because the West as always was jealous when there’s something going on without its part taking. Stalin only wanted to be polite in order not to enrage the West.
not at all, the vast majority of WWII armed forces movements and operations took place on land; and to control land territiories it takes men walking, not flying or sailing.
i meant ‘front’ in terms of how West Allies would handle it, not France defeated etc.
you cop out so soon?
because as always the West was jealous when there’s something going on without its part taking. Stalin only wanted to be polite in order not to enrage the West.
not at all, the vast majority of WWII armed forces movements and operations took place on land; and to control land territiories it takes men walking, not flying or sailing.
i meant ‘front’ in terms of how West Allies would handle it, not France defeated etc.
you already cop out?
Drunk posting by Stalin-apologists that clearly have read next to nothing on WWII, or anything in general… LOL 
The Poles and French were just as “up to do fighting” as the initial horde of Soviet soldiers that were crushed and surrendered en masse in the initial phases as Barbarossa exceeded their numbers. I would point out that more Red Army soldiers surrendered than soldiers in either army mentioned in the same time and space of six weeks. The difference is the Soviet Union had the vast expanses whereas both Poland and France were highly strategically vulnerable countries easily cut in two, or isolated from their allies. Especially when your hero collaborated with Hitler in carving up Poland and murdered a large number of them before “liberating” them…
…
and how do you know? have any evidence?
Do you have any that he didn’t? Because there is a significant ream of documentary evidence starting with Stalin’s purge of able commanders like Tukhachevsky and his forbidding the doctrine of “Deep Battle,” while promoting harmless monkey-generals and military idiots like Budyonny, severally hindered the land forces. Or how he ordered his commanders to stand down and forbid them to mobilize right as it was blatantly obvious the Heer was about to begin it’s onslaught of Barbarossa. Or that nothing was heard from him by the Soviet people for days and weeks after the invasion and nearly everyone near him stated he was shocked into a catatonic paralysis and even contemplated suing for peace. Maybe you can stop being such a mindless sycophant that you can pull your head above the chest-thumping nationalist shit you’ve been led to believe…
You’re other stupid points I can’t even bother with…
Yes, but at what price to his people and the future stability of the USSR? At the end of the war, the Soviet Union lost a whole generation of young boys. Even today the affects of four long years of total war are most apparent and visible in census data, which shows a yawning gap between the two genders. Not only that, but Soviet infrastructure, technology, and intellectual capital never completely recovered from the destruction.
i’m perfectly sober.
the only thing one needs to know about the WWII in order to figure out the victor is number of troops deployed and destroyed by each side, that’s all.
like i said, the French and Poles didn’t put up much resistance; as for the ‘horde’ (what a boorish term to come up with) those soldiers were betrayed by their own commanders who committed treason at the moment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Pavlov_(general)
i do. Stalin was not only an adult person, but also a revolutioneer and terrorist in his past; men like that don’t piss themselves, unlike those who say they do.
able commander? Tukhatchevsky previously had botched the Polish campaign completely, it was him to blame that Red Army soldiers ended up in Polish prison camps.
that doctrine wasn’t forbidden, it was used throughout the war; not to mention that no such doctrines were ever used by West Allies, for example; let’s blame them for this?
he forbid them to provoke Hitler, but mobilised they were alright; first days defeat happened only because of a treason committed by some of those from the Red Army High Command.
led to believe? by whom? Stalin has been slandered by every source… everything i say is a result of my own research.
actually it did - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BESM , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_hardware_in_Soviet_Bloc_countries , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Gagarin , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obninsk_Nuclear_Power_Plant and so on.
Obviously.
Unfortunately, your magnificently ill-informed and embarrassingly wrong comments merely demonstrate how limited and deficient your ‘research’ has been.
well, if limitied, then only limited to facts and bypassing everything that contradicts common sense, like history fiction books or hollywood movies etc.
You don’t have any “facts” and are a simpleton that lacks context…
Then that’s even more scary…
the only thing one needs to know about the WWII in order to figure out the victor is number of troops deployed and destroyed by each side, that’s all.
