by Russians themselves.
Some speculate it was actually closer to double that, and in more focused areas US aid amounted to 50-100% of a specific good used by the Soviets, such as high octane aircraft fuel. A significant amount of nickel and other alloys also came from Lend Lease, and 90% of new trains used by the USSR were made by Americans and not Russians.
The Soviets did everything in their power to downplay and discredit Lend Lease after the war, instead attempting to portray WW2 as a war solely won with the blood and sweat of Soviet men and machinery. Even if we say that 7% is true, which I don't believe at this point, the fact remains that a massive amount of industry pre war still had its origins in the US. Most of the technical training the Russians had were from the US and their factory deigns (the modern ones at least) came from American advisors.
>>1275821
Interesting. I happen to have source for this?
>>1273957
>Western sources of Russian history are tendentious at best and that reduces their capability of being accurate at all.
I'm not sure you could be any more wrong on this. Mistakes in the Western histories are a result of Russian information being withheld and censored, forcing a dependence on German sources. There are entire academic journals dedicated to little more than correcting the historical record now that access to the Russian archives is actually available.
It's one thing to complain about western focus on western history, it's another to blame them for the self-inflicted damage to Russian credibility courtesy of political ideology.
>>1275761
There is a fine difference in purchasing trucks that will come with spare parts and an actual on manual and sending large quantities of hastily purchased and badly transported vehicle of shoddy quality whose motors weren't built to survive in extremely low temperature.
> Mistakes in the Western histories are a result of Russian information being withheld and censored, forcing a dependence on German sources
Mistakes?That's a nice name for purposefully repeating the same "mistakes" over and over again for at least 300 years.
>forcing a dependence on German sources
When G. Bayer, Gerhard Friedrich Müller, and A. Schlözer came up with their highly erroneous Normanist theory,no one objected it in the West,in fact,most of Western Europe still vehemently supports that theory even though she hasn't made any serious advancements in the last 256 years.As I recall,you've also classified all Russian work that coincided with her as parts of Russian and"slavophilic" revisionism even though you've never took the time to compare notes.You've actually given yourself the right to believe that you know their history better than they do on the basis of a single theory which was ironically developed by three German historians who at time,were employees of the Russian Institute of science.
"Consequently the popularity of the Normanist theory was revived at the turn of the 20th century, as reflected in the works of F. Braun, K. Tiander, and F. Westberg. Besides the traditional conception of Norman conquest, neo-Normanist theories of Norman commercial and ethnic-agrarian colonization, of the social domination of the Slavs by Norman elites, and of continuous domination of the Slavs by foreigners (from the Scythians to the Normans) were presented."
Lovely progress,from accepting a suspicious theory without even testing it's validity to using it as a stepping stone for all future,politically motivated pseudo-theories to come.Russians are at fault again,right?
>>1275913
To continue,other Western historians such as such as F. Krug and J. Thunmann were basically the ones who've conceived theories which are claiming that Russians are not in fact Slavic,but Asiatic half-breeds,a belief which was later globally institutionalized by Nazi Germany and their proteges in the United States of America,a belief which is still persisting in the West,contrary to the fact that numerous genetic studies have concluded that the presence of Asiatic admixtures in the entire East Slavic gene pool is beneath 3%.
>There are entire academic journals dedicated to little more than correcting the historical record now that access to the Russian archives is actually available
Nothing more but a mirage,considering that you're still persisting with your point of view of their history,even though their sources beg to differ with proofs that can actually be compared and further researches,unlike most of of the ones that you've used for all your previous theories.You had two decades of time to translate a massive amount of information and correct all the mistakes you've made and you still haven't begun with the process of doing just that?What are you afraid of,exactly?Of being shown up as pathological revisionists ?
