P.S. Six years passed, but people still discussing how shitty soviet campaign is. Some things never changes...
![:D :D](/images/Smileys/biggrin.gif)
Posts: 1389 | Subs: 1
Posts: 783
The Soviet Union, the army that stormed Berlin, was "not prepared"? This is the army that outnumbered all Western forces combined 2-1. Churchill and Patton expressed interest in a war with them, but such an action was deemed reckless and unfeasible. So tell me how exactly the army that crushed Nazi Germany and intimidated the Western Allies was "not prepared".
Posts: 711
Russia was still lagging behind in economical wise to provide their armies with enough supplements. Went through times of difficulty and lost of balance and control "Great Terror" , "Soviet famine". Read and you will understand.
1941 they were barely surviving against the Germans. Thanks to the fact that Nazi Germany had a 2 front War. Fortunately for the Russians, they had also the aid of their allies to help boost.
As I stated, SU was barely surviving. They received aid "Lend-Lease". Without help. They would have surely lost, rest-assured. They were still under-prepared. Here is evidence. READ!.
Germany having useless allies, Italy being back in time, and Japan having thier own interests caused the gradual fall of the axis. This served allies favour. Luck factor.
2 Front War for Germany meant a split of the Army in West and East. Guess how difficult that would be for a country to multitask and having half of its entire force on either side. This helped contribute Soviet Union. Many underlying factors that served in SU favour, not because of T34 and Conscripts, because they had help and could not do it alone.
There was a possibility that the Japanese would engage war with Russia undermining their security. Feared of a potential 2 front war also. That caused also a fear factor.
I am not going to go any further as you can read it for yourself.
Plz read before even judging. Hope this helps!
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
It is not a myth. It is a historical fact.
Posts: 422 | Subs: 2
Who said that we have learnt it from "Enemy At the Gates". It is in history books. So annoying when people do not know even half of the story!
Posts: 173
Posts: 72
2 Front War for Germany meant a split of the Army in West and East. Guess how difficult that would be for a country to multitask and having half of its entire force on either side. This helped contribute Soviet Union. Many underlying factors that served in SU favour, not because of T34 and Conscripts, because they had help and could not do it alone.
Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1
That's actually a myth. They would use their horses only for transportation, dismount and use anti tank rifles quite efficiently.
It is a myth created by uninformed civilians and uplifted by German Propaganda. By World War II the Polish Cavalry was used for recon or as infantry (dismounting before battle), and armed with rifles and pistols like everyone else.
[...]
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Do I really have to explicitly say that I am sarcastic when I post something in the internet nowadays?
Although, I agree in modern internet society it may be hard to tell if a person is an ignorant idiot or just pretends to be such.
Posts: 3260
Do I really have to explicitly say that I am sarcastic when I post something in the internet nowadays?
Although, I agree in modern internet society it may be hard to tell if a person is an ignorant idiot or just pretends to be such.
Posts: 783
Right, if Germany had an evenly split 2-front war, then explain why 81% of all german casualties in WW2 were on the eastern front. While it seemed like SU was on the brink of collapse (and the german high command thought this), it was far from it, the Blitzkrieg was doomed from the start since Germany had no way of supporting their armies even halfway to Moscow, which brings me to my next point. SU wouldn't have surrendered even if the germans had taken Moscow, just ask Napoleon!
I remain firmly convinced that Germany couldn't have even won a hypothetical 1v1 war vs the SU becaause of the factors outlined above. And the germans weren't even that superior. At the outbreak of Barbarossa it was the germans who outnumbered the soviets 2 to 1, and by the end of the war the "K/D ratio" for germans to soviets was only 1.2! Combine that with eventual soviet technical superiority once they learned better welding techniques and the germans would've lost their technological edge if the war had dragged on.
I must applaud your extensive studies of anti-soviet propaganda though.
Posts: 783
Don't right. All armies that were on 22 June 1941 on border was fully equip. They were also well equiped with automatic weapons like svt-40 and AVS (there is plan to make svt-40 main weapon of infantry, but with start of war you need more cheap and simpler weapon). Germans captured that stuff in big amounts.
Also don't forget that Western Part of SU was it's main factory and food territory and when these territory were occupied SU lost many factories and food. You momentally remembered how SU tranlsate remain factories on Ural (very uniq and specific operation in case when war already going, you can read about this https://warspot.ru/4492-velikaya-otechestvennaya-problemy-tankovyh-zavodov ).