If someone knows something, it’s not just about “troops” and numbers. It’s about exhausting the enemies resources. That’s grand strategic warfare. Not just sending your people to the front to be butchered by most often numerically inferior forces. It’s about industrial producing and sapping the best and brightest. Any idiot peasant can die; a good part of the Red Army doctrine was simply throwing them at the enemy in a meat grinder with little training. The real resources are educated and the intelligent whom are forced to be applied to more complex things: like the Reich’s massively complicated and intricate air defense network - which took away divisions’ worth of resources and tied down the Luftwaffe from bringing its full force to bear in any one theatre…
like i said, the French and Poles didn’t put up much resistance;
They both put up as much resistance as the Red Army did in the same span, but like the Red Army, they were incompetent for various reasons. Or suffered bad luck and often created their own bad luck.
I’ve already covered this “fact”, they did as much initial “damage” as the Red Army did. The Red Army had time and space and faced a Wehrmacht that believed in fanciful realities…
as for the ‘horde’ (what a boorish term to come up with) those soldiers were betrayed by their own commanders who committed treason at the moment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Pavlov_(general)
No more “boorish” than your ignorant dismissal of the Allies. Stalin betrayed his own people with his incompetence…
i do. Stalin was not only an adult person, but also a revolutioneer and terrorist in his past; men like that don’t piss themselves, unlike those who say they do.
Yes they do! What “fact” are you basing this all on? Did the Soviet commanders knew well over 48 hours in advance that the Germans were massing for an offensive? were they not threatened with execution if they put their forces on alert? Stalin received multiple corresponding intelligence reports from his services the Germans were launching Operation Barbarossa. His dismissed it all out of paranoia and fear and simply went into denial…
It’s an easy question you’ll continue to dodge because it doesn’t gibe with your paradigm of the Hero of the Soviet Union…
able commander? Tukhatchevsky previously had botched the Polish campaign completely, it was him to blame that Red Army soldiers ended up in Polish prison camps.
Again, laying all the blame on him is like saying Lenin “botched” WWI by negotiating a horrible peace with the Germans. He was not solely to blame and was working with an army beyond it’s means and competence. And was fighting a highly motivated Polish force. He still got far less men killed than Stalin did. And if he was such an idiot, why was his basic operational doctrine used by Soviet commanders during and after the war?..
that doctrine wasn’t forbidden, it was used throughout the war; not to mention that no such doctrines were ever used by West Allies, for example; let’s blame them for this?
It was initially forbidden --officially-- the mere mention of it was! As Stalin realized he couldn’t terrorize his military to victory, things became more relaxed and the generals took over from their military idiot “Generalissimo” “terrorist”…
he forbid them to provoke Hitler, but mobilised they were alright; first days defeat happened only because of a treason committed by some of those from the Red Army High Command.
Good plan! Don’t mobilize and enemy that is blatantly obviously mobilizing to attack you! :mrgreen: Were the wise Soviet commanders that held convenient live fire exercises to get around Stalin’s idiotic decree committing treason too? But he wasn’t paranoid and didn’t panic you say? Really? :evil:
led to believe? by whom? Stalin has been slandered by every source… everything i say is a result of my own research.
Right, sycophantic sources rewritten by Stalin’s scholars and video games
you get scared so easily? hope you don’t piss yourself.
it is only about troops and casualty numbers because only battles can exhaust enemy resources in most effective way.
the USSR had no choice, would you blame it for this? Britain could have done the same instead of now going jealous over Red Army success.
nope, it was only early days of the war they did so, but later on the Red Army learned how to fight.
how many German factories were destroyed by West Allies air forces aside from killing German civillians?
the Luftwaffe might be a force to fear for Britain, but on the East Front most was done by land forces.
got statistics to support that claim?
go prove it.
no they don’t.
what facts you based on when started it all?
he received all sorts of contradicting reports, no one could tell the correct one, that’s what you forgot to mention, for some reason; so it is now from hindsight you can boast like a clairvoyant, but what you’d say back then?
he had a pact signed with Hitler, as if you don’t know.
white washing all of the sudden? Stalin then deserves justification the same as Tukhatchevsky’s.
you mean West Allies were idiots that they didn’t use the ‘deep battle’ doctrine either?
got any documents to support that claim?
no he wasn’t and didn’t.
show me these.
Er … welcome, Comrade … I think. Got a bit warm In Here. Probably a mistake to come in but … here goes.
I have never in any way underrated the contribution of the Soviet forces to the Allied victory over the Axis, the Germans in particular. That having been said, it is patently ridiculous simply to disregard the contribution of the Western Allies to the process. True, some commentators tend to regard the Pacific War as a separate war from that in the Western theatre, only loosely (almost coincidentally) connected with the latter. I am not inclined to accept this analysis, largely because if either theatre had gone “wrong” for the Allies, it would have opened the way to unpleasant possibilities in the other. Beyond that I am not willing to speculate. However, the world would not have been made better by such an eventuality.
It is also ridiculous to disregard the contribution of the Western Allied bombing campaign in disrupting and degrading Germany’s fighting capacities. There are reams of incontrovertible evidence showing that, apart from killing civilians, the bombing campaign increasingly influenced matters such as the location and operation of large areas of German industry. That it did not break Germany’s war-making capacities completely is a tribute to the resilience and ingenuity of the German people, something that they also showed in spades in the postwar period.
Then again, there is the matter of Western Allied material assistance to the Soviet Union. This started early in the “Great Patriotic War”, at a time when the Western Allies were themselves short of equipment, often at great human cost (Murmansk convoys etc.). Only slightly later, as US industry geared itself for war, the Soviets received huge assistance, notably in the areas of logistical transport and food. The Red Army rapidly changed from a horse-dependent army to an almost extravagantly motorized one on the back of Dodge trucks and other US-made vehicles, something that facilitated the Soviets in moving more of their industrial capacity to producing their (often superior) armored vehicles and aircraft. As for food, Barbarossa had seriously disrupted Soviet food production. Much of the resulting food gap was made up by supplies from the US. To take one example, the Red Army became almost as familiar with American canned meat as the Americans themselves; Red Army troops of the 1942-'44 period tended to refer to Spam, the US canned pork luncheon meat product, as “Second Fronts”.
I could go on … but I really do not like to be negative. On the basis of the last post, this thread threatens to descend into a pantomimic “oh yes there is/oh no there isn’t” level. Mere assertion and denial is not evidence or even (as the famous “Monty Python” sketch suggested) argument. I am sorry to say this, but the “argument” proposed by Stalin seems to have been drawn from a Soviet-era school history book (circa 1950 ?). An acceptable type of source ? Don’t think so …
Yours from Moscow Centre, JR.
Everything you say, JR*, is correct, as anyone with even a basic grasp of the history of WWII knows.
Alas, experience with the likes of stalin indicates that it will be rejected with unsupported assertions or selective Wiki quotes and that it is pointless trying to educate him.
No doubt this will be rejected as fanciful by stalin as it didn’t produce dead bodies on the Eastern Front which is stalin’s only measure of success in WWII, but the bombing campaign had a direct and significant effect on the Eastern Front by diverting a significant amount of 88mm guns (I think it may have been most of the production of 88mm guns around 1943-44, but I don’t have sources to hand) to anti-aircraft defence of Germany. Those guns would have had a major impact if used as anti-tank guns on the Eastern Front, as would the vast amount of anti-aircraft ammunition they used if the material had been used to produce anti-tank shells. Similarly, the troops required to man the AA guns would have made a significant contribution on the Eastern Front.
The same applies to the German fighter planes, pilots, ground crews, ammunition, fuel, spares etc applied to air defence in Western Europe.
I’d be perfect for leader of the Soviet Union then…
it is only about troops and casualty numbers because only battles can exhaust enemy resources in most effective way.
Then Germany should have defeated the Soviet Union…
the USSR had no choice, would you blame it for this? Britain could have done the same instead of now going jealous over Red Army success.
They had many choices, Stalin chose to retard his army for reasons of political control severally hindering its initial effectiveness.
The British were constantly short of men, especially late in the war. They did suffer horrendous death rates in the air war over Europe. Over 50% casualties IIRC…
nope, it was only early days of the war they did so, but later on the Red Army learned how to fight.
I agree. But their effectiveness was hindered…
how many German factories were destroyed by West Allies air forces aside from killing German civillians?
Or how much petrol and lubricants did the German Heer not have for it’s tanks due to Allied bombing? Another simpleton equation based wholly on ignorance…
the Luftwaffe might be a force to fear for Britain, but on the East Front most was done by land forces.
Right, thanks for agreeing with me…
got statistics to support that claim?
Do you? How many Red Army soldiers were captured? Wasn’t it well over a million in the opening weeks? I’m not bothering with research when you clearly haven’t…
go prove it.
You’ve proven nothing and provided no “documents” or “statistics” and are now demanding everyone else furnish such things…
no they don’t.
