>Been fighting the germans for 3 years straight
>Americans join the european front at the last minute and claim they single-handed defeated the germans, even thought they had help from the brits, french and even from the canadians.
The soviets were already going straight to Berlin with nothing stopping them, muricans only joined the european front to claim some glory.
Hollywood is utter bullshit, more cancerous than communist propaganda.
Lol if the germans didnt station 2 million troops on the atlantic wall to fight the brittish and americans then the germans would have crushed the russians easily.
Well actually the Americans and British landed because Stalin had been demanding a second front for 3 years and Italy apparently didn't count
>Static divisions
>Useful in an offensive
Obviously if they were assured the brittish and murcians wouldnt attack they would be geared for offense.
You do understand the "quality" of those divisions right?
Obviously they werent their elite but 2 million extra troops available at the start of operation barbarossa would have crushed the russians no question.
Why do you think that suddenly having an extra 2 million will push the Germans to victory?
They weren't available at the start of Barbarossa you dolt, half of them were raised from Soviet POW volunteers and Eastern conscripts armed with scraps of captured equipment, they were absolute dogshit divisions
>Germans would have crushed the russians easily
The soviets couldn't be broken, nazi high command was trying this desperately, but Stalin just kept sending unskilled fags to kill high skilled nazi troops, and they did it, battle of kursk is a great example, they threw their best guns, their best men, their best tanks and still they lost.
>unskilled fags
>high skill nazi troops
lol
I am tired of seeing this fucking meme everywhere.
>Americans joined the European front at the last minute
For a couple of very good reasons.
>One
They had to fight a two front war, one front with German and it's allies in Europe and one with Japan.
>two
The US armed forces had (according to the national WWII museum) 1,801,101 in 1941, in 1942 this number ballooned to 3,915,507 and in 1943 again ballooned to 9,195,912. They needed to actually train soldiers to fight the war.
>three
They needed to first liberate North Africa. After this they invaded Italy in 1943, and then finally France in 1944. They really did go as fast as safely possible.
So now that we have that out of the way let's look at two other things.
>One
The Soviets did not join the war because they wanted. They were forced into it just like America.
>and two
Not only were they forced into the war just like America, where do people get the idea America "Joined late" Pearl Harbor happened only FIVE MONTHS after the start of Barbarossa. Also the Americans were supplying the Western Allies for years. Can we please stop this "reeeeee Americans joined late meme"
It's the truth, most soviet tank crews had no experience
The average German soldier wasn't particularly any better than a Soviet, American or Brit unless you want a parade, they were really good at drill
childhood is thinking D-day mattered
adulthood is admitting that landing in Italy in 1943 was more important
By this point it was becoming a rarity among the Panzerwaffe too, and after Kursk even rarer
>t. Erwin "Logistics are for normies" Rommel
I stated pretty clearly that America joined the EUROPEAN FRONT AT THE LAST MINUTE, we're talking about the European front here fag, you muricans only had to make some sushi and end of the war
>Atlantic Wall
>existing at the start of Barbarossa
And I told you that the Western allies, America included, went as fast as could be asked. Liberated North Africa in 1942, invading Sicily and Italy in 1943, France in 1944, and Germany in 1945. Also keep in mind that when the Western allies invaded Italy the Soviets had still not stepped one foot into Axis territory, let alone having retaken the Baltic states, Ukraine or hell even all of Russia back yet. Does not seem that late in perspective.
>the Soviets did not join the war because they wanted. They were forced into it just like America.
>they were forced to backstab Poland
The usual tankie propaganda: The soviets single-handledly won world war 2
Did you know about the lend-lease pact? Wars are not won entirely in the battlefield, brainlet
>Backstabbing Poland brought them to war with Germany
Nigga you what
The Soviets didn't backstab Poland, if anything that had been the national program since 1921
>They needed to first liberate North Africa. After this they invaded Italy in 1943, and then finally France in 1944. They really did go as fast as safely possible.
Reminder that the North African campaign and the invasion of Sicily and Italy proper were all primarily conducted by British and Commonwealth troops.
Russia backstabbing poland.
Russia had the knife at polands back since forever.
Listen here bong, that may or may not be true, however, I specifically included
>Western allies, America included
Here
To avoid Brits and Americans memeing each other about who did the most.
America was more-so saving people from being annexed by the Soviets.
Man they sholdve went all the way through poland and establish a western euro border there.
But germany and everything between them and russia wouldve been destroyed completly.
It was under a million, and those couldn't stop Normandy so
>Russia had the knife at polands back since forever.
Because Poles are snakes
not possible but at least they rescued Japan, Italy, France, half of Germany
Nazis were basically just a dense forest you had to chop your way through as fast as possible before the other guys do it first
I meant WW2 in general. Tbh Soviets would attack Germans anyway. Thier entire supply personel, chain of command, air force etc were located near border. They were clearly preparing for offenisve. That's the reason why they were crushed so hard during first few weeks. Its one thing to prepare for defense and other for offensive. This and the fact that Stalin killed half of his military personel in 34-39 period.
Im an actual german, I know about the kurwa menave lurking.
Eh "saved"
Germany is just a fully american proxy on the old continent now. Everything our gov. does gets dictated from somewhere else.
