|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Mar 4, 2017 17:29:46 GMT
we will defend Stalingrad at any cost! Why? It has the name of Stalin privyet! (Stalingrad summarized) , This is WHY over 800,000 soldiers were fighting in the battle of Stalingrad. It's the equivalent of fighting for Hiltersberg or something like that. Don't underestimate the egos of Stalin and Hilter. They both knew Stalingrad would serve as a huge morale blow to the loser, so they poured into it an endless supply of soldiers. So knowing the ego of Stalin, the generals of Germany could have handled it better than Hilter's "no retreat whatsoever!". It would have gone differently if the Germans used it to their full advantage. And as for the industrial capacity of Russia, it was pretty terrible in producing heavy equipment that could be relied on in middle of a battlefield. The hastly made tanks that entered the war was much subpar in comparison to the prewar tanks, BUT the designs was improving. Pros and cons. Thats nice and all...but why the heck did you tag me? I haven't even posted in this thread, though I voted. I learned recently several important resources the Soviets needed in ww2 were supplied 50% and more by the USA. Russians won the war my butt! (they did sacrifice the most men, but thats more of a commentary on their strategy then their contribution) Can't believe we replaced a fiction (USA did everything in WW2) with another fiction (Russia did everything in WW2) |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Mar 4, 2017 17:40:41 GMT
I wasn't thinking straight about tagging... I was focused on making a good response. I meant to tag Napoleon Bonaparte. Now that he is tagged, he will read this.  |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Mar 4, 2017 17:42:27 GMT
Imperial RomeBall , This is WHY over 800,000 soldiers were fighting in the battle of Stalingrad. It's the equivalent of fighting for Hiltersberg or something like that. Don't underestimate the egos of Stalin and Hilter. They both knew Stalingrad would serve as a huge morale blow to the loser, so they poured into it an endless supply of soldiers. So knowing the ego of Stalin, the generals of Germany could have handled it better than Hilter's "no retreat whatsoever!". It would have gone differently if the Germans used it to their full advantage. And as for the industrial capacity of Russia, it was pretty terrible in producing heavy equipment that could be relied on in middle of a battlefield. The hastly made tanks that entered the war was much subpar in comparison to the prewar tanks, BUT the designs was improving. Pros and cons. Thats nice and all...but why the heck did you tag me? I haven't even posted in this thread, though I voted. I learned recently several important resources the Soviets needed in ww2 were supplied 50% and more by the USA. Russians won the war my butt! (they did sacrifice the most men, but thats more of a commentary on their strategy then their contribution) Can't believe we replaced a fiction (USA did everything in WW2) with another fiction (Russia did everything in WW2) True fact of WW2 history that still stand: America = Arsenal of Democracy!! *USAball puts on sunglasses* |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Mar 4, 2017 18:05:36 GMT
Imperial RomeBall , This is WHY over 800,000 soldiers were fighting in the battle of Stalingrad. It's the equivalent of fighting for Hiltersberg or something like that. Don't underestimate the egos of Stalin and Hilter. They both knew Stalingrad would serve as a huge morale blow to the loser, so they poured into it an endless supply of soldiers. So knowing the ego of Stalin, the generals of Germany could have handled it better than Hilter's "no retreat whatsoever!". It would have gone differently if the Germans used it to their full advantage. And as for the industrial capacity of Russia, it was pretty terrible in producing heavy equipment that could be relied on in middle of a battlefield. The hastly made tanks that entered the war was much subpar in comparison to the prewar tanks, BUT the designs was improving. Pros and cons. Thats nice and all...but why the heck did you tag me? I haven't even posted in this thread, though I voted. I learned recently several important resources the Soviets needed in ww2 were supplied 50% and more by the USA. Russians won the war my butt! (they did sacrifice the most men, but thats more of a commentary on their strategy then their contribution) Can't believe we replaced a fiction (USA did everything in WW2) with another fiction (Russia did everything in WW2) woah woah woah woah easy when you say "Russians won the war my you-know-what!" though I know the Americans love to take the credit for the war and yeah we know you did supply the Russians with even supply trucks and all but when it came to the Russians, they weren't hated by the Germans for no reason! Operation Bagration and the Invasion of Manchukuo and attacks like such were, in the end, carried out by the Russians. They liberated Eastern Europe all alone while the allies combined were able to take over Western Europe |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Mar 4, 2017 18:07:49 GMT
Now before I start to get hate and things go for the worse, let me say this;
The USA and USSR both won the war, not the USA alone, not the USSR alone. The USA had the technology but not enough men, the USSR didn't have the technology but had way more than "enough" men.
