Thread 17945743

How did the USSR manage to easily repel six Axis nations in 1941 alone?

>>17945743 (OP)
Superior russian genes

because they were all irrelevant except Germany and they received massive lend lease from the capitalist anglo west

>>17945755
>irrelevant
over 1/4 of the invading force was non-german, more if you consider Wermacht drafting germanized Poles/Czechs/Dutch etc
>massive lend lease
90% of lend lease arrived after 1943-1944, they get only a few ships from UK in 1941 that propably didn't even make it to the front by 1941 end

>>17945743 (OP)
>>repel
>20M dead soviets
>Axis captured approximatively 1,600,000 km2 in 5(FÜNF) months

>>17945896
>take 10% of the country without achiving any strategic objective
>lose millions of soldiers
>lose the war

>>17945743 (OP)
wasn't easy and they lost a lot

They just barely won. 1941 was easily the most disastrous year for the Soviets in WWII.

>>17945743 (OP)
Only Finland and Romania allotted a significant portion of their military for the war against the USSR. The rest of Germany’s allies didn’t send much in the way of men and equipment.

>>17946092
And yet Germans didn't achieve a single one of their objectives

>>17946092
>barely won
Not at all, Red Army still had massive reserves, enough for a full front counterattack that begun right away in December

>>17945743 (OP)
The USSR is 15 countries with a population greater than that of the Axis, the Axis was fighting a two front war and the USSR still required Lend Lease.
>>17945766
That 10% of Lend Lease from 1941 was all tanks that the German guns couldnt penetrate, that singlehandedly saved the USSR.
ALL but 7 (seven!) Soviet heavy tanks were of foreign origin during the battle of Moscow.
The Consensus view in Academia is that if the Soviets did not have the British tanks to launch successful spoiling attacks, the Germans tank Moscow and the USSR collapses in short order with no way to deploy men and materiel across a broad front.

>>17945900
>lines on a map change
>this somehow means taking 15:1 Losses doesnt matter
???

>>17945743 (OP)
>easily
no
>Finland
wasnt very aggressive
>Italy
axis self detriment
>Germany and the rest
hippity hoopity look at all this scorched property, also supply lines are fucking hard in slav land

>>17946114
Their counter attacks and counter offensive relied ENTIRELY on foreign made tanks.
The USSR was on the ropes and victory wasnt even assured in 1944.
It was only after Overlord Stalin admitted they were in the clear.

>>17946127
>b-but my fantasies
don't care

>>17946125
>The USSR is 15 countries
The USSR was 1 country in 1941
>population greater than that of the Axis
They have smaller population after losing their territories
>Axis was fighting a two front war
They didn't, i hope you don't count two german divisions in africa
>b-but tanks
almost none of them were used before december, even if they didn't have it the Moscow would not be taken anyway, at most they would captured a bit of less territories during the winter counteroffensive which would change very little

next take

>>17945766
>1/4 of the invading force was non-german
Regular infantry guarding quiet sections of the line or supply lines, many not even front line troops, neither Italy nor Romania had state of the art armored divisions like Germany. It is meaningless to say "oh, look at the number of countries were involved" without further context.

>90% of lend lease arrived after 1943-1944
Does this imply the prior 10% was irrelevant?

>1941
Operation Barbarossa itself was a rushed effort, unlike the invasion of France which the German military had been planning for years, the Germans had not winterproofed their machinery and did not bother to even provide winter clothing for the troops, it is unlikely they would have. 1942 was a more pivotal year and by then there were receiving ample lend lease starting with the UK, there were Matildas fighting in the Ukraine by summer 1942, for example.

This does not diminish the efforts of Russia and their allies, but you do not win a war by will alone, in the brutal darwinian world in which we live you also need aviation fuel, ball bearings and Studebaker trucks.

>>17946169
>guarding sectors or supply lines is not important
xd ?
also it's not true, lot of other axis countries suffered heavily losses in fighting
>Does this imply the prior 10% was irrelevant?
This imply that it didn't change the end results
>1942 was a more pivotal year
I wouldn't that say, even without LL the war of attrition would result in Soviet victory. At most it would be stalemate and I'm being really generous here. Hitler plan of 8 week invasion that would topple the Soviet Govorment and cause infighting among slavs (because they were supposed to be subhumans who can't organize) was the only way for Germans to win, anything past that was wishful thinking
>This does not diminish the efforts of Russia and their allies
Soviets fought harder than Germans anticipated that's true (turns out shooting POW's will actually cause the enemy to fight harder) but my point is that Barbarossa was simply not doable

>>17946148
NTA but This isn’t a real counter argument. If you want to convince the audience of your take, You need to now talk about those British tanks, the Soviet tanks in the locale, their numbers, places of deployment, and record of action. And then you need to express why you think the outcome would have not changed.

>>17946169
>Regular infantry guarding quiet sections of the line or supply lines, many not even front line troops
That’s complete bogus. There were a dozen Romanian divisions alone at the front in 1941. That alone is almost 10% of the invasion force.

>>17946205
I don't need to do that because it's irevelant to my point that the Germans were on losing position before the December counteroffensive that mostly used those tanks even begun

>>17946125
>ALL but 7 (seven!) Soviet heavy tanks were of foreign origin during the battle of Moscow.
me when I lie

>>17945743 (OP)
finland wasn't axis, romania hungary and slovakia were irrelevant shitholes and italy only sent a token force to barbarossa

>>17945900
>take 10% of the country without achiving any strategic objective
retard

>>17946105
Finland. The country the Nazis saved from Soviet aggression when no one else would help them. Finland stopped fighting in Russia when the Nazis gained the upper hand and began to try and defeat Stalingrad. When the Nazis needed them most, they retreated.
The Nazis really were more dedicated Nationally than any of their allies.

>>17946739
>Taking Ukraine means that nazis won!
no
>>17946768
>Finland. The country the Nazis saved from Soviet aggression
nazis sold Finland to Soviets in 39 together with Poland and Baltics

>>17946800
They were part of the Ribbentop pact... interesting. Did the Nazis supply them or have military there when U.S.S.R. first invaded Finland? Why did the Nazis sigh that pact and how were they not allies with any of the Nordic countries with which they seemed so proud of?

>>17946800
Anyway putting Finland on that chart is false as they retreated due thier own politics. Rather than were repulsed.

>>17946800
>Taking Ukraine means that nazis won!
It means the nazis took vital strategic areas and the Soviets fell into a famine in 1946 even when they won. That's how hard the victory came, they were literally starving to death after their celebrations because of all the farm hands they lost.

>>17946815
>as they retreated
they didn't, they moved onto defense once they couldn't attack anymore
>>17946817
>nazis took vital strategic areas
Yeah, but the point is that they didn't took enough of those, Ukraine is still only Ukraine. The A-A line was far off
>>17946814
>Did the Nazis supply them
Used to but they stopped after R-M
>Why did the Nazis sigh that pact and how were they not allies with any of the Nordic countries
Realpolitk + nazis had really poor reputation by that time, their allies were either strong-armed into submission or joined them out of fear of USSR

>>17946800
This just really seems like a bad move by the Nazis. Couldn't they have defended the Baltic states and Finland and acted like they were the good guys France and Britian for defending their allies? Or was there already to much conquest lust in the Nazis to ally with them instead of just replacing them with superior German Ubermench?

>>17946839
The Finns retreated to the borders the U.S.S.R had originally infringed upon if I am not mistaken.
>good luck defeating that evil communist menace that tried to destroy us Hitler! We will stay here to see who wins! Oh and thanks for the Ribbentropt pact assholes!

>>17946845
>The Finns retreated to the borders the U.S.S.R had originally infringed upon if I am not mistaken.
No, they moved ahead in Eastern Karelia and tried to take Murmansk
>>17946840
They wanted to play the good guys in 1944 (Himmler starting galzing Russians after his meeting with Vlasov, one of the best nazi clown moments) but it was too little too late

>>17946862
Holy crap the Fins went to war with the Germs after signing peace with Soviets?

>>17946876
yep, as to avoid getting rolled by the allies once it was clear germany wasn't going to win
apparently there was some hesitation from the troops on both sides, and the soviets had to pretty much force finnish high command to order the finnish troops to fight the germans
as you can imagine, the german troops weren't too happy about the sudden backstabbing but were pretty civil in their retreat all things considered

>>17946739
>bunch of muddy potato fields that you have to stretch your supply lines through
>strategic objective

>>17945743 (OP)
War communism and clausewitzian tactics

>>17946904
Over 50 million Soviet citizens fell under occupation, that was 25% of the population. They also lost much of their important agricultural and industrial lands. And 200 Soviet divisions were wiped away which was 75% of the red army's starting strength.
Stalin wasn't begging, pleading and whimpering for a second front for 4 years just for a laugh.
It's pathetic how you're trying to rewrite history. Russians still obsess over WW2 today because it was a LOTR style doomsday battle for them which they barely won.

>>17946892
>but were pretty civil in their retreat all things considered
Every building in Lapland was burned to the ground.

>At the Tehran Conference in November 1943, Stalin made a toast celebrating Allied aid. He said, in effect:
>“From the Russian point of view … the United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war.”
>Nikita Khrushchev, in his memoirs, recalled Stalin saying in private conversations that "if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would have lost"—though Khrushchev also noted these were informal remarks, not part of an official statement.
>In 1963, Marshal Georgy Zhukov was secretly recorded (via KGB surveillance) saying:
>“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?

>>17947205
Killing millions of people isn't a strategic objective unless your goal is to cause genocide. The red army survived. The Germans failed to capture a single goal of theirs, Archangelsk, Astrakhan, Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, Baku, all remained in Soviet hands.
Barbarossa was a complete failure.

>>17945743 (OP)
The might of Slavic Bolshevism

>>17947205
>Stalin wasn't begging, pleading and whimpering for a second front for 4 years just for a laugh.
The war was long before D-Day. The only thing a second front did was save West Germany from Soviet occupation too.

>>17947247
*war was over

>>17946125
>That 10% of Lend Lease from 1941
It wasnt 10% of Lend Lease that arrived in 1941, it was 2%.
Im just going to assume you've basically made shit up with everything else that you wrote.

>>17947240
Destroying the Red Army was their primary goal and they mostly achieved it. The Russians deserve all the credit they get for being able to rebuild it.
>Barbarossa was a complete failure.
Again this stupid hyperbole. It's like talking to a child. Stalin was on suicide watch considering how bad the situation was in 1941, literally begging the allies for a second front.

>“If at the moment the opening of a second front in the West seems unfeasible to the British Government, then perhaps some other means could be found of rendering the Soviet Union active military aid against the common enemy. It seems to me that Britain could safely land 25–30 divisions at Archangel or ship them to the southern areas of the U.S.S.R. via Iran for military cooperation with the Soviet troops on Soviet soil…”
- Staling literally begging the British to come save him because Barbarossa was a complete failure.

>>17947268
>Destroying the Red Army was their primary goal and they mostly achieved it.
damn, who beat the Germans then? Green Army?

>>17947278
Stalin was not omipotent to know the terrible state of German logistic that we know today

>>17947278
Your own quotes shows that he is not begging or pleading for a second front, he accepts its not happening and calmly makes alternate plans instead.

>>17947290
Hoping that the British would really send troops to the eastern front is complete and utter desperation, not 'calmly making alternate plans'.

>>17947287
Definitely not the Red Army of 1941 which was almost completely wiped out.

>>17947331
The Germans didn't anticipate that Red Army would use their 14 million strong reserve?

>>17945743 (OP)
Because the Nazis are animals.

A flea can never oppose a lion.

>>17946130
It was assured in 1940.

They didn't, Barbarossa in 1941 was a huge victory for the axis, if they didn't lose at stalingrad there is a very high chance the soviet union would have collapsed.

https://youtu.be/46sqhBhHJ-M

>>17947343
You really have no clue whatsoever how extraordinary this war was.

>>17947217
didn't they not kill any civilians? iirc they just burnt down the buildings but spared the people
the soviets would never

>>17946876
Yup. It's called the Lapland War. Basically at that time, they were forced to do it or else get totally wrecked by the Soviets and bombed by the Western allies. The progression of that entire conflict was from the Winter War, to the Continuation War, to the Lapland War. These conflicts of course all had origins in the Finnish Civil War. This is one of my favorite pictures of World War II. The Germans put it up during the Lapland War as they were retreating from the Finns. It translates to "thank you for not displaying brotherhood in arms."