>>1275913
>it's another to blame them for the self-inflicted damage to Russian credibility courtesy of political ideology
Western,primarily German historians are hired to compile the history of Russia,they proceed to use that one of a kind chance to develop a germanocentric theory just to spite the Russians,especially their native historians,they get kicked out of Russia who in return, proceeds to close all of her records to Western historians in order to protect it's history,Western Europe proceeds to adopt the German theory and even goes that far to use it as stepping stone for all of their future pseudo-theories to come,vehemently disregards Russian studies of their own native history and keeps classifying it"as work of Slavocentric dissidents" ,uses the more radical segments for their dehumanization campaigns that have reached a zenith during World War II by indirectly causing the death of 30 million Russians,The West believes it can claim the success of the Russian army just because they've sent them canned food,wheat and steel,they're rebuffed and proceed to lead a propaganda war against them which lasted for 45 years,still has the audacity to claim that the last three centuries of Western plagiarism of Russian history is actually the fault of Russians.
You're priceless,to say the least.
>>1276418
It's all connected and based on a similar pattern of academic behavior.
By the way,great argument.
>>1276428
>German historians are hired to compile the history of Russia,they proceed to use that one of a kind chance to develop a germanocentric theory just to spite the Russians,especially their native historians,they get kicked out of Russia who in return, proceeds to close all of her records to Western historians in order to protect it's history
>>1260885
I was taught that Albanians had red eyes and pale skin. I am not making this up.
>>1276477
Has absolutely no counterarguments,is forced to posts silly picture just to cash in some meme points.
>>1276328
Because war on eastern front was fought only during winter right? Dumb fucking fuck
>>1276563
I've never implied that,but their usage was limited to warm seasons only,which has significantly reduced their usefulness.
> Dumb fucking fuck
Highly articulate response.
>>1273548
>,you're trying to make it sound as if canned food and malfunctioning trucks were the reason why the Russians have defeated the bulk of the German army,not their soldiers.
An army marches on its stomach.
You try getting starving soldiers to fight
>>1275722
Sokolov specializes in economic geography and his greatest achievement was serving as a part-time professor of social anthropology at the Russian State Social University, mister Oleg on the other hand specializes in Jewish studies at the Institute of Asian and African Studies at Moscow State University.With all due respect, this,but the opinions of historians who've never specialized themselves in the World War II history and the role of the Russian army on the Eastern Front aren't the most reliable sources of information.I also find it adorable that you believe that the opinions of two relatively unimportant Russian historians can outweigh the opinions of the most prolific Russian historians just because they're somewhat agreeable to your point of view.
Dmitriy Loza was nothing more but a tank commander in World War II who just loved to operate with Sherman tanks because according to him, they've had lovely emissions and were easy to navigate though boggy terrain.His opinion is rather skewered considering his initially lower military station in the ranks of the Soviet army.
>Are modern Russian officials like Deinekin lying when they admit Soviet policy was to downplay Lend-Lease?
Deinekin has also said that they the Soviets only began to downplay the role of the Lend-lease once they've seen that the Americans were overplaying it's importance.
>I'm saying Lend-Lease played a major role in the Soviet victory
It's role was detrimental,but also significantly overplayed,which resulted in the Soviets responding to it in an appropriate manner.
I agree that the state-approved 4% is complete bullshit,7% is probably more precise,given the circumstances.
>>1277001
>You try getting starving soldiers to fight
,They've fought for the genetic,societal and historical survival of their civilization.They weren't facing someone who wanted to colonize their resources,they've fought against who wanted to end their existence,once and for all.
For most Russian soldiers,the motivation to protect their loved ones was far more important to them than receiving a portion of Jimmy's canned tuna.
>>1277091
>I also find it adorable that you believe that the opinions of two relatively unimportant Russian historians
Because they've published peer-reviewed articles in credible academic journals. I've lost count of how many times I've asked you for post-collapse contrarian sources.
I don't include Loza for his opinions on Lend-Lease, but because he provides direct accounts of political posturing to diminish its role, and certainly not because "Americans were overplaying it's importance";
>We inomarochniki of the 9th Guards Mechanized Corps were not permitted to go to Port Arthur and Dal'nya for political reasons. This was decided by the higher leadership in the Kremlin office of the Supreme High Command. The leadership decided that the "disgrace of the defeat of tsarist Russia in 1905 had to be erased by domestic, and not by lend-lease, weapons, least of all tanks." Although almost all the wheeled transportation of the 5th Guards Stalingrad Tank Corps was of Lend-Lease origin—Studebaker, Ford, and Willys—the principal combat vehicles— the T-34 tanks—were Soviet.