Yes they do 
what facts you based on when started it all?
What “facts” do you base anything on?
he received all sorts of contradicting reports, no one could tell the correct one, that’s what you forgot to mention, for some reason; so it is now from hindsight you can boast like a clairvoyant, but what you’d say back then?
Complete apologist bullshat! He received consistent and corresponding reports from multiple spy rings, his personnel in the field, and tactical recon. Only a complete fool believes otherwise…
he had a pact signed with Hitler, as if you don’t know.
Right, the one where Hitler made a fool out of him…
white washing all of the sudden? Stalin then deserves justification the same as Tukhatchevsky’s.
Oh, I’m not the one whitewashing. Stalin botched multiple campaigns if you want to go down with that logic, starting with Finland and even his own activities during the Revolution…
you mean West Allies were idiots that they didn’t use the ‘deep battle’ doctrine either?
Why would the Allies have used an operational doctrine largely designed for the vast expanses of the Soviet Union. Did the Soviets use the American Tank Destroyer Doctrine?
got any documents to support that claim?
show me these.
[/quote]
If I did, would you bother to read them? Because you obviously haven’t read any others…
Ah, but your wikipedia entries underestimate the implications of the harsh reparations terms that the Soviet Union forced on vulnerable Eastern European countries, not to mention British and Swiss financial credits, Mr. Stalin (and I cringe at that very name). Yes, the Soviet Union managed to rebuild its infrastructure, and may have even surpassed the United States in computer science and nuclear energy expertise in the early 1950s, but one cannot escape the uncomfortable truth about the USSR that emerged from under the rubble: the USSR could only hold together by force of arms, and, therefore, the country could not hold its own in a race against the USA’s industrial might. The USSR lacked the man-power and the resources to efficiently run its planned economy, which needed large units of inputs each year, and as a consequence, the country was unable to meet the demand because of the war. The Nazis, in fact, raped the Soviet Union for all that she was worth to continue her war machine. The cost to the Soviet Union was enormous.
Very true, kregs. I am reminded yet again of Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece, “Dr. Strangelove - or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and love the Bomb”. When asked why the Soviets had taken the drastic step of producing the “Doomsday Machine” - the ultimate MAD weapon - the Soviet Ambassador replies along the lines that it was necessary because Russia could not keep up in the Arms Race, the Space Race and the Refrigerator Race (or somesuch). Best regards, JR.
The original question of the poster is more aimed at ignorance of the US public in the achievement of the russians over WW2, and overestimating her own achievements.
This is true, but that’s nothing new. People want to hear /pay for reading/seeing their own heroes, and are not interested in those from other countries.
Money/profit dictates what you get to read.
Also, any “big” country suffers from this subjective overrating its own achievements (UK, France) not the least Russia !
How often don’t the russians of today think “they” did “it” all by themselves!?
And that is not correct or fair either. As the before debates have shown.
Another good example of missing a point in this recurring debate is that the pro-russians/stalinists only focus on the battles with Hitler and forget that the Americans and British were forced to divide their troops and materials to fighting the Japanese (and Italians…at that time no hindsighting) , which the soviets did not ever contribute in until the war with Japan was effectively done.
And Japan was no pushover, as Zjoekov knew himself (won only by the grace of better tanks…to which the japanese diligently decided to upgrade their jap tank designs).
The Soviets did fight Italians as they were part of the forces arrayed in the Soviet union by the Axis forces (Romania, Hungary, Germany, Finland, Slovakia, Austria plus all the former Soviets who joined, White Russians, Volksdeutsche, Sympathisers and Anti Communist forces from neutral and occupied nations). Why do people keep think it was Soviets v Germans only
The Japanese had a peace deal with the Soviets after suffering 2 defeats against them pre 1939, so many forget that part. Why would the Soviets bother attacking them and having a war on two fronts with the logistical problems that entails. Zhukov of course having a hand in defeating the Japanese in 1938-39 knew about their capabilities - the battle hardened forces that were commanded in 1945 even though they still had some obsolete tanks (T26 and BT’s were still in service in the east) were more than a match for anything the Japanese had, on land and in the air - with or without the modern tanks.
Not sure I follow you on Japanese tanks, they belatedly started to build better tanks (subjective as few of the newer upgunned designs saw any form of action - so actual ability is not really known), would not call it diligently upgrading - more too little too late especially with the state of Japanese industry.