Yes, casualties were big, but don't forget about "one small tiny detail" all germans plans also went out from graphic. All goals that were initially planned were achieved with late. Blietzkrieg failed. Here is source https://warspot.ru/515-nemetskoe-porazhenie-1941-goda (or you can read this book Stahel D. Operation Barbarossa and Germany’s Defeat in the East. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 2009. – 483 p.). War never will be win if your plans failed, you can ask Hannibal about that (he defeated romanian legions, died almost 20% of all mans who can carry weapon in Roma empire, but war was failed and Karfagen was destroyed). The same sitauations with Germans.
Lend Lease - in 1941 it was almost null, it reach full strength in 1943 (in millions dollars). Pay attention how increased Non-war equip from 1943.
Year Military equip Non-war equip
1941 29,5 0
1942 723,7 639,6
1943 1291,1 1674,8
1944 1060,4 2368,7
1945 732,9 639,1
Not right, too. What you call useless allies? All allies division if not showed so excellent battle score as germans, but they free the same amount of germans divisions from work about to control captured territory, keep flangs on secondary fronts e.t.c. Or you think you don't need all of that? And also there is old quotaion "There are no bad soldiers, there are only bad commanders". If germans couldn't use them as effective as yours - it's only them fault. I read memories one german artillery officer in Stalingrad, that pointed on very high discriminitaion to ally soldiers from germans (say hi to german race theory and propaganda, all slavic nations are second-sort even if they your allies), they also got outdated weapons and bad supplies as result very low combat effectivness. But as one old books say "Better have one bread than don't have two" or "Better is enemy to good".
Also wrong, after Halhin-Ghol Japanese didn't want fight against SU. Than started war with USA and all hypothetic plans about Japanese invasion were wiped out. From where in december 1941 arrived in Moscow fresh Siberian divisions in your opinion? It was part of forces that helded to prevent hypothetic Japanese invasion.
Please, when you in next time wanted point out on "historic books" or "historic moments in movies" show you sources and also read some more. As one german general said (and i very love this quotation): "If you only know war from your side - you know only half part of truth".
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
Considering sarcasm is primarily conveyed through tone and this is a text-based medium, yes.
Do I really have to explicitly say that I am sarcastic when I post something in the internet nowadays?
Although, I agree in modern internet society it may be hard to tell if a person is an ignorant idiot or just pretends to be such.
Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1
Posts: 711
They werent agriculturaly prepared in that sense. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
What I meant "economically" was in terms of agriculturally, enough , self sufficient, nourished country which Russia was not yet. Industrially, well they were Industrialized because of the "Five Year Plan".
I did not say this treaty alone helped Soviet Union. I said they were economically behind. Not Industrially behind. There had been occurences of famine and mass Starvation in Soviet Union before the war that contributed to their War effects. They won not because they were industrialized only, but because Stalin for one was aware of a future conflict with German and two he knew he had to make Soviet Union industrialised also to do so. Unfortunately he could not also pursue economic goals, so he forced Ukraines to give them all their food, "Collectivization" policy to provide Soviet Union with enough food. Although that was short term.
Blitzkreig was not a failure, but the Operation Barbarossa was. Blitzkreig was a very efficient tactic, but that does not always guarantee a win, does it?
Italy was entirely lagging behind. Fought too many wars before WW2 exhausting their resources. Had a huge budget deficit. Still had WW1 equipment and tanks that were pretty bad.
Japan had the infantry but not the vehicles. Reasons why they were successful around Asia is because the other neighbouring countries were ill prepared and taken by surprise. Taken by surprise meaning, just declare war without declaration.
Both Italy and Japan had their own ambitions leaving Germany kind of doing all the heavy lifting work. They were allies, but no cooperative ones. They all had their own ambitions, which resulted in parting away. The only supporter Germany had really during the War was Italy. Although Italy was militaristically poor. Invasion of Africa, they could not do it without Germans help. Some more elements be spilled but I would rather if you could take the time to check some things.
Clarify Japanese thing. I did leave out the fact the Japanese made a so called "secret non-aggression pact" with the SU. Reasons why Japan did so, it to continue their Conquest in Manchuria China. Their cult of being the so called so Masters of Asia. It is called the "The Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact" 1941 April.
I do recommend this Movie "Bitter Harvest" and it is definitely way better than Enemy at the Gates. You will enjoy it, that is for sure. It is more historically accurate and I think it was based also on a true story. There is no better movies than it being based on true story.
https://www.basedonatruestorypodcast.com/57-behind-the-true-story-of-bitter-harvest/
Watch this trailer and you will recieve an interesting insight on both Ukraine and Russia during the 1930s.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
26 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
1 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
1 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
16 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
11 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
10 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
8 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
2 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
1 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
1 |