As a mod of SRD, I approve.

Mod me and your cesspool may join the glorious contextualization.

What is the difference?

I like my way more.

Thank you for your service o7

If you find yourself comparing politics to sex you should neck yourself, because you're clearly doing both wrong.

Snapshots:

1. Lots and lots of cope as Europoors ... - archive.org, archive.today, removeddit.com

I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers

I mean, I hate commies but the soviets did more. The tide of the war was turning before the Burgers got involved.

Hitler got bogged down in his invasion, though it was his fault for sending a tank division down to kiev (in order to flank) instead of marching on Moscow immediately.

Now if you wanna talk war crimes, well, that's a different story.

You see, Nazis have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, Stalin sent wave after wave of his own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down.

Nazis had superior equipment and supplies and launched a surprise attack. The alternative was to become extra large Eastern Germany. They were not afraid to pay the necessary blood to keep their homeland.

They absolutely did not have superior equipment. The biggest joke of the war is the Tiger H1's suspension, the second being its transmission.

They absolutely did. The fact the T34's cannon was a bit more powerful is irrelevant.

The Tiger was a great tank - when it worked. Their industry was very strong - when it production wasn't diverted constantly for the latest variant.

Superior equipment doesn't typically break under its own weight.

Furthermore, per your link, only around 1,800 Tigers ever rolled-off the assembly lines (counting both the I and the II models). That's a tiny number by WW2 standards (contrast 50K Shermans and 80K T-34s).

It's almost like they couldn't build a tank with the resources they had available.

The Soviet tanks had worse reliability. More than a third of their tanks in the West were not even operational, had inferior optics and wouldn't usually even have radios.

What you don't understand though is that they could be replaced easily, as opposed to Tigers which couldn't be replaced nearly so quickly. Nobody will deny that you don't want to see a Tiger as you're crossing a field, but in the same vein of thought, nobody is going to care that there's a Tiger because you can just go around it because it broke its transmission getting into position.

At least it had heating.

The T-34 was miles better than the Panzer III and Panzer IV, no question

Late model IVs were "good enough"

Yeah but I'm taking about Barbarossa specifically

Oh, for sure. Favorite random story remains a KV-1 halting everything around it until they could finally position an 88mm to take it down.

That's it, Soviets only won because of their disregard to human life, aka throw as many men as you can at a problem till it gets fixed.

Well no shit. If communists had any regard for human life. They wouldnt be communist.

True

If only Humans would act more like bees or ants they would finally come to accept their role in the colony, and disregard their own life for the greater good.

But then I'd miss out on a Cadillac with 24's on it or a 30 ft sail boat I never use.

Can I have the boat?

Why do people keep repeating this nonsense they saw in the least relaistic movie ever made "Enemy at the gates"?

Sorry, I don't watch hollyshit movies. I just stole this from another redditor like a true intellectual.

Bruh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Battle_of_Kharkov

Bruh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France

Bruh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gazala

Bruh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieppe_Raid

​

Now what is your point?

In all the examples you listed it was the side with the advantage who won, and there wasn't a huge discrepancy in fielded equipment.

In Kharkov the Soviets field an offensive with four times as many tanks as the enemy, an enemy still reeling from just having lost an army group where the attack is taking place. And it turns into a meat grinder where the Germans are able to turn the whole situation upside down and is able to retake lost ground..

In the Dieppe Raid I listed the British had several times the amount of soldiers and still badly lost. In Gazala they also had a somewhat large numbers advantage. One has to note though that A) Germany had way stronger units in the East than in the West and B) That the British Empire was technologically better off than the USSR, which was still a somewhat poor country.

Even with several times the amount of equipment a landing by sea is always going to put the attacker at a disadvantage, especially when the defender knows you're coming

Russia has always solved their problems by throwing serfs to their deaths.

i would say its more the fact that the german leadership didnt know what the fuck they were doing when they couldnt blitzkrieg something

False. Fake history. The Soviet performance wasn't that much worse than the Anglo-French performance.

C O P E

nazis unceremoniously blitzkrieging the rest of europe but then the soviets supposedly being the incompetent ones is one of the biggest copes in history

It had nothing to do with weather conditions

idiot

you are, yeah

S E E T H E

Huh I didn’t know the allies had 450k of their soldiers encircled

What is that from, again? (The real quote, I mean)

Futurama, from Zap Branagin

Cool, thanks

The killbots? A trifle.