|
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Mar 4, 2017 18:19:50 GMT
Now before I start to get hate and things go for the worse, let me say this; The USA and USSR both won the war, not the USA alone, not the USSR alone. The USA had the technology but not enough men, the USSR didn't have the technology but had way more than "enough" men. We do have enough men, but we don't throw them away. We prefer to sacrifice them if there's a purpose and a benefit to gain from it. Plus... it's tough fighting TWO wars on the opposite sides of the globe, Europe and Pacific, at the same time. *USAball puts on an even bigger pair of sunglasses* Just picking on you, Napoleon Bonaparte, buddy. |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Mar 4, 2017 18:22:02 GMT
Meh I'm out of here
|
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Mar 4, 2017 18:25:09 GMT
Dude, it was just some teasing.  *Desoball sad-eth* |
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Mar 4, 2017 18:42:46 GMT
In response to your latest point. EDIT: Napoleon Bonaparte. If you just want to say your piece and leave, I will continue with mine. : I agree, neither USA or USSR did "everything" as people like to claim. However, neutrality does not really help here, as we have seen a shift in public discourse. Where once it was "USA USA" now it is "duh, like, everybody knows Russia did it, guise. Only ignorants think the USA did the most" Now that the opinion is default Russia did the most, neutrality legitimizes it. However, since I call for neutrality I should shut up now. Onto general response. Invasion of Manchukuo: irrelevant. By that time, Japan had lost nearly all its navy, most of its colonies, and had been atomic bombed. Japanese used over 7 million men during the war, how many did Soviet union face? around a million. Of which 83,000 were killed according to Soviets. How many soldiers did Japan lose in the entire pacific? 2,500,000. A good way to compare Soviet and US contributions in Asia is this: USA and Japan were at war for 3 years, 8 months, and 3 weeks. Soviet Union and Japan were at war for 3 weeks and 3 days. Your assertion about different contributions: USA definitely DID have the troops. They didn't have to trade numerical influence for industrial influence, like the Soviets to some extent. USA army size WW2: over 16 million, 900,000-1,000,000 of which were casualties. Soviet army size WW2: 34 million, of which -20 million were casualties. At peak strength both powers had around 12 million men, making them the 2 largest forces in WW2. Germany had peak of 10 million, Japan 6, and the France/UK having around 5 million each. PART 2 coming soon. |
|
|
|
Post by Quintus Fabius on Mar 4, 2017 19:14:13 GMT
Option 1, unless if you are one or more of the following:
Mongols
Crimean Tatars (but doomed to be beaten the following year)
Nogai Hordes
Poles and Lithuanians after the collapse of Kievan Rus'
Swedes during the GNW before Poltava
A drunk Alexander the Great who has access to tanks from WWII
Winter
Varangians
Russians
Drunk Russians
Glasnost'
Magyars
Khazars
Anyone rushing France 1798
RSFSR in the Russian civil war
More Poles and Lithuanians in the Time of Troubles
An ISOT timeline in which @coolguy14's army of Northern Virginia is transported back in time and space from Gettysburg to the Byzantine Empire, which results in Emperor Georgios I Pickett being emperor of Rome and the Rus'
etc. etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Mar 4, 2017 19:19:27 GMT
Part 2
"They liberated Eastern Europe all alone while the allies combined were able to take over Western Europe"
Greece was liberated by UK, not to mention lost by it, but while Soviets never fought a campaign there, Greece was undefended when liberated due to Soviet thrusts north of Greece I have to admit. I'm pretty sure US bombers operated on the eastern front as well.
The US contributed large amounts of resources to UK when UK was the only country still fighting Germany. If the UK fell, would Soviet Union have a good time?
It also contributed to other powers, such as China. I'd argue there ain't a country in the war that didn't get material support from them.
US support to Soviet Union, which supposedly did the most, was massive.
1. one third of all trucks (400,000) used by Soviet Union in 1945 were given to them by USA, including the best trucks on the eastern front.
2. 92.7% of all railroad equipment produced by Soviet union was actually given by USA, including over 1,900 locomotives, compared to 4-500 made by USSR.
3. Soviet union air force was given 18,700 aircraft, or 30% of Soviet production. They were also given 7,000 tanks, though it was a small amount compared to Soviet built tanks. including 1,368 SHERMAN TANKS.
17.5 million tons of supplies was given to the Soviet union, including 1.7 million tons of food. How many supplies did the US forces in Europe get? 22 million.
Two more things.
One can note 80% of German deaths were caused by Soviets, but that is ignoring something: Surrender was uncommon on the eastern front: A very large amount of germans were captured by Americans and other western forces. Thus the amount of losses Germany suffered was more equal than it looks, though I don't remember the stats.
I'm pretty sure Germans hated USSR because of nazi propaganda and war crimes, BTW. Not because they lost everything on that front.
IN CONCLUSION
The belief that Russia contributed the most is more excessive than claiming USA did it all. USA funded so many countries, and was the main force behind Japan's defeat. When you consider that Russia survived by American aid, it becomes ridiculous. (how can you claim you did the most, when your rival funded you, let alone everybody else?)
TL;DR I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Mar 4, 2017 19:25:14 GMT
Quote from Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov
"On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR’s emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany’s might as an occupier of Europe and its resources"
Nikita Kruschev in his memoirs claims Stalin thought the same thing, though he never formally stated it.
According to Zhukov, apparently:
"Today [1963] some say the Allies didn’t really 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"
Interesting think I forgot to mention, about that.
US supplies from only the Persian route were able to equip 60 line divisions. How many did Soviet union have at the beginning of the war? -400.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck Jr on Mar 4, 2017 19:37:03 GMT
Invading Russia in 1941 as Germany. Worst thing ever. Conrad von Hötzendorf being an army chief, even horrible than invading Russia as Germany. I disagree with that. The concept was sound, but Hilter should have allowed Stalingrad to fall to Russians then bombard the city with the Russians trapped in there. Fall back, let the gullible Russians ordered by Stalin to retake the city, repeat the mass killings. It would have worked a couple of times which could inflict massive setbacks suffice to allow the Germans to proceed with their steamrolling into the rest of Ukraine. Both Stalin and Hilter allowed their egos to take them over during that battle. If Ukraine fell into German hands completely, it wouldn't matter if Leningrad or Moscow wasn't captured yet. Especially when the Axis powers suddenly gain free entry into the oil fields and not to mention denying the Russians the harvests from Ukrainian farms (which were more fertile than most of Russia). H I L T E R |
|
|
|
Post by Yi Sun Sin on Mar 4, 2017 19:57:57 GMT
Invading Russia in 1941 as Germany. Worst thing ever. Conrad von Hötzendorf being an army chief, even horrible than invading Russia as Germany. Cadorna has been triggered. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2017 20:01:55 GMT
|
|
*Desoball sad-eth*
