1/ First, the Soviet Union included, not only russia, but another 14 countries. Ukraine alone lost over 8 million people in WW2. As a percentage of population, Belorussia lost 25% and Ukraine 16% of its population, while russia only 12%.
I think he got those numbers by including civilian genocide victims.
2/ Second, just because the Soviet Union had the most causalities, doesn’t mean that they won the war. The reason Soviets had such large casualties is because they used people as cannon folder. Something russia is still doing today.
And doing more apologia for literal Nazi genocide of Slavs to own the ruskies
3/ Third, the Red Army was poorly equipped and heavily relied on the US support. Through the lendlease, the US has provided over 400,000 trucks, 14,000 airplanes, 13,000 tanks, and more.
Now list total tanks, and maybe who drove them.
If dumping military equipment was a magic spell to make the side with the richest sponsors win, then what's going on in Ukraine?
4/ Forth, Nazis were defeated only after the second front was open. Nazis had to fight against the US, UK, and all their allies.
So, it is plain stupid to attribute victory over Hitler to russia.
The front that never would have opened were it not for Molotov-Ribbentrop, which I'm sure this same prick will call Nazi collaboration (unlike Bandera, who was just doing what he had to in order to own the ruskies)
"Altogether, as many as 84,070 T-34s are thought to have been built, plus 13,170 self-propelled guns built on T-34 chassis. It was the most-produced tank of the Second World War, and the second most-produced tank of all time, after its successor, the T-54/55 series."
Damn didn't know they were building all those T-34s in Kentucky.
"The Soviet Union churned out over 36,000 Ilyushin Il-2 bombers during WWII, making it the most-produced aircraft of the war."
Oh wow, I guess Georgia was busy cranking out IL-2s as well.
I saw a number that said lendlease contributed about 5% to the USSR war material. Which is not nothing, but like... 5% of 76% is still above 70%, if that's how you want to measure things.
Whereas if you removed the USSR's contribution to the war effort...
Let me rephrase: The western front would have opened either way, but the War on Two Fronts situation would have been radically diminished if the Nazis invaded the Soviets earlier, as it was openly the plan of western reactionaries to pit the Nazis against the Soviets and then deal with whoever won after (hence their resistance to an antifascist alliance). The Pact (1939) was useful in stalling for time in an absolute sense, certainly, but it also helped prevent the Soviets from being effectively the sole focus of the Nazis (who, in the meantime and in their need for expansion, invaded other countries, including Britain in 1940), as Operation Barbarossa only started in 1941 (still earlier than the Soviets planned, but a delay nonetheless).
So my point is that the strain of handling these conflicts simultaneously was one of the major factors in the Nazis being defeated, but westerners were actively planning on preventing such a situation from arising, hence a need for the Pact to stall the Nazis (along with the more broad use of industrial development, etc.)
deleted by creator
I can’t view this bird brain thread without an account so I’m just gonna assume that his points are nothing of importance
deleted by creator
Including the Ukraine, which this man has in his pfp. smh this anti ukraine man is doing putins work for him smh.
It actually gets really ghoulish:
I think he got those numbers by including civilian genocide victims.
And doing more apologia for literal Nazi genocide of Slavs to own the ruskies
3/ Third, the Red Army was poorly equipped and heavily relied on the US support. Through the lendlease, the US has provided over 400,000 trucks, 14,000 airplanes, 13,000 tanks, and more.
Now list total tanks, and maybe who drove them.
If dumping military equipment was a magic spell to make the side with the richest sponsors win, then what's going on in Ukraine?
The front that never would have opened were it not for Molotov-Ribbentrop, which I'm sure this same prick will call Nazi collaboration (unlike Bandera, who was just doing what he had to in order to own the ruskies)
Such a fucking waste of space
Damn didn't know they were building all those T-34s in Kentucky.
Oh wow, I guess Georgia was busy cranking out IL-2s as well.
When you’re entire knowledge of the eastern front comes from watching Enemy at the Gates
deleted by creator
I saw a number that said lendlease contributed about 5% to the USSR war material. Which is not nothing, but like... 5% of 76% is still above 70%, if that's how you want to measure things.
Whereas if you removed the USSR's contribution to the war effort...
Why is that? I thought that agreement had as only function to delay the German attack on the USSR. Why would it lead to a second front?
Let me rephrase: The western front would have opened either way, but the War on Two Fronts situation would have been radically diminished if the Nazis invaded the Soviets earlier, as it was openly the plan of western reactionaries to pit the Nazis against the Soviets and then deal with whoever won after (hence their resistance to an antifascist alliance). The Pact (1939) was useful in stalling for time in an absolute sense, certainly, but it also helped prevent the Soviets from being effectively the sole focus of the Nazis (who, in the meantime and in their need for expansion, invaded other countries, including Britain in 1940), as Operation Barbarossa only started in 1941 (still earlier than the Soviets planned, but a delay nonetheless).
So my point is that the strain of handling these conflicts simultaneously was one of the major factors in the Nazis being defeated, but westerners were actively planning on preventing such a situation from arising, hence a need for the Pact to stall the Nazis (along with the more broad use of industrial development, etc.)