Why are you avoiding Zuhkov's and Khrushchev's statements?
>>1277108
what good is herculean motivation if you're too physically weak and feeble from malnutrition to do anything
>>1277001
>You Try getting starving soldiers to fight
>forgets literally every occasion in which an army in an besieged town sallies forth
>>1277299
>Why are you avoiding Zhukov's and Khrushchev's statements
I'm not avoiding them because they're somewhat true,The Lend-lease was helpful,but not as much as you'd like to believe.
>and certainly not because "Americans were overplaying it's importance"
Right,they've just claimed that the Russians have won only because of their assistance,completely different.
>Because they've published peer-reviewed articles in credible academic journals
In Western ones,absolutely,but in the Russians ones?Doubtful.
>>1281186
Landlease helped a lot with the war effort
Several of the great sieges would have been drastically different without it
>>1281198
>Several of the great sieges would have been drastically different without it
They would've only slowed the Soviets down,stop giving yourself too much importance.
>>1281186
>I'm not avoiding them because they're somewhat true,The Lend-lease was helpful,but not as much as you'd like to believe.
So he's lying?
>"Stalin remarked on several occasions that ‘if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war.' I don’t think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. When I listened to his [Stalin’s] remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so."
N. Khrushchev, Memoir of Nikita Khrushchev, p. 639
>>1281221
Fuck off vatnik, the Soviets would have failed to launch any successful offensives past 1943 without foreign aid and German forces being split along multiple fronts.
>>1281343
>N. Khrushchev
At the time he made that remark,he needed the aid of American secret agencies to crush his political opposition in the Soviet Union,who were ironically well situated and connected in the Soviet army and the KGB.
>I don’t think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion
That's because he didn't.
>So he's lying?
More like telling a half-truth.
>>1281354
80% of the German army was stationed on the Eastern Front,in case you've forgotten.
>>1260941
that's still a wrong photo in that it bears no relation to anything in this thread
>>1265739
No, fuck him
>>1281449
>80% of the German army was stationed on the Eastern Front,in case you've forgotten.
Ahh, stale crunchy unsubstantiated memes.
http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nations/134-campaigns-a-operations/campaigns-a-operations/2085-number-of-german-divisions-by-front-in-world-war-ii
And that's not even going to the fact that the Luftwaffe was mostly facing the western Allies, not the Soviets.
>>1281525
" stale crunchy unsubstantiated memes"-30 tonnes of confiscated wartime evidence,the testimonies of 4500 German field officers and traceable,legitimately researched World War II history begs to differ.
>http://www.axishistory.com
Posts the link of a page that is known for only advertising links and sponsoring reviews of books and writers who're more supportive of their more"alternative" point of of view of World War II history,thinks he's tipped the scales in his favor.
>>1281997
>stale crunchy unsubstantiated memes"-30 tonnes of confiscated wartime evidence,the testimonies of 4500 German field officers and traceable,legitimately researched World War II history begs to differ.
Ok, you want something a bit more substantial?
https://www.amazon.com/Path-Victory-Mediterranean-Theater-World/dp/0374529760
Apparently, some 20% of the Heer had to be directed to Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, and southern France in 1943, after Husky.
And that's even before you have the Normandy front and all the riderections west.
So, yeah, I'm calling serious bullshit on your Russian revisionism. Hell, even Glantz won't admit that the Soviets faced 80% of the Heer past 1942.
>>1282008
> your Russian revisionism
I'm not Russian and As I've said earlier on,"their revisionism" is based on acquired wartime evidences,testimonies of thousands of German officers who were in charge,while most of your sources are based on the lamentations of failed German officers,scientists and propaganda ministers and their assistance,most of your modern narrative is based on what Paperclip came up with during the late 50's.