You need to kill some Nazis? You’ll have wave after wave of my men at your disposal—-RIGHT MEN?!

lets not get too carried away here. lend lease was fucking massive. even whatever the soviets were themselves producing had allied help - zhukov himself said "How could we have produced our tanks without American steel!"

Roughly 4% of the Soviet production.

C O P E

R O U G H L Y 4 %

He rounded

to the nearest 4%

In total, 92.7% of the wartime production of railroad equipment by the USSR was supplied by Lend-Lease,[32] including 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars[38] which augmented the existing stocks of at least 20,000 locomotives and half a million railcars.[39]

The Soviet air force received 18,200 aircraft, which amounted to about 30 percent of Soviet wartime fighter and bomber production (mid 1941–45).[32] Most tank units were Soviet-built models but about 7,000 Lend-Lease tanks (plus more than 5,000 British tanks) were used by the Red Army, 8 percent of war-time production.

Still 4% of the overall production

stfu commie retard

Not even a communist. But keep crying for me dog.

😫🐩

imagine being this retarded

I am merely stating a fact. Sorry to hurt your feelings.

Even the soviet military leadership of ww2 disagrees with you.

You are literally all alone in the world believing this insane fantasy.

Everyone is laughing at how retarded you are. Thanks for coming here without being pinged, dipshit.

They are? LL was anywhere from 4% to 7% of the overall Soviet production. That is a fact. I don't know what you are still crying about. You can always kill yourself.

Khrushchev and Stalin both said the without L/L they would have lost the war.

Your statistic is an unsourced lie. L/L, on top of everything else mentioned, brought fully 50% of all ordnance in soviet use.

You are literally shitting yourself in public.

Unsourced lie? Are you that ignorant? That is the official number. Some historians like Oleg Budnitsky claim it to be as high as 7%. These are simply facts and I have never even disputed the importance of LL. I don't think Nikita Khrushchev (who is a proven liar anyways) is really a relevant source here to be honest which is really your only source. Stalin praising "American machines" in 1943 is akin to Churchill praising Stalin early in the war. These countries were allied after all.

You have yet to provide a source, furthermore the percentage of relevant war materiel was much higher, particularly early in the war when it mattered most.

If you think the soviets could have won the war without rolling stock, trucks, tanks, aircraft, and ammo......

You're retarded.

to quote 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.

TL;DR: your statistic is vague, unsourced, and meaningless. Without L/L the lack of rail and motor transport alone would have doomed the soviet union, and literally every historian agrees with this.

I already sourced Oleg Budintsky. The statistic provided is not all that vague. You also claim every historian agrees with you, when the most respected military historian on the USSR in the whole world, David Glantz had this to say:

https://gyazo.com/f7436453f17a660b23976e5b00ba6481

You are clueless if you think that every historian on Earth believes your chauvinistic drivel.

hahahaha how are you still here?

like just take the L bro

it's ok, i wont tell the other tankies you momentarily accepted reality.

It'll just be between us girls.

^{What L? David Glantz, the most respected mi,military historians on the eastern front agrees with me, not you.}

hahaha how do you even get this owned online? Like just walk away, nibba, like just read Wikipedia, like god damn.

Yep I destroyed you. You are such an idiot you actually thought I'd believe your statement about "all historians" when the most prestigious historian on the subject says the complete opposite. Wouldn't even be surprised if you have never read a book in your entire life.

> gets btfo

> waits an entire day

> comes back with a limp-dicked claim of totally not being owned

I'm sorry sir, but you've been diagnosed with a severe case of butthurt.

It's too deep in there, it's inoperable. There's nothing medical science can do. You'll have to live the rest of your life with it.

4% of all production is 50% of military production retard

So you are saying the USSR spent 8% on the military back in 1941-45 and then called me a retard? LOL!

Wot

The US alone sent:

• 30% of all soviet trucks
• 30% of all soviet fighters and bombers
• 8% of all soviet tank production

Also literally thousands of locomotives and tens of thousands of train cars.

That's not including the British empire, which also sent a ton.

Khrushchev and Stalin both said without L/L they would have lost.

Tankies suck at history.

Why am I a retard? I stated a fact idiot. It accounted for 4% of the Soviet production. That is a fact. Your wall of moronic text won't change that.

You're posting a misleading, unsourced, meaningless statistic in bad faith.

My "moronic wall of text" is universally accepted by all historians.

You're trying to construct a fantasy world from your parents basement, you silly faggot.

