And they called Czar Ivan III "The Great".
Makes you wonder how the Russians managed to defeat the Nazis.
Makes you wonder how the Russians managed to defeat the Nazis.
Russia in ruins
- Thread starter Insidious Von
- Start date
These days his grandson Ivan IV Grozny is more famous than than the liberator of the Russian people.
Waves and waves of peasant cannon fodder, of course Hitler's ego to divert his army march to Moscow to Stalingrad didn't help.
1. the commies did not care how many Russians died and were ok with a war of attrition
2. Soviet barrier forces shot retreating soldiers
that's how
To anyone that's actually studied the war, there is no wonder; it's very obvious.
$180Bn in aid from the US. It's that simple. And in case any anti-American revisionists try to downplay that and try convince you it wasn't, don't take my word for it. Just listen to what Stalin said about it:
"I want to tell you what, from the Russian point of view, the president and the United States have done for victory in this war. The most important things in this war are the machines.... The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war."
If you believe American propaganda.
While Lend Lease played a part it wasn't the only factor. Hitler was consistent in breaking every agreement he made, Stalin knew this. He moved his industrial base out of Southwest USSR toward the Eastern cities like Ekaterinburg, Kazan and Nizhny Novgorod (Gorki) among others. Hitler was a true Dingleberry, he could not secure the Caucasus oil fields, Stalingrad was a defender's dream. General Zhukov studied how Hannibal and Prince Eugen of Savoy destroyed superior armies, Hitler did not. Goering was an even bigger salami than Hitler, he wasted so much ordnance on Britain, he had not nearly enough to take out Soviet airfields, the Luftwaffe got decimated. Putin repeated the mistake in Syria, now Ukraine is bleeding his resources.
Never before has Russia been plundered like the ruling class has currently done. The population is collapsing from alcoholism, suicide and emigration, Putin is too much of a headcheese headed Nimrod to do anything about it. He's the latest shiticle.
While Lend Lease played a part it wasn't the only factor. Hitler was consistent in breaking every agreement he made, Stalin knew this. He moved his industrial base out of Southwest USSR toward the Eastern cities like Ekaterinburg, Kazan and Nizhny Novgorod (Gorki) among others. Hitler was a true Dingleberry, he could not secure the Caucasus oil fields, Stalingrad was a defender's dream. General Zhukov studied how Hannibal and Prince Eugen of Savoy destroyed superior armies, Hitler did not. Goering was an even bigger salami than Hitler, he wasted so much ordnance on Britain, he had not nearly enough to take out Soviet airfields, the Luftwaffe got decimated. Putin repeated the mistake in Syria, now Ukraine is bleeding his resources.
Never before has Russia been plundered like the ruling class has currently done. The population is collapsing from alcoholism, suicide and emigration, Putin is too much of a headcheese headed Nimrod to do anything about it. He's the latest shiticle.
Super organized society that was fighting for its life, plus an over extended Axis invasion force that couldn't be strong everywhere along the line. Plus that same invasion force having to take 1/2 its troops and send them to western Europe to fight the Allies.
1) Stalin did pressure the allies to open a second front.
2) Depending who you talk to, Stalin did or didn't threaten a separate peace with the Nazis but anything is possible with Stalin.
Stalin pressures Allies to open second front in Europe, Aug. 13, 1942 - POLITICO
Home field advantage (ruthlessly applied) and one devil of a winter. Also, the Nazis political philosophy was even worse than the commies and this caused morale problems...
No one is saying it was the only reason. But without it Russia would've lost. That's not "American propaganda", it's Stalin's own words. And Zhukov's.
"People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own."
It wasn't the tanks and the planes, both of which were far superior to anything Russia produced. It wasn't the even the massive numbers of trucks. I'd was the steel, the oil, and the tools. Russia is often cited as beating German armour simply by outproducing them. But that only happened because of American steel, oil, and tooling. And those are facts that cone straight from the mouths of the Soviet leadership and by any creditble historian.
The propagandists on this topic are the ones ignoring and contradicting the leader of the USSR and the head of its military. Literally the two people you talk about being geniuses and out-thinking Hitler said the Soviet Union wouldn't lost without lend lease. And yet you say it's propaganda? That's lunacy.
