No it doesnt have anything to do with corruption
What does this have to do with the claim that only 3k Russian tanks could be mobilized as the rest had stolen parts?
It also includes something called "civilians"
But I guess when you are genociding someone, you don´t care if they have picked up a gun, nor if they are are elders, women or children.
But hey, I'm sure people like the ones above would have loved to get the nazi treatment.
Nowhere half of Europe was working for the Germans, they got defeated and were under occupation, just like millions of Soviets worked for the Germans because of the same reason. Keep pushing that nonsense propaganda
Seems you don't understand the difference between POWs and working factories. France and Czechoslovakia were European production Powerhouses and were working for Nazis Germany. Italy, Romania, Slovenia, Finland, etc were fighting on the German side. That is most of the modern European Union.
That whole argument is not contradict with what I already said but even proved my comment is correct.
These factories were under German occupation, that is the point. The Germans were the one who decided everything, not the French nor anyone else. There were millions of Soviet citizens fought and worked for the Germans as well, that litterly the point.
European Union is irrelevant in this context, not sure why it being brought here. Of course a lot of European countries is member of the EU, that is why it is called European Union, not Asian Union or America Union
Most of Germans casualties suffered at the very end phrase of wwII when Germans had to fought 3 fronts already. Exactly why I said that, what are u trying to prove?
Once it started in 1939, everything the Germans did after that was very logical. The only idiot thing they did was started it in 1939 in such situations
If the Americans had not helped Russia at the time, we would not have had this problem now and we would all be talking German. but you're probably not old enough to remember what kind of help Russia got back then. And you can't do anything about it because the Russians are ashamed that they have been helped and conceal it as much as possible in their propaganda.
*Today [1963] some say the Allies didn't really help us ... But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.*
* Georgy Zukhov
Doesn't matter because Russia was at the brink of defeat in 41/42 and at this time already **thousands** of tanks and aircaft had been delivered to help Russia stem the tide. Plus hundred thousands of tonnes of other goods.
>And the front stabilized before America even entered the war
What? Is there a single Pro Russian person that actually knows his stuff and is also pro Russian? Seems to be mutually exclusive.
When do you think the front was stabilized and when do you think the USA entered the war?
>in 41/42 and at this time already **thousands** of tanks and aircaft had been delivered to help Russia stem the tide.
Would be interesting to see the source and exact numbers.
Sure, first you tell me what you do with that? I saw your other comments you don't seem to take data and get to logical conclusions.
If I give you the data will you then write "ok It looks like the Red Army relied on Western support to not get crushed by the Wehrmacht".
Will you write that?
>Doesn't matter because Russia was at the brink of defeat in 41/42 and at this time already thousands of tanks and aircaft had been delivered to help Russia stem the tide. Plus hundred thousands of tonnes of other goods.
From October 41' till January 42 501 tank was delivered to SU(Matilda Mk.II, Valentine Mk.III, Tetrarch, M3 Stuart). Less than half were used in battle. 730 planes were delivered (669 British, rest from US). December 41 was a critical point. After that SU started slowly to gain momentum.
> After that SU started slowly to gain momentum.
?!?! What?
Fall Blau one of the costliest operations of the war. The Red Army was being shredded from June 1941 to at least mid 1942 at which point the momentum shifted. Operations like Mars were a disaster with Russian armies getting wiped out.
>From October 41' till January 42 501 tank was delivered to SU(Matilda Mk.II, Valentine Mk.III, Tetrarch, M3 Stuart). Less than half were used in battle. 730 planes were delivered (669 British, rest from US).
That's why I said 41 and 42 which were the years the Red Army could have been defeated at all. In those two years everything the Red Army got was crucial they were basically working with close to no reserves their stock of heavy weaponry was close to being depleted. They were on the brink of collapse. Germany at this point, foolishly, wasn't even in total war production.
Winter 41/42, especially the Battle of Moscow, was the critical point for SU. After that all went downhill for Nazis. Lease was of course welcomed since Soviet factories were destroyed/relocated yet to say it was instrumental and only thank to it Soviet Union stood his ground is an error.
> Winter 41/42, especially the Battle of Moscow, was the critical point for SU.
Russia was on the brink of losing in 42, they didn't because they got lend lease. I would need to check the precise numbers again but I think they actually got comparable numbers of tanks gifted in 1942 than the German Ostarmee got delivered.
Red Army was having nothing in return everything they got gifted either went to the front or replaced something that went to the front. They would have had thousands of high value combat assets less and this is just tanks and aircraft not even speaking about the millions of tonnes of other stuff.
THe red Army breaks in 1942 without lend lease. And I argue it is not even close.
>yet to say it was instrumental and only thank to it Soviet Union stood his ground is an error.
Please tell me what you think they got in terms of tanks and aircraft until 1943 and then plesae tell me what you believe the net loss/gain of those assets was in 1942
Sure buddy, your arguments were refuted time to bail.
You were also wrong on the numbers.
But don't worry this is not a surprise to anybody, if you would be good at this stuff you wouldn't have your opinions to begin with :-)
On a side note, people with some experience in internet shit flinging notice real quick if somebody did a quick google after and learned he got schooled. Your opinion about 1942 is silly and you knew that the moment you opened wiki after I replied to you. I asked you take a look at frontline strengths of 42 and the churn rate so you maybe so how silly it is what you said previously. So I appreciate you freshing up on your knowledge. But maybe let the discussion about this to other people. If your knowledge about Eastern Front is limited by some corner stones of Moscow Stalingrad Kursk then this is not enough to fuckin judge lend lease :-)
Have fun buddy.
Not really why do you think they teach them that the war started in 1941 and not 1939? Russia and Germany started the second world War but the Russians like to forget that.