>>17947289
A war account said communists sent winter uniforms West and summer uniforms east.

>>17946216
You’re basicalky claiming that they didn’t need armored vehicles for the offensive.

>>17946225
You’re jewish so that would be all the time

>>17945896
but muh k/d. wars are not about who kills the most people

>>17947570
Nah, it was pretty normal, Germans got crushed by the overwhelming power
>>17947812
I think they would manage to make that counteroffensive without those few tanks, and even if counteroffensive somehow didn't work, the USSR would still win

>>17948162
>Nah, it was pretty normal
Nah, destroying 200 divisions in 4 months was the greatest military defeat ever inflicted in human history. Nothing like it had happened before or after.
>Germans got crushed by the overwhelming power
Overwhelming resources. They were the underdog.

>>17948175
So did the Germans got crushed or not?

>>17947329
Shut the fuck up you retard. He was not begging the british for anything.

>>17947442
It was a total failure

>>17946739
>erm, they were trying to... le starve the reds!
Then they were retarded. The soviet union had a massively larger population so dragging out the war for some attempt at hunger as a weapon (war crime btw) would be retarded, Germany didn't have time on their side.

This is also ignoring that Germany's entire winning play was ending the war as soon as possible. Any long term damage they did as a result of barbarossa was an accident and not their strategic objective.

>>17945753
>>17948329
>>17947419
average Russhit retard

>>17947442
It literally cost them the war you pedantic troglodyte. The cognitive dissonance of those of you who can describe Barbarossa as a success is ludicrous. Literally when your enemy kills you, you win. In this case I guess also rapes you.

>>17947442
The German objectives for Barbarossa were Moscow, Leningrad and the Volga. They achieved none of them.
The winner of a battle, campaign or war is the one who achieves his objectives.

>>17945743 (OP)
nazis are poor fighters

>>17946127
15 to 1 is literally multiple times the actual figure despite being by far the best period of the war for the Germans. Why are you lying

This also fails to think strategically. If you look at the two country's war machines as systems Barbarossa brought Germany closer to losing the war than the USSR. The Axis lost about a million men, mostly germans. This was in a context where previously their highest rate of casualties had been in the thousands per month, now taking a million in a few months. And these were a million men from their absolute peak in terms of relative experience and skill and professionalism versus the allied powers. These were disproportionately losses of educated, well trained, experienced troops in an organization that basically worked how it was supposed to on paper. They never recovered from these losses. This trashed the organization to the point that for the rest of the war you were looking at a Wehrmacht that was never working the way it was supposed to. 1941 was the end of the organized, orderly, institutionally coherent system that invaded Poland and France. They were left to just improvise and make due with their own unravelling systemic dysfunction arising from overextension, an unexpected long war, and the painful lack of everyone who got eliminated in Barbarossa from then on. Barbarossa was a fatal wound to Germany in the context of the war.

>>17947278
Do you have any idea how desperately the US was begging Stalin to invade Manchuria? Cause obviously America was losing in the Pacific.

>>17948466
You're actually retarded, the soviet union was going to attack germany in july 1941 and the reason it was a stunning success it was because the soviet army was prepared for an offensive not a defense. 300 divisions were lost, 20k planes and aircraft lost, 1.6 million square km lost. Yeah bro germany was going to be off way better by letting the soviets build up their army to be the strongest in europe. What a fucking dumbass

>>17948504
the real objective was getting the oil, and while you can say that barbarossa in 1941 didn't achieve that, it surely laid the foundations for Case Blue which if it wasn't for the fuck ups made by the general staff would have been a success in getting the oil

>>17945743 (OP)
>easily

it took them 4 years and millions of men

They couldn't do it without lend lease of things they couldn't produce in the union of 15 nations, like aviation fuel

no plane fuel means your planes are no better than paper weights

>>17950810
>was going to attack Germany in 1941
there is not a single document to back this up nor do any of the Soviet deployments even suggest an upcoming offensive (especially since they were still in the middle of reorganizing their military by that point and other important assets for an offensive like tank divisons where much further away)