You're posting a misleading wall of text completely irrelevant to my post. What world am I constructing? If anything the guys on this page are very off historically speaking. You are at least 30 years behind in research. I suggest you lay down the Conquest and pick up some Glantz. Facts don't care about your feelings, it's not my fault you are a moron who gets offended at the truth.

You're posting a misleading wall of text completely irrelevant to my post.

It's directly relevant to your dumbass post.

acts don't care about your feelings, it's not my fault you are a moron who gets offended by the truth.

Are you claiming my numbers are disputed? Because they aren't...

...and if my numbers are correct then you're point is fuckin retarded.

ONE MORE TIME: Khrushchev and Stalin both disagree with your proposition. Think about hos stupid that makes you sound.

ONE LAST TIME: Thanks for shitting yourself in our thread, we appreciate it

without it soviets would starve a bit more

but it's not like they weren't able to handle that under Stalin's command for 2 decades at that point anyway

so naturally historians don't atribute that to the overall victory

Which historians? Because they ought tell the Great Zhukov this because he disagrees.

Stephen Kotlin for one

generals in general full of shit, daddy Stalin would find a way by executing few extra people who oversaw steel production and get someone who can deliver

Stephen Kotkin

Anything in particular you can point to?

well watch the lecture i linked above

tl;dr soviets won because the german strategy was predicated on the assumption that soviet system would collapse - it didn't, so they they were fucked

did collapse eventually tho

yes, because their leaders became soft

if they instead did what North Korea is doing up to now

• kill a few million people in cyclical purges every decade or so

• keep the bottom 85% of the population fed just enough to not starve to death

• keep rurals enslaved since they deserve it

• pour every other resource into the military

they would probably be still around to this day

hm

The US alone sent:

• 30% of all soviet trucks
• 30% of all soviet fighters and bombers
• 8% of all soviet tank production

Also literally thousands of locomotives and tens of thousands of train cars.

That's not including the British empire, which also sent a ton.

Khrushchev and Stalin both said without L/L they would have lost.

Tankies suck at history.

Khrushchev and Stalin both said without L/L they would have lost.

really? when?

Early in the war was when the aid mattered most. Without the rolling stock and trucks the soviet army would have more or less ceased to function.

As for the Khruschev thing: my reference is this section of the wiki, the paragraph you're looking for starts with "Nikita Khrushchev, having served as a military commissar and intermediary between Stalin and..."

Russia would have imploded like my self respect if it were't for lend lease.

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/drama] tankiecels SEETHING over lend-lease

 ^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

you realize lend lease started before pearl harbour, right?

The idea that winning Moscow would've won him the war on the eastern front is misinformation spread by neonazis.

In reality most of the USSR's production and industries got moved behind the Ural.

Hitler could've nuked Moscow for all they've cared. Wouldn't have changed a thing.

So while you are right that it was possible for them to take Moscow (hindsight is 20/20?) it's idiotic to imply that winning the eastern front was possible.

It does have some merit. Moscow was the railroad hub for the Soviet Union. It doesn't help that the Urals have all the factories when all their rails still end up in Moscow. Also the Soviet Union was a very dependent on leadership from above. If the politburo becomes incapable of ruling then the Union grinds to a halt.

Because the ruling class would sit it out in Moscow while they're being bombed by Nazigermany.

They'd evacuate before Hitler could fart in their general direction.

The idea that taking Moscow would lead to the USSR magically imploding for no reason at all is ridiculous.

I never said they wouldn't evacuate, but losing Moscow means losing your main line of communication. Suddenly communications between the North and South is severed as all your transportation lines go through Moscow, lines of communication go through moscow. Not to mention the rulers wouldn't all be together either. You got Stalin and Beria sitting in one place, while Molotov and Malenkov is sitting on the wrong side of the front.

I mean, I hate commies but the soviets did more

Low iq soviet propganda. American lend lease built the soviet army.

Thats why we went ahead and dunked their stupid brains in post ww2

no it didn't lol

the reason why Soviets failed post ww2 is because they didn't have Stalin after 1953 in their command, instead tried to build a semi-consumerist society and failed miserably

if they instead did what North Korea is doing up to now

• kill a few million people in cyclical purges every decade or so

• keep the bottom 85% of the population fed just enough to not starve to death

• keep rurals enslaved since they deserve it

• pour every resource into the military

they would probably be still around to this day

That only works because Korea has China. Otherwise the surrounding nations would carve chunk off it as they will. The Turks would be able to have a new Ottoman Empire.