>even Glantz won't admit that the Soviets faced 80% of the Heer past 1942
"I know what to do,I'll use the name of a well respected American military historian who is known for specializing in Slavic military history and use his expertise to support my subjectively motivated claim,that'll show everyone"
>you want something a bit more substantial?
Somehow you believe that one book can outweigh wartime evidence?
>>1276428
>Western,primarily German historians are hired to compile the history of Russia,they proceed to use that one of a kind chance to develop a germanocentric theory just to spite the Russians,especially their native historians,they get kicked out of Russia who in return, proceeds to close all of her records to Western historians in order to protect it's history,Western Europe proceeds to adopt the German theory and even goes that far to use it as stepping stone for all of their future pseudo-theories to come,vehemently disregards Russian studies of their own native history and keeps classifying it"as work of Slavocentric dissidents" ,uses the more radical segments for their dehumanization campaigns that have reached a zenith during World War II by indirectly causing the death of 30 million Russians,The West believes it can claim the success of the Russian army just because they've sent them canned food,wheat and steel,they're rebuffed and proceed to lead a propaganda war against them which lasted for 45 years,still has the audacity to claim that the last three centuries of Western plagiarism of Russian history is actually the fault of Russians.
Enlighten me more about the wonderful world of your delusions. I think its highly amusing how you are trying to proof your pop history of stalingrad was the decision in the east and le ebin undefeatable russia and totally loose yourself in paranoid and delusional rants. Do you even have the slightest idea how the western academic system works? Especially german academia is infested with pro russian historians who justify ever russian fuckup out of very misguided guilt for National Socialism. Its russia who is an authoritarian state where no one would take offense if (when) the state meddles in academia.
You can throw around false numbers, ridicioulus statements around as much as you like but please have the decency to be a somewhat less obvious russian shill. We know off russian propganda operations 1/2
>>1282134
>I'm not Russian and As I've said earlier on,"their revisionism" is based on acquired wartime evidences,testimonies of thousands of German officers who were in charge,
No it isn't. It doesn't even exist.
>while most of your sources are based on the lamentations of failed German officers,scientists and propaganda ministers and their assistance,most of your modern narrative is based on what Paperclip came up with during the late 50's.
Completely wrong.
Do you even know what Paperclip was about? Allocations of force during the war wasn't even tangentially related.
>"I know what to do,I'll use the name of a well respected American military historian who is known for specializing in Slavic military history and use his expertise to support my subjectively motivated claim,that'll show everyone"
Yes, I would have thought that you'd be too stupid to actually follow his lectures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Clz27nghIg
>Somehow you believe that one book can outweigh wartime evidence?
I believe the evidence that I've read, and cited to, much more than "DEY WERE ALL IN DA EAST AND MY NON-SOURCES SAY SO!"
Wartime evidence points to a 60/40 split of land forces by 1944, and an overwhelming split the other way of air assets by 43. You've just been ignoring it.
>>1282160
And we know of the hardship russian intellectual opposition faces. If the rest of the world wide academia backs a claim and you argue with a western conspiracy to downplay russia its just sad.
Also what interest would the west have in doing that after the cold war? Starving people fed by western help, an alcoholic buffon who managed to become president and several prolonged guerilla wars in the territory of the ex UDSSR is and was more than enough "propaganda".
>>1281449
>>80% of the German army was stationed on the Eastern Front
Not by mid-1943 it wasn't. The Germans knew that allied invasions of western and southern europe were coming and they were diverting resources to france and italy in preparation for those invasions.
>>1280206
They're literally fighting because they're surrounded and there's nothing to do in death ground but fight
>>1260478
It's something that dates back all the way to the Trojan War. Greeks who were too poor to afford armor and/or weaponry would loot the dead for equipment.
>>1282206
And I've never denied that,I've only said that 80% of the German army was stationed at the Eastern Front and that the Russians have only defeated 80% of the remaining German army at the Eastern Front.I'm well aware that they had to divert forces to France,Greece and Yugoslavia.
>Also what interest would the west have in doing that after the cold war?
Containment policy,it was a necessity back then.
>>1260483
yep, Tannenberg WWI.