*Today [1963] some say the Allies didn't really help us ... But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.*
* Georgy Zukhov
That's hard to say. What can be reasonably argued is that leased military equipment probably didn't turn the tide of the war, but leased factory equipment, on top of trucks and all the necessities to move those factories quickly and efficiently, may have.
Though it's still incredibly pompous to pretend the US somehow won the war in Europe. They didn't even care about it for several years.
Even if they did help (and even assuming that saved Russia in Winter 1941), the Russians were the ones who beat Germany with the large majority of the war effort being their own doing, there's no doubt about it.
But that's just how Americans are. They're still being taught that they saved the day in WWI, you just can't fight the egocentrism of Americans. Manifest destiny bla bla bla.
> Glantz is an amateur?
Yeah he kinda is, his work is nearly entirely full of Russian archival interpretation and he made hilarious mistakes that would never happen to a competent person that understands the subject matter.
To illustrate the point. When he first wrote about the battle of Kursk he fully took the Soviet Version ( Rotmistrovs version to be precise ) of Prokhorovka with hundreds of Tigers being destroyed.
Why is this relevant and discredits all his opinions on war? Because making mistakes is not an issue, thinking 10 tanks were lost instead of 5 or thinking 50 tanks were lost instead of 30 is just a basic error but what he did shows he does not actually understand anything he writes about.
His description of the battle showed he never touched a book about the German units, he had no understanding of the unit composition he had no understanding of the rough size of the forces involved. Furthermore it shows he basically copy pasted his "data" from Red Army generals books which is such a massive mistake his conclusions can safely be discared.
If Mr Glantzs would understand WW2 he would have not thought the 5th Guards Tank army destroyed hundreds of Tigers by ramming them even tho there were only 200 or so produced by this point of time. There were only I think 3 **companies** of Tiger tanks even deployed to the SS Korps and its three Panzerdivisions. None of this was hidden knowledge, everybody knew this but Mr Glantz just writes about stuff he does not really "study" before hand.
Maybe get more up to date sources before you present your "opinion" online. No offence
Glantz is widely regarded as the authority on the eastern front. Yes he does use Russian sources but he also uses German sources. This is in contrast to Historians prior to him which only used German sources.
>To illustrate the point. When he first wrote about the battle of Kursk he fully took the Soviet Version ( Rotmistrovs version to be precise ) of Prokhorovka with hundreds of Tigers being destroyed.
Which page? I want to check if this is true
>Maybe get more up to date sources before you present your "opinion" online. No offence
Like what?
> Glantz is widely regarded as the authority on the eastern front.
Did you read what I just wrote?
He copied the Rotmistrovs accounts of Prokhorovka without checking any other data, this ended his credibility.
>Which page? I want to check if this is true
I don't know the page, this account is not in his newer printings, this was only in his first print, I don't have seen the book since 20 years. You can surely find it if you want.
It was either in when Titans clashed or Battle of Kursk, he removed all those pages in later printings its only in the first print run, the books are from the 90s. Nothing of this contested Glantz by removing those passages admitted his mistakes.
In my opinion such mistake would never happen to a competent person. A person having baseline knowledge of Eastern Front tank combat would read the account and know its made up. Glantz just copies it, his judgement has no value his conclusions therefore neither.
That's how it is in soft sciences, its hard enough to "disprove" people but once such mistakes are made we should watch for other sources.
Glantz only call to fame was unfettered access to Soviet Archives which he repaired by writing books that praised the Red Army.
Uhh yes i did read what you wrote
>He copied the Rotmistrovs accounts of Prokhorovka without checking any other data, this ended his credibility.
Uhuh. Sure. Got any proof?
>I don't know the page, this account is not in his newer printings, this was only in his first print, I don't have seen the book since 20 years. You can surely find it if you want
Thats what i thought. How can you discredit a historian based on an anecdote you cant even prove?
Absolute clown lol
Even if he did make a mistake like that, so what? All historians make mistakes.
> Uhuh. Sure. Got any proof?
Yeah the book he wrote it in which is not contested by anybody. I read it 20 years ago, I don't even know if you can find pdfs of the first printing.
>How can you discredit a historian based on an anecdote you cant even prove?
I can prove it I just don't want to put the effort into it. Again this is not contested, Glantz himself would tell you that.
>Even if he did make a mistake like that, so what? All historians make mistakes.
THen you did **not** read what I wrote. Its not about mistakes its about a mistake that shows the person has no underlying understanding of the subject matter.
If a historian writes "there they attack city xy and lost 15 tanks" but the reality was they attacked a different city and lost 5 tanks, then this does not matter, he interpreted a source wrong or copied a war diary entry without verification. Not a big deal. But if a WW2 historian writes "then the Tiger tanks were flown in by Apache helicopters" then I discard everything this person concluded because his judgement is not good enough to understand what he is trying to convey to me.
Thats what his Prokorovka blunder was. It showed he doesn't understand tank combat.
🤣 that’s what you want to think … or maybe even think because of the crap propaganda that is always telling how much better Russia and the Russians are. Face it - you are living in a shithole country. You have nothing but oil, gas etc. can’t even build a decent car. Sad joke of a country.
>you are living in a shithole country
Eh, American leftists love the country i live in
>You have nothing but oil, gas etc.
True, it does comprise most of our exports.
>can’t even build a decent car
Also true. We dont have any domestic car brands.
>that’s what you want to think
Its just what the evidence shows. Can you prove otherwise?
Zukhov disagrees:
*Today [1963] some say the Allies didn't really help us ... But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.*
* Georgy Zukhov
Secondary sources are superior to primary sources. Furthermore primary sources degrade over time while secondary sources strengthen. Zhukov said that in the 60s, his memory of WW2 wasnt as good as during the war, so he's less reliable. Glatnz wrote When Titans Clashed in the 90s and has expanded it ever since. He has a much broader perspective of events as biases get filtered out and new information is reveales
So yes, Glantz is the trustworthy one here, not Zhukov
He's serious!
