>>23855992

>History
>Ever being black/white

Your history is bad and he should feel bad.

>>23856010
What do you suggest I do about it?

>>23856027
graduate

>>23856027
>must express yes/no
>must give support
>true answer is grey

grey is "black" with conditionals.

present a "no" position, and then in your supporting arguements imply the "greyness" of the situation by showing the equally relevant contributions by other nations.

>>23856027

Be really passive-aggressive about it?

Russia did a significant enough amount of the work that you can't really say "No", so say "Yes" and then when you describe it, you can say that "Yes, Russia's staggering disregard for the lives of its own people was instrumental in ending the war that was in large part Russia's fault it became so large in the first place".

>>23855992
WW2 would've gone completely different if the fucking retard fuckwit didn't kill half of his army before the war even began

Fuck off underageb8, we're not going to do your homework for you. Do the research yourself

>>23855992
What kind of a class is this? That question is retarded, especially if you add those prerequisites. You MUST apply historiographical knowledge to answer it, and even then you will not come to a yes/no conclusion. Even as a doctorate essay the question is far too wide and constraining.

>>23855992
The Russians did a huge portion of the fighting for the allies, but Stalin in particular did more to hamper the Red Army than help them. His purge removed key officers, his five year plans get the army guns but not ammo, his 'not one step back' bullshit sacrificed endless amounts of lives for no gain, and spent nearly a million lives on a city of rubble just because it had his name in it.

The Russians won the war despite Stalin, not because of him.

The numbers show that german soldiers on the western and eastern fronts were equal, just that the western allies were able to break through their lines and make nazis surrender from shock and awe a lot quicker than the russians.

>>23856270
Also the fact that the western allies weren't total cunts meant the nazis wouldn't fight as hard and would surrender early knowing they would be treated well.

>>23855992
No, because the US supplied them everything but people.

Maybe we even gave them people too, shit was shady then.

The correct answer is Zhukov.

>>23855992
Stalin was one of the few leaders fucking up in the same way Hitler did. Although the ferocity he instilled in the red army made them stall the germans just enough for reinforcements to save Moscow. The no retreat allowed also killed off way too much of the population and armed forces, which also could be used to save Moscow, so his only good quality was unneccessary.

More interesting could be how the red army would be without Stalin at all. Then Trotsky would be the leader of the sovjet union. The purges wouldn't happen, and the red army would be way more capable of handling themselves.

The other smart move of him, was to move the factories behind the Urals, but even that was probably a little unneccesary, unless the factories were in the parts which got occupied. Germany couldn't bomb british industry to a halt even when they were within range for their small bombers.

tl;dr: Stalin didn't help, but Sovjet did.

Your teacher a shit

The correct course of action though is to go with the answer he seems more likely to agree with, write it exactly how he wants, get a good grade, pass the class and move on with your life. Then when you do your student survey or whatever your school gives you to evaluate courses, you tell them what you think.

But don't risk a shitty teacher giving you a bum grade because you went above and beyond while being a smartass, that's just poor planning.

>>23856212
You do realise that Order 227 was issued in mid-1942, after the Battle of Moscow and at the point where the Germans were not really making any more advancements right? And Stalingrad was key in preventing the enemy from holding an important sector from which they could launch offensives on the Caucasus oil fields. If they lost that, history would be very different

>>23856301
Lend-lease was mostly for logistics rather than weapons. Not saying it's not important, but a majority of weapons used by the Soviets were still Soviet. Shermans, Matildas and what have you not did serve, but nowhere as much as the T-34 did

>>23857693
What about P-63s and 39s?

>>23857693
Or Hawker Hurricanes? Also that logistical support was extremely important. Bagration may not have happened without it.

>>23857703
Those were probably the most widely used equipment from the lend-lease programme and definitely did benefit them a lot, not going to lie. Other than that though, there's not a whole heap in terms of weapons that the Soviets benefitted enormously from lend-lease.

>>23857720
Like I said, logistics are vital to an army, and the Soviets failed at that majorly, which counts for an enormous amount of tank losses in the opening months, but the original post I linked made it seem like the Soviets were armed with Garands and Thompsons and used Shermans to kill Tigers and Matildas to crush infantry

>>23856075
+1

>>23855992
The right answer is going up to your teacher and ask them how they want their complicated answer boiled down to their potato brain.