Well, that had much to do about the terrain/climate tbf.

Grandfather fought in the red army, none of the soldiers wanted to fight for ‘their’ country, and most were malnourished. He literally tied a piece of rancid meat to his tooth and swallowed it, so he would turn green, and get out of a third tour. Then defected from the brutal communist regime.

The Soviets were so "beloved" that some say Hitler could've had his own human waves by recruiting the Ukrainians and other eastern europeans who fucking loathed the Soviets thanks to all the suffering they caused after "liberating" them with their imperia-, I mean, revolutions.

I mean they nearly did. "Hiwis" as the Germans called them numbered in millions in 1943. For a lot of Russians the Eastern Front was simply a continuation of the civil war two decades prior. The only reason the Germans didn't throw human waves of Ukrainians and Russians at the soviets were because they viewed it as poor usage of equipment and already had enough problems relying on poorly equipped Romanians and Italians guarding their flanks without adding Russian peasants to the mix. But the Germans would never have been able to control the occupied countryside without support from the locals.

Russian man power, American equipment and British intelligence is what I've heard before.

Polish spies really played a role too. Without the info on movements coming from them the allies had a bad guessing game on their hands.

And their help during the Battle of Britain. And then we fucked them over to please Stalin.

Do you mean the information sharing or not pushing the USSR back after Donitz surrendered?

We didn't let any of the Polish pilots in the Victory Parade, and then after the war over half the country wanted them gone. Those that returned to Poland won't allowed to fly in the PAF or were imprisoned.

That was fucked up

Also the Yalta conference pretty much fucked all of eastern Europe.

the soviets needed american equipment to even stand a chance

I love to watch commies seethe

You’re in luck because that’s what they do most of the time.

How fitting that their favorite color is red.

That's the only thing they're good at tbf

They are attempting to re-distribute their excess misery onto the rest of humanity, if not by communist revolution, then by internet seething.

Did the dinosaurs secretly back the allies during the war to make it easier for their return from the plasma fold?

http://imgur.com/TvNhrKx

That explains why their return has been delayed. They backed the wrong side.

Historically speaking, how would commies fare in battle against the dinosaurs?

They’d actually fill a belly for once

Theme my ancestors

I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and 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. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so.

• Khrushchev

he said cope guys XDDDD

Have you owned the libs yet?

I am a bot. Contact for questions

Lol Longpostbot is the new snappy

Ussr > us

🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲

Only one is still on the map tbh

If soviets surrendered maybe they would be a European country instead of second mongolia.

Operation Unthinkable shouldn't have been cancelled.

Should have nuked the commies before they got nukes

"But we capitalist are totally moral and upright!"

Nuking commies is probably the most moral thing imaginable

Eating the rich is probably the most moral thing imaginable. Them and their tools, like you.

The US only had something like 2 spare nukes after Nagasaki. And only a half dozen or so by the end of 1945.

Any didn't drop them all on the commies. Sad!

I love commies because no one has killed more mayo than commies. The clear mayocial master race.

Is not about liking ir not liking, it's about knowing about history.

Cope

Not cope, common sense and basic logic.

Seriousposting gtfo

Wait, you're telling me that the country that agreed to share Poland with Germany wasn't Germany's greatest enemy? SHOCK!

the Russians lost more people!

kind of what happens when you throw farmers against a veteran army until they run out of bullets

Lmao who is voting for the fucking UK

British nationals living in the French country side probably

God I hope they have to go back after the EU ragequit

A) The Russians were ALLIED with Hitler from 1939 to 1941. They agreed to co-invade Poland, divide it between them, and exterminate all the Jews, Roma, and other "undesirables."

B) Hitler broke up with Russia, not the other way around. Russia was just thrilled to have Hitler as their best bud until be betrayed them.

C) Russia fought the war mostly by murdering Russians.

D) Russia exterminated 35 million Jews and others, vs 18 million people in Nazi Germany.

So "thanks, but no thanks" for your efforts in the war, Russia.

Found the drama poster

You can always tell because they bring the FACTS and LOGIC

Where's the drama?

WW2 was like a picnic for USA/UK in comparison to how much USSR did. Outside of USSR, the allies basically did nothing.

capitalism wins again

The USSR contributed the most during WWII, but this is a credit to state capitalism, as real communism has never been tried.

ITT:

wehraboos vs tankies