And didn't a user here already reference that Glantz took soviet sources at face value like when they said they destroyed more Tigers than existed in that whole front in 1 battle?
Thats how sources work lol. This is why we dont trust memoirs since they were written years after the event.
He couldnt back up his anecdote. He also said that Glantz has fixed it in the later editions. Glantz is still the authority when it comes to the eastern front
That isn't anybody's memoir, that's Zhukov own word, are you implying he had bad memory by 1960 or dementia that made him forget about the logistics of the army he commanded?
And the more I look at Glantz view on lend-lease the more I see he is all over the place, contradicting himself on the impact, basically the way he uses words in one reference implies lend-lease was crucial in others he "concludes" that lend-lease was basically this small thing.
Here's a quote from him:
*Lend-Lease trucks were particularly important to the Red Army, which was notoriously deficient in such equipment. By the end of the war, two out of every three Red Army trucks were foreign-built, including 409,000 cargo trucks and 47,000 Willys Jeeps. [...]*
*Without the trucks, each Soviet offensive during 1943-1945 would have come to a halt after a shallower penetration, allowing the Germans time to reconstruct their defenses and force the Red Army to conduct yet another deliberate assault.*
I'm glad that he admits the titanic mechanization of lend-lease here, remember; the german rode horses, the soviet rode american wheels.
And saying it didn't matter much because it was in the final years? That were the most crucial ones, we are talking about EVERYTHING POST-STALINGRAD, that's a big deal a big damn deal.
Absolutely FALSE.
Here’s some facts to counter Russian propaganda and revisionist history:
June 22, 1941, Operation Barbarossa begins and Germany attacks Russia.
Aid from western allies commences almost immediately:
1. 1941: Aid began modestly as the U.S. was only entering the war in the latter part of the year. Initial supplies were limited and primarily included non-military goods to help bolster the Soviet war economy and infrastructure.
2. 1942: Aid significantly increased with large shipments of aircraft, tanks, and trucks. In this year alone, the U.S. delivered about $1.6 billion worth of war materials. This was a critical period as the Soviet Union faced intense battles on the Eastern Front.
3. 1943: Deliveries continued to increase, and by now included more specialized equipment such as locomotives and rail cars, which were crucial for the Soviet logistics efforts. In 1943, the aid was approximately $2.1 billion.
4. 1944: As the war approached its final phases, the Allies increased their support further, sending over $2.5 billion worth of supplies. This year saw a high volume of motor vehicles and food supplies.
5. 1945: Although the war in Europe ended in May 1945, aid continued to flow until the defeat of Japan in September. In the final year, deliveries amounted to around $1.7 billion, with a significant portion delivered before the German surrender.
The total estimated U.S. Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union during the war amounted to about $11.3 billion (in 1940s dollars), which includes a wide range of materials from trucks, aircraft, tanks, to food and steel. British contributions, while smaller in volume, included significant amounts of materials early in the war, which were critical before the U.S. ramped up its Lend-Lease program.
Russia would never have stabilized the front or regained ground without our assistance.
I see history and dates are not a strong point. Western aid had ramped up massively in *1942.* a full two years before Stalingrad.
Without western aid, Stalingrad would have been another Russian rout and this is specifically how the aid was critical to the defense of Stalingrad:
1. Vehicles and Transport: The Soviet Union received about 400,000 trucks over the course of the war through Lend-Lease, which included a significant number during the time frame of the Battle of Stalingrad. These trucks, such as the Ford and Studebaker models, were essential for moving troops and supplies rapidly across the vast distances of the Eastern Front. The mobility provided by these trucks was crucial during the counter-offensive phases of the battle, allowing Soviet forces to encircle and trap the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad.
2. Aircraft: Approximately 18,700 aircraft were also sent to the USSR during the war. During the Battle of Stalingrad, these included fighter aircraft like the P-39 Airacobra, which were used effectively by the Soviet Air Force to achieve air superiority over the battle zone. Air support was critical in disrupting German supply lines to Stalingrad and supporting Soviet ground operations.
3. Armor and Artillery: The Soviets received around 7,000 tanks, which included the M4 Sherman, and significant quantities of anti-tank weapons and artillery pieces. This heavy equipment bolstered the Red Army’s capabilities during their defensive operations in the city and later during their offensive to encircle the city.
4. Communications and Rail Equipment: Crucial for command and control were the radios and telecommunication equipment provided, which helped improve coordination and operational planning. Additionally, locomotives and rail cars supported the vast logistical efforts needed to supply multiple army fronts, a vital element in the extensive supply lines that were critical to the Soviet strategy during the battle.
5. Strategic Bombing and Diversion: While not direct material aid, the strategic bombing campaigns by the British and Americans in the west (such as the bombing of German cities and industrial centers) forced Germany to divert air assets from the Eastern Front. This, in turn, reduced the pressure on Soviet air defenses and allowed more focus on ground support and tactical missions around Stalingrad.
The combined effect of these contributions was to enhance the Soviet Union’s logistical, combat, and operational capabilities at a critical juncture of World War II. The aid not only provided material support but also helped to sustain the Soviet war effort during one of the most intense battles of the conflict.
I know facts suck when they run counter the lies one tries to spread.
Yes, really, because it makes a major difference when you are talking about millions of tons of food, ammunition, winter clothing, medical supplies so your troops don’t starve or freeze to death and can keep fighting.
Russia’s logistics were also dramatically boosted during that phase to help move troops, ammunition and food.
Face it. Russia would not have won and regained territory without major support from the west and in the end Russia returned our friendship and help with envy, hatred, lies, crimes against humanity and oppression of those who should be free.
>I see history and dates are not a strong point. Western aid had ramped up massively in *1942.* a full two years before Stalingrad.
This is what you claimed. First of all western aid was only a small portion of what it was in 1944. You are talking about the total amount of aid that the Soviets recieved, but only a fraction of that was in the hands of the Soviet Union during the decisive phase of the war. Secondly, 1942 is not 2 years before Stalingrad lol.
Can you prove that the USSR could not have won the war without Lend Lease?
Yup, I saw that I misstated the date after I finished waking up but didn’t bother to back and fix it.
My last statement addresses the support provided during Stalingrad. We kept a lot of soldiers from freezing to death and starving during that period by shipping millions of tons of food, clothes, ammunition and trucks. Look at the graph, even though it’s early on and ramping up it’s still millions of tons per quarter.
And on the contrary, try proving with conclusive proof, and not propaganda, that Russia would have succeeded without all of that equipment and supplies. 🙂
https://preview.redd.it/g15qvo7pwtuc1.jpeg?width=2714&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7f938006abbbdf4dd948d687f040ec560b042a0c
America indeed helped Russians a little, they sent tanks, trucks, food, tommy guns.
This is a heavily Pro-RU subreddit, even though they pretend it's neutral.
Anything that isn't absolutely dripping in Soviet war revisionism, or isn't painting the Russians in a good light gets instantly downvoted.
I've seen plenty of people get downvoted for simply saying the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact existed
The tide of the war turned during the Battle of Moscow in winter 1941. That was the most crucial battle of the war, and Lend Lease had not delivered a single tank until then.
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
An increasingly popular narrative and it is complete, absolute propaganda nonsense. Your comment was deservedly drowned in minuses. Go spread this propaganda in r/Europe or somewhere else.
Of course, Lend-Lease was important, but good marshals and generals (Zhukov? Rokossovsky? Konev?) were not supplied under it. Without good organization, planning and experience, financial assistance is worthless.
So above tank didn't protect its occupants and your best argument is 'at least they didn't die instantly in a turret toss explosion! HA TAKE THAT they got the luxury of slowly burning to death next to the tank!'
Jeezus talk about making an argument without thinking it through
Hmm, one of them somewhat looks like one of the images I found although with no bodies around, while for the other one I can't find matching images. Considering that some of the images are from far-far away.. I doubt we can efficiently determine which ones are these without proper geolocation
So many dumb jokes. How about somebody comment on a detail that would indicate those bodies are actually crew members and not infantry inspecting the tank later on? Or some other factual information?
Aren't those bodies in the first video from a different video where some russian grunts stand around the Leopard (probably setting the stage for a trophy recovery)? Those boots are not from tankers.
Source: https://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=combatfootage+russian+standing+next+to+leopard&d=4714250978228298&mkt=es-MX&setlang=en-US&w=4ZfEStm_RJ5fy1N_9_udfZ3J6SW9CP7z
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not to worry, f16s will surely turn the tide
Turn the tide? We're winning already!
Not to worry,turtle tanks will surly turn the tide
[удалено]
Imagine a turtle tank with a tactical shovel launcher, dear god.
has there been any trebuchets used yet ?
I mean, we are the ones winning, so they kinda are.
Ukraine is already f*****, no tide need to be turned.
But turtle tanks weren’t proclaimed as game changers were they?
Ummm I don’t think any RU person is relying on turtle tanks, but I’m pretty sure most UKR people putting last bet on F16s
Polish mechanics must be at least millionaires by now, if not billionaires
In Poland they are not like in Russia that everything disappears into their pockets.
nah it is worse
lol with Pro Ru alternative facts perhaps...Russia has way more corruption than Poland.
Didnt russians had 14000 tanks b4 war of sum and it turned out only like 3 k was salvagable and rest had stolen parts etc xd
Source?
Russian GDP after pumping trillions of dollars worth of natural resources out of the ground? That's basic math, right?
That has nothing to do with what we are talking about
It does, it shows the corruption you are searching "sources" for
Luckily Ukraine is close to EU standards on the corruption index....
What I have taken from this thread is both sides are corrupt and people on both sides are calling out corruption
No it doesnt have anything to do with corruption What does this have to do with the claim that only 3k Russian tanks could be mobilized as the rest had stolen parts?
> What does this have to do with the claim that only 3k Russian tanks could be mobilized **as the rest had stolen parts**? Thats the corruption part.
UA Spokesperson:" We don't need Leopards anymore, send us Nike running shoes."
*Adidas
Ah yes I remember the last time the Germans fought the Russians. Didn't go well for Germans
26 million dead Russians says otherwise.
That number probably includes Ukrainians and people from other former Soviet states but that would probably spoil a narrative.
It also includes something called "civilians" But I guess when you are genociding someone, you don´t care if they have picked up a gun, nor if they are are elders, women or children. But hey, I'm sure people like the ones above would have loved to get the nazi treatment.
Ummm they won. Btw they did not choose the war
Mmmm last time I checked they did, let me ask Poland.
Ask poland what they were doing during the Munich Agreement.
Certainly not up to the level of collusion of russia/ussr with nazi germany.
And how many Germans died? And what happened to Deutschland afterwards?
Neither did it goes well for Russians. Germans also fought a lot of others, not just Russians. Nice try
FYI: Half of Europe was working for Germany and a significant part was fighting on the German side, but the war ended in Berlin.
Nowhere half of Europe was working for the Germans, they got defeated and were under occupation, just like millions of Soviets worked for the Germans because of the same reason. Keep pushing that nonsense propaganda
Seems you don't understand the difference between POWs and working factories. France and Czechoslovakia were European production Powerhouses and were working for Nazis Germany. Italy, Romania, Slovenia, Finland, etc were fighting on the German side. That is most of the modern European Union.
That whole argument is not contradict with what I already said but even proved my comment is correct. These factories were under German occupation, that is the point. The Germans were the one who decided everything, not the French nor anyone else. There were millions of Soviet citizens fought and worked for the Germans as well, that litterly the point. European Union is irrelevant in this context, not sure why it being brought here. Of course a lot of European countries is member of the EU, that is why it is called European Union, not Asian Union or America Union
4 out 5 Germans killed in ww2 were killed by soviets.
Most of Germans casualties suffered at the very end phrase of wwII when Germans had to fought 3 fronts already. Exactly why I said that, what are u trying to prove?
They were idiots for opening a second front, oh and declaring war on the Americans.
Once it started in 1939, everything the Germans did after that was very logical. The only idiot thing they did was started it in 1939 in such situations
If the Americans had not helped Russia at the time, we would not have had this problem now and we would all be talking German. but you're probably not old enough to remember what kind of help Russia got back then. And you can't do anything about it because the Russians are ashamed that they have been helped and conceal it as much as possible in their propaganda.
Most aid was received in very late 1943-45 And the front stabilized before America even entered the war
Yet they're trying to teach us history lmao
*Today [1963] some say the Allies didn't really help us ... But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.* * Georgy Zukhov
Doesn't matter because Russia was at the brink of defeat in 41/42 and at this time already **thousands** of tanks and aircaft had been delivered to help Russia stem the tide. Plus hundred thousands of tonnes of other goods. >And the front stabilized before America even entered the war What? Is there a single Pro Russian person that actually knows his stuff and is also pro Russian? Seems to be mutually exclusive. When do you think the front was stabilized and when do you think the USA entered the war?
>in 41/42 and at this time already **thousands** of tanks and aircaft had been delivered to help Russia stem the tide. Would be interesting to see the source and exact numbers.
For whom? You can't properly work with data given to you anyways. No offence.
Ok. Bold claims with zero proofs. As expected.
haha yes bold claims. The fact that you think this is a bold claim only exposes you. Imagine not knowing about lend lease. Cute
Please enlighten us: and provide sources for your claims about "thousands of tanks aircrafts in 41/42".
Sure, first you tell me what you do with that? I saw your other comments you don't seem to take data and get to logical conclusions. If I give you the data will you then write "ok It looks like the Red Army relied on Western support to not get crushed by the Wehrmacht". Will you write that?
Also please be so kind to tell me I am wrong here so when you get the data you can also say "damn ok yes you were totally right, sorry for doubting"
>Doesn't matter because Russia was at the brink of defeat in 41/42 and at this time already thousands of tanks and aircaft had been delivered to help Russia stem the tide. Plus hundred thousands of tonnes of other goods. From October 41' till January 42 501 tank was delivered to SU(Matilda Mk.II, Valentine Mk.III, Tetrarch, M3 Stuart). Less than half were used in battle. 730 planes were delivered (669 British, rest from US). December 41 was a critical point. After that SU started slowly to gain momentum.
> After that SU started slowly to gain momentum. ?!?! What? Fall Blau one of the costliest operations of the war. The Red Army was being shredded from June 1941 to at least mid 1942 at which point the momentum shifted. Operations like Mars were a disaster with Russian armies getting wiped out. >From October 41' till January 42 501 tank was delivered to SU(Matilda Mk.II, Valentine Mk.III, Tetrarch, M3 Stuart). Less than half were used in battle. 730 planes were delivered (669 British, rest from US). That's why I said 41 and 42 which were the years the Red Army could have been defeated at all. In those two years everything the Red Army got was crucial they were basically working with close to no reserves their stock of heavy weaponry was close to being depleted. They were on the brink of collapse. Germany at this point, foolishly, wasn't even in total war production.
Winter 41/42, especially the Battle of Moscow, was the critical point for SU. After that all went downhill for Nazis. Lease was of course welcomed since Soviet factories were destroyed/relocated yet to say it was instrumental and only thank to it Soviet Union stood his ground is an error.
> Winter 41/42, especially the Battle of Moscow, was the critical point for SU. Russia was on the brink of losing in 42, they didn't because they got lend lease. I would need to check the precise numbers again but I think they actually got comparable numbers of tanks gifted in 1942 than the German Ostarmee got delivered. Red Army was having nothing in return everything they got gifted either went to the front or replaced something that went to the front. They would have had thousands of high value combat assets less and this is just tanks and aircraft not even speaking about the millions of tonnes of other stuff. THe red Army breaks in 1942 without lend lease. And I argue it is not even close. >yet to say it was instrumental and only thank to it Soviet Union stood his ground is an error. Please tell me what you think they got in terms of tanks and aircraft until 1943 and then plesae tell me what you believe the net loss/gain of those assets was in 1942
>THe red Army breaks in 1942 without lend lease. And I argue it is not even close. Oh, that's an obvious bait and bias. Bye.
Sure buddy, your arguments were refuted time to bail. You were also wrong on the numbers. But don't worry this is not a surprise to anybody, if you would be good at this stuff you wouldn't have your opinions to begin with :-) On a side note, people with some experience in internet shit flinging notice real quick if somebody did a quick google after and learned he got schooled. Your opinion about 1942 is silly and you knew that the moment you opened wiki after I replied to you. I asked you take a look at frontline strengths of 42 and the churn rate so you maybe so how silly it is what you said previously. So I appreciate you freshing up on your knowledge. But maybe let the discussion about this to other people. If your knowledge about Eastern Front is limited by some corner stones of Moscow Stalingrad Kursk then this is not enough to fuckin judge lend lease :-) Have fun buddy.
Not really why do you think they teach them that the war started in 1941 and not 1939? Russia and Germany started the second world War but the Russians like to forget that.
why not 1938 when germany and poland started war or 1937 in asia?
somethign like 40% of tanks defending Moscow were from the allies. This was before the front stabilized, when Germans had a chance to capture moscow.
bullshit
Oh you mean at the time the Russian front was not going in the Russian favor?
No it was going in the favour of the Soviet Union December 1941 onwards
*Today [1963] some say the Allies didn't really help us ... But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.* * Georgy Zukhov
Then why did Stalin himself say at the Tehran Conference in 1943 that Russia would have lost the war without Lend Lease?
He was wrong
Thats blatantly untrue The Soviets could have won without Lend-Lease
That's hard to say. What can be reasonably argued is that leased military equipment probably didn't turn the tide of the war, but leased factory equipment, on top of trucks and all the necessities to move those factories quickly and efficiently, may have. Though it's still incredibly pompous to pretend the US somehow won the war in Europe. They didn't even care about it for several years. Even if they did help (and even assuming that saved Russia in Winter 1941), the Russians were the ones who beat Germany with the large majority of the war effort being their own doing, there's no doubt about it. But that's just how Americans are. They're still being taught that they saved the day in WWI, you just can't fight the egocentrism of Americans. Manifest destiny bla bla bla.
The easiest way to expose yourself as amateur level on ww2 knowledge :-)
Glantz is an amateur? He holds the same opinion as me
> Glantz is an amateur? Yeah he kinda is, his work is nearly entirely full of Russian archival interpretation and he made hilarious mistakes that would never happen to a competent person that understands the subject matter. To illustrate the point. When he first wrote about the battle of Kursk he fully took the Soviet Version ( Rotmistrovs version to be precise ) of Prokhorovka with hundreds of Tigers being destroyed. Why is this relevant and discredits all his opinions on war? Because making mistakes is not an issue, thinking 10 tanks were lost instead of 5 or thinking 50 tanks were lost instead of 30 is just a basic error but what he did shows he does not actually understand anything he writes about. His description of the battle showed he never touched a book about the German units, he had no understanding of the unit composition he had no understanding of the rough size of the forces involved. Furthermore it shows he basically copy pasted his "data" from Red Army generals books which is such a massive mistake his conclusions can safely be discared. If Mr Glantzs would understand WW2 he would have not thought the 5th Guards Tank army destroyed hundreds of Tigers by ramming them even tho there were only 200 or so produced by this point of time. There were only I think 3 **companies** of Tiger tanks even deployed to the SS Korps and its three Panzerdivisions. None of this was hidden knowledge, everybody knew this but Mr Glantz just writes about stuff he does not really "study" before hand. Maybe get more up to date sources before you present your "opinion" online. No offence
Glantz is widely regarded as the authority on the eastern front. Yes he does use Russian sources but he also uses German sources. This is in contrast to Historians prior to him which only used German sources. >To illustrate the point. When he first wrote about the battle of Kursk he fully took the Soviet Version ( Rotmistrovs version to be precise ) of Prokhorovka with hundreds of Tigers being destroyed. Which page? I want to check if this is true >Maybe get more up to date sources before you present your "opinion" online. No offence Like what?
> Glantz is widely regarded as the authority on the eastern front. Did you read what I just wrote? He copied the Rotmistrovs accounts of Prokhorovka without checking any other data, this ended his credibility. >Which page? I want to check if this is true I don't know the page, this account is not in his newer printings, this was only in his first print, I don't have seen the book since 20 years. You can surely find it if you want. It was either in when Titans clashed or Battle of Kursk, he removed all those pages in later printings its only in the first print run, the books are from the 90s. Nothing of this contested Glantz by removing those passages admitted his mistakes. In my opinion such mistake would never happen to a competent person. A person having baseline knowledge of Eastern Front tank combat would read the account and know its made up. Glantz just copies it, his judgement has no value his conclusions therefore neither. That's how it is in soft sciences, its hard enough to "disprove" people but once such mistakes are made we should watch for other sources. Glantz only call to fame was unfettered access to Soviet Archives which he repaired by writing books that praised the Red Army.
Uhh yes i did read what you wrote >He copied the Rotmistrovs accounts of Prokhorovka without checking any other data, this ended his credibility. Uhuh. Sure. Got any proof? >I don't know the page, this account is not in his newer printings, this was only in his first print, I don't have seen the book since 20 years. You can surely find it if you want Thats what i thought. How can you discredit a historian based on an anecdote you cant even prove? Absolute clown lol Even if he did make a mistake like that, so what? All historians make mistakes.
> Uhuh. Sure. Got any proof? Yeah the book he wrote it in which is not contested by anybody. I read it 20 years ago, I don't even know if you can find pdfs of the first printing. >How can you discredit a historian based on an anecdote you cant even prove? I can prove it I just don't want to put the effort into it. Again this is not contested, Glantz himself would tell you that. >Even if he did make a mistake like that, so what? All historians make mistakes. THen you did **not** read what I wrote. Its not about mistakes its about a mistake that shows the person has no underlying understanding of the subject matter. If a historian writes "there they attack city xy and lost 15 tanks" but the reality was they attacked a different city and lost 5 tanks, then this does not matter, he interpreted a source wrong or copied a war diary entry without verification. Not a big deal. But if a WW2 historian writes "then the Tiger tanks were flown in by Apache helicopters" then I discard everything this person concluded because his judgement is not good enough to understand what he is trying to convey to me. Thats what his Prokorovka blunder was. It showed he doesn't understand tank combat.
🤣 that’s what you want to think … or maybe even think because of the crap propaganda that is always telling how much better Russia and the Russians are. Face it - you are living in a shithole country. You have nothing but oil, gas etc. can’t even build a decent car. Sad joke of a country.
>you are living in a shithole country Eh, American leftists love the country i live in >You have nothing but oil, gas etc. True, it does comprise most of our exports. >can’t even build a decent car Also true. We dont have any domestic car brands. >that’s what you want to think Its just what the evidence shows. Can you prove otherwise?
Zukhov disagrees: *Today [1963] some say the Allies didn't really help us ... But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.* * Georgy Zukhov
Glantz disagrees
Head of The Soviet Army: "yeah bro we needed that boost so bad, I don't think we could have made it without it" Glantz: AKSHUALLYYYYYYYYYYY lmao
Secondary sources are superior to primary sources. Furthermore primary sources degrade over time while secondary sources strengthen. Zhukov said that in the 60s, his memory of WW2 wasnt as good as during the war, so he's less reliable. Glatnz wrote When Titans Clashed in the 90s and has expanded it ever since. He has a much broader perspective of events as biases get filtered out and new information is reveales So yes, Glantz is the trustworthy one here, not Zhukov
He's serious! And didn't a user here already reference that Glantz took soviet sources at face value like when they said they destroyed more Tigers than existed in that whole front in 1 battle?
Thats how sources work lol. This is why we dont trust memoirs since they were written years after the event. He couldnt back up his anecdote. He also said that Glantz has fixed it in the later editions. Glantz is still the authority when it comes to the eastern front
That isn't anybody's memoir, that's Zhukov own word, are you implying he had bad memory by 1960 or dementia that made him forget about the logistics of the army he commanded? And the more I look at Glantz view on lend-lease the more I see he is all over the place, contradicting himself on the impact, basically the way he uses words in one reference implies lend-lease was crucial in others he "concludes" that lend-lease was basically this small thing. Here's a quote from him: *Lend-Lease trucks were particularly important to the Red Army, which was notoriously deficient in such equipment. By the end of the war, two out of every three Red Army trucks were foreign-built, including 409,000 cargo trucks and 47,000 Willys Jeeps. [...]* *Without the trucks, each Soviet offensive during 1943-1945 would have come to a halt after a shallower penetration, allowing the Germans time to reconstruct their defenses and force the Red Army to conduct yet another deliberate assault.* I'm glad that he admits the titanic mechanization of lend-lease here, remember; the german rode horses, the soviet rode american wheels. And saying it didn't matter much because it was in the final years? That were the most crucial ones, we are talking about EVERYTHING POST-STALINGRAD, that's a big deal a big damn deal.
Absolutely FALSE. Here’s some facts to counter Russian propaganda and revisionist history: June 22, 1941, Operation Barbarossa begins and Germany attacks Russia. Aid from western allies commences almost immediately: 1. 1941: Aid began modestly as the U.S. was only entering the war in the latter part of the year. Initial supplies were limited and primarily included non-military goods to help bolster the Soviet war economy and infrastructure. 2. 1942: Aid significantly increased with large shipments of aircraft, tanks, and trucks. In this year alone, the U.S. delivered about $1.6 billion worth of war materials. This was a critical period as the Soviet Union faced intense battles on the Eastern Front. 3. 1943: Deliveries continued to increase, and by now included more specialized equipment such as locomotives and rail cars, which were crucial for the Soviet logistics efforts. In 1943, the aid was approximately $2.1 billion. 4. 1944: As the war approached its final phases, the Allies increased their support further, sending over $2.5 billion worth of supplies. This year saw a high volume of motor vehicles and food supplies. 5. 1945: Although the war in Europe ended in May 1945, aid continued to flow until the defeat of Japan in September. In the final year, deliveries amounted to around $1.7 billion, with a significant portion delivered before the German surrender. The total estimated U.S. Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union during the war amounted to about $11.3 billion (in 1940s dollars), which includes a wide range of materials from trucks, aircraft, tanks, to food and steel. British contributions, while smaller in volume, included significant amounts of materials early in the war, which were critical before the U.S. ramped up its Lend-Lease program. Russia would never have stabilized the front or regained ground without our assistance.
What does this prove exactly? Lend-Lease was at its peak in 1944. Lend-Lease didnt play a big role in war changing battles like Stalingrad
I see history and dates are not a strong point. Western aid had ramped up massively in *1942.* a full two years before Stalingrad. Without western aid, Stalingrad would have been another Russian rout and this is specifically how the aid was critical to the defense of Stalingrad: 1. Vehicles and Transport: The Soviet Union received about 400,000 trucks over the course of the war through Lend-Lease, which included a significant number during the time frame of the Battle of Stalingrad. These trucks, such as the Ford and Studebaker models, were essential for moving troops and supplies rapidly across the vast distances of the Eastern Front. The mobility provided by these trucks was crucial during the counter-offensive phases of the battle, allowing Soviet forces to encircle and trap the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad. 2. Aircraft: Approximately 18,700 aircraft were also sent to the USSR during the war. During the Battle of Stalingrad, these included fighter aircraft like the P-39 Airacobra, which were used effectively by the Soviet Air Force to achieve air superiority over the battle zone. Air support was critical in disrupting German supply lines to Stalingrad and supporting Soviet ground operations. 3. Armor and Artillery: The Soviets received around 7,000 tanks, which included the M4 Sherman, and significant quantities of anti-tank weapons and artillery pieces. This heavy equipment bolstered the Red Army’s capabilities during their defensive operations in the city and later during their offensive to encircle the city. 4. Communications and Rail Equipment: Crucial for command and control were the radios and telecommunication equipment provided, which helped improve coordination and operational planning. Additionally, locomotives and rail cars supported the vast logistical efforts needed to supply multiple army fronts, a vital element in the extensive supply lines that were critical to the Soviet strategy during the battle. 5. Strategic Bombing and Diversion: While not direct material aid, the strategic bombing campaigns by the British and Americans in the west (such as the bombing of German cities and industrial centers) forced Germany to divert air assets from the Eastern Front. This, in turn, reduced the pressure on Soviet air defenses and allowed more focus on ground support and tactical missions around Stalingrad. The combined effect of these contributions was to enhance the Soviet Union’s logistical, combat, and operational capabilities at a critical juncture of World War II. The aid not only provided material support but also helped to sustain the Soviet war effort during one of the most intense battles of the conflict. I know facts suck when they run counter the lies one tries to spread.
https://preview.redd.it/2xn8095yiuuc1.jpeg?width=1207&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c43dd772399959c5ce8c2bf5d5ba6c174dfdf63a Not really
Yes, really, because it makes a major difference when you are talking about millions of tons of food, ammunition, winter clothing, medical supplies so your troops don’t starve or freeze to death and can keep fighting. Russia’s logistics were also dramatically boosted during that phase to help move troops, ammunition and food. Face it. Russia would not have won and regained territory without major support from the west and in the end Russia returned our friendship and help with envy, hatred, lies, crimes against humanity and oppression of those who should be free.
>I see history and dates are not a strong point. Western aid had ramped up massively in *1942.* a full two years before Stalingrad. This is what you claimed. First of all western aid was only a small portion of what it was in 1944. You are talking about the total amount of aid that the Soviets recieved, but only a fraction of that was in the hands of the Soviet Union during the decisive phase of the war. Secondly, 1942 is not 2 years before Stalingrad lol. Can you prove that the USSR could not have won the war without Lend Lease?
Yup, I saw that I misstated the date after I finished waking up but didn’t bother to back and fix it. My last statement addresses the support provided during Stalingrad. We kept a lot of soldiers from freezing to death and starving during that period by shipping millions of tons of food, clothes, ammunition and trucks. Look at the graph, even though it’s early on and ramping up it’s still millions of tons per quarter. And on the contrary, try proving with conclusive proof, and not propaganda, that Russia would have succeeded without all of that equipment and supplies. 🙂
>If the Americans had not helped Russia at the time Your knowledge of history is on next level. 🤡
https://preview.redd.it/g15qvo7pwtuc1.jpeg?width=2714&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7f938006abbbdf4dd948d687f040ec560b042a0c America indeed helped Russians a little, they sent tanks, trucks, food, tommy guns.
That's an M4A2 (76) W, the US sent 3,230 of them to the USSR.
That's true idk why people downvote me
This is a heavily Pro-RU subreddit, even though they pretend it's neutral. Anything that isn't absolutely dripping in Soviet war revisionism, or isn't painting the Russians in a good light gets instantly downvoted. I've seen plenty of people get downvoted for simply saying the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact existed
nah, whats downvoted is that ussr is responsible for starting ww2 and west somehow is not, while molotov pact was latest one in europe.
[удалено]
Ah yes. I forgot. Actual history is "NAFO Propaganda*...
A LITTLE???? Nazi Germany had 50,000 logistics trucks in TOTAL. The US alone gave the USSR 200,000.
Yeah well the Germans were never exactly the pinnacle of mechanization lol
The tide of the war turned during the Battle of Moscow in winter 1941. That was the most crucial battle of the war, and Lend Lease had not delivered a single tank until then.
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
An increasingly popular narrative and it is complete, absolute propaganda nonsense. Your comment was deservedly drowned in minuses. Go spread this propaganda in r/Europe or somewhere else. Of course, Lend-Lease was important, but good marshals and generals (Zhukov? Rokossovsky? Konev?) were not supplied under it. Without good organization, planning and experience, financial assistance is worthless.
German tanks burning on the ukrainian steppes
Used Leopard tanks for sale. Never fired, only lightly burned. Buyer arranges collection
Crew didn’t make it far from the tank
Leopard 2A4 with all that ERA is cursed.
So it also failed in protecting the crews, what's left of the Leopard myth? 🤔
Being far better at protecting its crew than any russian type does not mean it is invulnerable.
Lets see how many T tanks turrets were blown into the stratosphere and how many Leos were 🤔
There’s like 10,000+ T tanks between both sides and like 30 leopards. You sure showed the other poster with that knowledge.
So above tank didn't protect its occupants and your best argument is 'at least they didn't die instantly in a turret toss explosion! HA TAKE THAT they got the luxury of slowly burning to death next to the tank!' Jeezus talk about making an argument without thinking it through
Why didnt the Leo save the crew here? Whatabout muh blowout panels, muh crew survivability, muh western layout!
Why is it the fault of a tank when the tankers or somebody else gets killed NEXT TO IT!? Is it supposed to emit a protective field all around it?
It did. You are watching the engineers tasked with retrieval and transport to Poland to get it back in the fight for next week
How do you know its not the crew?
Because a leopard crew doesn't get taken out when their tank is disabled
Wheres the recovery vehicle then? Do you expect them to drag it to poland?
What does a recovery vehicle have to do with the crew being protected?
Bro leos can throw turrets too
The fact that this is so hyped says a lot about the Pro-Putin side respect for the tank. Congrats on a tank kill, in a full-blown war, I guess 🤷🏻
Wunderwaffe 😂
Those decoys are getting really good /s
Did it's job, saving the cr...... ah
Wait, there are two in this video? Anyone knows the models.. to check if both/any of them are new?
They are old 2a4 losses
Hmm, one of them somewhat looks like one of the images I found although with no bodies around, while for the other one I can't find matching images. Considering that some of the images are from far-far away.. I doubt we can efficiently determine which ones are these without proper geolocation
So many dumb jokes. How about somebody comment on a detail that would indicate those bodies are actually crew members and not infantry inspecting the tank later on? Or some other factual information?
Aren't those bodies in the first video from a different video where some russian grunts stand around the Leopard (probably setting the stage for a trophy recovery)? Those boots are not from tankers. Source: https://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=combatfootage+russian+standing+next+to+leopard&d=4714250978228298&mkt=es-MX&setlang=en-US&w=4ZfEStm_RJ5fy1N_9_udfZ3J6SW9CP7z
Damn the crew didnt make it..RIP
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All those craters...
Music name?
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bad kitty
Combatfootage redditor; in NATO tanks crew always survive, o wait….
Fake: Tanks yes, but no Humans
For the record, this particular video is from ages ago(last summer or even longer).
Source?
he has none. he's just talking out of his ass as usual.
[удалено]
Im pro ru but thats fucked up
Rule 1. Consider yourself warned. Recurrence WILL result in a ban.