Stalingrad is what did the nazis in. Hitler wanted the city because it was named after Stalin - it is here he took the flight of icarus. The nazis were drawn into urban warfare which they were not accustom to and the soviets snuck in hundreds of thousands of troops who only had two choices- win or die. If Hitler didn't attack the soviets there is no way in hell he would have been stopped. Conservative Americans would be living in the promised land
and the friction of distance and dusty summer roads, mud, and this guy
Toss in a logistics system half dependent on horses [see above] and a bunch of vehicles of different makes many pulled from the civilian service and not suited to military use [and people bitch at sending Ukraine 3 different types of tanks, female dog please]
A production system that hasn't really ramped up yet.
Chuck Norris
Spending loads of treasure on fighting the west in the air, both in terms of aircraft and AA
Being cut off from international oil markets with their effects on both military and economy
etc.
What you are saying is all true. Also every American worker producing goods for the eastern front releases multiple Russians for service on the front.
But 1: It isn't that simple as you said elsewhere.
2: The LL really didn't start flowing in until after Moscow held and Stalingrad. What it did make possible was Russian progress after Kursk. Them trucks yo.
3: Without LL the Allies still would have landed in France and Italy and Germany couldn't win regardless, they just did not have the ability to take Moscow in 41 before LL and as time went on things just got worse. The west probably wouldn't have had to sell out Eastern Europe without LL.
Without LL and without facing the west, I doubt Russia could have won. They were suffering serious manpower shortages that they were only able to make up by swooping every body they could find as they took back land. Without land lease logistical aid and with the reduced troops that would be needed for production, they would have started a slow grindy decline. The question would be, could Germany win if they were not distracted in the west. They were seeing a similar decline in their logistics and the decline in trucks from pretty much the start. I suppose if they had time they could lay down more rail, and rail is just total amazeballs, but they even had trouble with rolling stock. I suppose without having to defend the skies and not having to worry so much about defending France and Norway, they could have done something about that... if, maybe, and in time grind Russia out. Of course this isn't the standard narrative, it is just what leaps out at you when you dig deep in the library stacks.
TLDR
LL was vital, but Russia would have held without it, maybe even make some gainz.
However, Germany couldn't do anything because of that 800 pound damn dirty ape called 'merica. Actually a lot of historical what ifs tend to come down to, yadda yadda yadda and then 'merica and the Axis loses. Unless the what if takes America out of the picture.
If it's just Germany and Russia with no help, I'd say Germany but it's a very long slog.
Stalingrad was a bad show, but there was more more involved. WIthout Stalingrad, 'merica steps in and curbstomps Germany anyways. Also although losing the 6th army and the allies on the side was bad, Mainstien did fix things up in the immediate period after, there was still plenty of fight left.
Up until Stalingrad, the USSR still had General Zhukov fighting in the Far East of Russia.
Russia has been ruled by Nimrods, had that not been the case Russia would be the dominant economy globally. The only two leaders that stood out from the shit-pile are Czar Alexander II and Mikhail Gorbachev. The first abolished serfdom and modernized Russian industry, for his efforts he was assassinated by anarchists including V I Lenin's older brother. Gorbachev tried to lighten the thumb of repression, the Soviets had overextended themselves in 1975, while liberalizing the economy. He was put under house arrest by Communist rebels then ousted by Yeltsin. There is no hope for Russia...Vladimir there's some lovely filth down here.
The most obscure and critical battle of WW II.
Russia has been ruled by Nimrods, had that not been the case Russia would be the dominant economy globally. The only two leaders that stood out from the shit-pile are Czar Alexander II and Mikhail Gorbachev. The first abolished serfdom and modernized Russian industry, for his efforts he was assassinated by anarchists including V I Lenin's older brother. Gorbachev tried to lighten the thumb of repression, the Soviets had overextended themselves in 1975, while liberalizing the economy. He was put under house arrest by Communist rebels then ousted by Yeltsin. There is no hope for Russia...Vladimir there's some lovely filth down here.
The most obscure and critical battle of WW II.
That's an odd comment when most of what I'm saying is lend lease was the difference between Soviet victory and you go on to argue that's wrong.
A glib response to what was largely a joke question does not mean I think anything was simple. Some people, like you, just take this shit way too seriously, especially since you've seemingly never had any interest in a professional career in military strategy or planning. I'm curious how many hours you've put on to acquiring this knowledge to feel you're an expert on the subject. Is it in the tens, hundreds, or thousands? Surely you could never spent that time, or you should seek to monetize your knowledge, no?
If it was a real serious question, I would've maybe given a real serious answer. Or not said anything at all. Who knows.
I recall your previous posts about battle planning and strategy. You're not in a position to make these assessments.
In any case, your opinion is that Stalin and Zhukov are wrong or were just pushing American propaganda. I think that's a bold stance to take.
Last edited:
