Ukrainian military deliberately executed over 10 Russian POWs

I'm not surprised you missed the point.

 

The Russians did not fight the Germans for the benefit of the United States.

 

Yeh. America did the supplying. Russians did the fighting.

But even well supplied Americans struggled against and the combined allied forces struggled against a measly 20% of the German forces

While a well supplied Russian army fought and beat 80% of the German forces.

But even before they got all those supplies, Russians showed their metal and resolve during the Siege of Stalingrad. They were so badly equipped that soldier were put in groups of 3. 1 guy with a gun and 2 guys with a stick. If the guy with the gun dies, then the guy with a stick will pick it up. Otherwise they had the beat a German to death with a stick and take their gun.

 

Yeh. They fought for survival. That's why they fought so ferociously

That's why Russians call WW2 "The Great Patriotic War"

 

No I didn't. I just trolled your unrealistic example.

 

They showed resolve at Stalingrad because of Lend Lease also....Molotov visited FDR and George C Marshall in early to mid August 42...shortly before Stalingrad....asking for everything including kitchen sink to fight the Wehrmacht....he knew what was at stake.

 

Great Patriotic was a "myth"....Ukrainians,Balts, Central Asians did the fighting....Russkis had bayonets at their backs to make sure they did.

 

I guess we are not in any fear of being sympathetic towards ****ing russia anytime soon!

 

That only happened after. When the Russians showed that they could actually win. Initial mismanagement saw massive defeat. Hitler made a mistake of going after Stalingrad instead of Moscow just to try to spit in Stalin's eye. He knew how important this city was to Stalin, which carried his name sake. But even if they didn't, Germany still likely would have lost because Russias would just burn it down as they did during the Napoleon War. German supplies would he stretched thin. And they would have ultimately met the same fate. Being slowly picked off as they froze to death.

Back at Staligrad, Russians were literally were so hungry that they were canabalizing eachother on the streets of their ruined city. So you cannot make a rational argument that they were supplied by the Americans then.

As stated, it was only after Russia defeated Germany in Stalingrad despite all odds that the allies saw that they could help them win the war. If starving people who had their whole city reduced to rubble. With no supplies, rise up and defeat the Germans they instantly knew that they would be pivotal to the war effort. And because they knew that Hitler saw Russians as being sub human. He would be outraged at his defeat and send most of his forces there to wash away the stain upon him. The best thing the Americans could do for Russians was to supply them. Like this, Russia advanced through the German forces and further west like a knife through butter.

This is why I think that Stalin was a necessity evil. Without him sacrificing so many people to turn Russia from a peasant farmer society into an industrial super power virtually over night, Russia would have put up no resistance. Hitler would have gained the vast resources in Russia(which he running very low on), and reinforce the western front with 4 times the troops. Because remember. While the West was fighting 20%, Russia was fighting 80%. They fought 4 times as many troops as the entire allied forces. And most saw virtually no training.

I don't think people realize how amazing this is. Unites States would have likely have had to give up on Japan and sent their fleet to Germany instead. Where they was greatly needed.

And who knows what would have happened then. The Japanese fleet was very advanced. And they might have even launched a ground invasion on our western coast.

If we couldn't give up on Japan because of the real risk of ground invasion, then we couldn't further reinforce the western front. It would have likely collapsed and Hitler would have gained control of all of Europe and Russia.

And here's an interesting part

In 1934, Tohoku University professor Hikosaka Tadayoshi's "atomic physics theory" was released. Hikosaka pointed out the huge energy contained by nuclei and the possibility that both nuclear power generation and weapons could be created.

However, the Japanese fission project did not formally begin until April 1941 when Yasuda acted on Army Minister Hideki Tōjō's order to investigate the possibilities of nuclear weapons.

By Spring 1944, the Nishina Project barely made any progress due to insufficient uranium hexafluoride for its Clusius tube. The previously provided uranium within the copper tube had corroded and the project was unable to separate U-235 isotopes.

By winning in the west, Germany would have been able to supply Japan with ample uranium. As well as reinforcement, resources, and supplies. Japan would have then likely made a nuke before us.

This was probably Hitlers plan. He didn't count on loosing 80% of his fighting force to the people who he saw as sub human

 

Yeh right. Germany took over Ukraine in 1 month and 3 days. Russia had to go and liberate it. As it was a constituent republic of the Soviet Union.

 

Hitler went to Stalingrad....as part of his plan to go on to the oil fields in Kazakhstan. The West supplied some trucks, a few Shermans, etc., but the Russians had beat the Germans over a 1,000 miles back towards Germany before D-Day...with T-34s. Stalin plead repeatedly trying to get the West to enter the fray, but it was only after the War was long won did D-Day happen. The Russians liberated the concentration camps in Poland...went all the way into Berlin. While Patton was busy taking credit and never got close fighting the Nazi B-team.

I will add, the Russians built a monument in Murmansk in honor of the West as well as fished some Shermans off the ocean floor and restored them...so they could be used in V-Day parades as another show of respect. Something the West doesn't give them.

 

I saw an interesting post on Quora

"It’s up for debate. Certainly, losing Moscow would have been a huge blow to the Soviet Union, but so was losing Kiev, Minsk and Smolensk. The Soviet Union had, up to that point, demonstrated resistance of unparalleled ferocity and tenacity. Would that have stopped at Moscow?

In 1941, Moscow was the epicentre of Soviet resistance. It was the vital connecting link between Stalingrad to the south and Leningrad to the north, it was the home of the Soviet arms industry, the terminus of the Trans-Siberian Railway, and it was, of course, the political and spiritual centre of Soviet rule. Hitler had his reasons for attacking Moscow in the first place, after all.

Nonetheless, it cannot be understated what the Soviets had already been through and the losses they had already survived. In the five months of Operation Barbarossa they had lost an unfathomable 5,000,000 military casualties. Great cities such as Kiev, Smolensk, Kharkov and Sevastopol were lost or under siege, and yet the Soviet Union had survived it all. Would losing Moscow really have been decisive, especially if the Germans suffered casualties as high as expected?

Ultimately, the entire Eastern Front hinged upon the defence of three cities between 1941 and 1943; Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad. Those three places would, by the time Berlin fell, inscribe themselves into the collective consciousness of the Wehrmacht as places of suffering, death and bloody defeat.

In my opinion at least, had two out of those three fallen, the position of the Soviet military would have been untenable. Between them, the cities represented the final dividing line between temporary defeat and irreparable damage to the Soviet war effort.

Of the three, Moscow was the most important, but it would not by itself have meant the end of the war. The situation behind the German lines was almost as critical as the situation behind the Soviet ones, except the Axis soldiers fighting in Russia did not have the world’s foremost industrial and mechanical powers providing a Lend-Lease, or reserves to draw from in Siberia.

Besides, the casualties had told on the Germans. On the eve of the invasion the Wehrmacht had had 209 divisions, of which 163 were ‘offensively capable’. After the Battle of Moscow less than a year later, the Germans had only 58 offensively capable divisions, and had lost over 830,000 men. Capturing Moscow would not have overcome those problems.

The miraculous Soviet victory in front of Moscow was more or less the end of German offensive power. There were other campaigns - Fall Blau towards Stalingrad, the Third Battle of Kharkov, Operation Citadel and the Battle of the Bulge - but none of them were ever quite as potent or as powerful as Operation Barbarossa.

The Battle of Moscow was one of the most important battles of the war - not necessarily because it saved Stalin from his fate, but because in time it condemned Hitler to his."

https://www.quora.com/Did-Hitler-ma...ave-won-the-war-with-Russia-if-he-had-invaded

 

That doesn't mean the Soviets HAD to "liberate" Ukraine from the Germans.

 

Yeah...sure...the Georgian cobbler Koba purged all the Generals....that's why so easy....20+ surrendered at Kyiv in 41....along with 2 mln POWs.....


Russia liberated with US Lend Lease....as I said before....without it....Sov were finished.

Russia was getting a bashing from the Germans....while US fought on 2 fronts....Pacific and European theater....decisevly winning both. DDay was pivotal....most Russki campaigns were coincided with US ones.

 

Where's Warsaw Pact these days?.....same as 15 indestructible republics known as USSR as Lenin once said?

 

It certainly means that Ukraine was irrelevant to the fight as a whole because they couldn't fight. Because it was under the dirty boot of Nazi Germany.

They lost in 1 month and 3 days.

But "Ukraine did the fighting"

 

Well..yeah....after it was liberated in late 43....the Sovs had cannon fodder....who do you think did the fighting.....History not your strong point.

 

You do realize that that 20% is spread across those 2 fronts? Again, Russia faced 80% of the total German forces

Lol. So what is that. 13% in the West, 7% in the Mediterranean/African?

 

You're underestimate the help.

More than anything else, the supply of over 11000 aircraft really helped their war efforts. As the most of their airforce was destroyed in the initial assault.

Stalin never expected an invasion and most of the airforce was parked close to the border. They got decimated even before they left the run way


"In total, the U.S. deliveries to the USSR through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, about 1,386 of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans); 11,400 aircraft (of which 4,719 were Bell P-39 Airacobras, 3,414 were Douglas A-20 ..."

 

I think Stalins plan was to mobilize troops to launch a surprise attack on the Germans. He already pulled a fast one on them by baiting them into attacking Poland. Promising that he would help. But never helping when the time came. So while Germany was busy waging war with the rest of Europe, Stalin was planning a surprise attack, hoping to conquer Germany. But they instead were the ones to be hit by a surprise attack from the Germans. Like this, Russia lost pretty much their entire airforce, as well as loads of other equipment.

 

And Hitler loved architecture, Wagner and German Shepherds.

That doesn't make them evil

 

Deleted

 

It's because they are Slavs. Descendants of slaves.

That's why Hitler who was obsessed with bloodline though of them so poorly

 

You know who else drank water?

 

I am not sure I understand what you mean.