They act like they are discussing in the reichstag when they are probably just sniffing coke off of 6 year old boys bare bottoms for a week. All in all, Germany was done for after WW2. Just economic slaves.
>They were clearly preparing for offenisve
The Soviets were completely incapable of mounting an offensive in 1941
>Stalin killed half of his military personel in 34-39 period
Most of them were shit anyway, the Red Army hardly missed the brilliant minds of Yegorov and Blucher and their antiquated bullshit, he should have gone further and put a bullet in Voroshilov as well
Garrisons in Western Europe consisted in large part of units unfit for active duty, this means many elderly and poorly equipped units.
Now, if they could free up the 500.000 strong force of genuine fighting capable men in Norway, that could have made a difference IF they were put to good use in 1941. German logistics was already breaking down during Barbarossa, there's no guarantee that more men would equal a better result.
>They were clearly preparing for offenisve.
Unsubstantieted claims made by one russian hack historian. Stalin might have had plans for 42 or later, but in 41 they had neither equipment or supplies to wage an agressive war.
To clarify do you mean USSR was preparing to invade in 41' or further like '43? Also the border was being guarded by NKVD guards so it's not like the Germans were engaging ultra soldiers:
>“the actual border was thinly manned by NKVD security troops, and the forward defenses were in many instances overrun before they could be manned on 22 June'
Also there was this thing known as the Molotov line
>The Soviets were completely incapable of mounting an offensive in 1941
Which is why they were invaded. Except Hoth says in his book that the Soviets had an offensively placed motorized army in position for an offensive movement into Germany, Suvorov found maps with German translations and maps of Germany that the USSR had proliferated,etc. The Soviets were definitely preparing for something. Stalin mentions those preparations in speeches(check the 39' speeches, the obvious ones should be there).
Everyone makes plans for contingencies, the USA had war plans against Britain in the 30's, it's another thing entirely to actually implement them when your army is in the middle of being reorganized after you've embarrassed yourself against Finland
>The Soviets were completely incapable of mounting an offensive in 1941
I'll take Moskow 1941 Winter Offensive for 500, Alex
>Stalin killed half of his military personel in 34-39 period
Actually more like 65%. A number completely unheared off and still the USSR did not collapse. France only lost a fraction and surrendered then again it didn't have space to retreat.
>Stalin speeches
Stalin cancelled those invasion plans, later, though:
>On October 5, Meretskov’s revision was submitted to Stalin for final approval. The plan was refused. Stalin urged the General Staff to “reconsider.”
Secondly, "motorized army" is a trait of the USSR military doctrine back then which used a combination of Combined Arms and deep battle theory, which focused on committing a major counteroffensive on the enemy after stopping the brunt of his attack, however there was a problem with that:
>However, not only were the key defensive forces ordered to blunt and halt the German attack understrength, but General Staff planning had fatally mis-estimated the axis of the main German blow. The weak line of Soviet covering forces was not only concentrated too far forward in positions defensibly untenable with their exposed flanks, but the General Staff expected the main German thrust south of the Pripet Marshes.
>I'll take Moskow 1941 Winter Offensive for 500, Alex
You and I both know that's a completely different situation than the prospect of invading Poland from the Molotov-Ribbontrop line, and if they were going to do this shit so early they would have gone hammer and tongs on it when Germany shifted its forces to France in the Summer of 1940 and really fucked them in the arse
>Suvorov found maps
Oh, fucking please, that retard straight up goes "dude, just trust me" and can't take criticism
>Nor did Suvorov remained passive and suffered his critics with diffident aplomb. In the second book of the trilogy—Den’ M—Mr. Suvorov was stung by the fact that certain scholars refused to accept his view of the historical record; he made a reference to the publication of an “angry open letter” by a group of American experts with thinly veiled disdain for criticizing his first articles concerning the fundamental truth (istina) of the June 13, 1941, TASS communiqué.38 Further, Mr. Suvorov, in response to criticism that top secret documentation supporting the preparation of Soviet aggression has not been found, and therefore, historians can neither defend nor refute his version of history, he responded that the documentation would be discovered, that is, if “they” wanted it to be found. (Yesli zakhotyat.) 39
>He believed there is a conspiracy of sorts manufactured by academic professors, who, for their entire careers and their degrees, prizes, dachas, and so on, owe their reputations to a foundation belief that Stalin was an innocent victim of Nazi perfidy. If such documentation were found, these prestigious professors would then have to admit to error, and be recognized as undeserving of previous acclaim and accolades.40
>would be discovered if they wanted it to be found
Literally "DUDE, TRUST ME"
>Stalin cancelled those invasion plans, later, though:
The fact is they had invasion plans. Stalin also knew, as well as the stavka, that Germany was planning an invasion and made counter preparations in the months before the war.
>Secondly, "motorized army" is a trait of the USSR military doctrine back then which used a combination of Combined Arms and deep battle theory, which focused on committing a major counteroffensive on the enemy after stopping the brunt of his attack, however there was a problem with that:
Deep Operations is an offensive doctrine. There's nothing defensive about it, although it seems they thought they could counter Germany anyways. Hoth actually compares it to the rest of USSR forces elsewhere and calculates it as suspicious.
>The weak line of Soviet covering forces was not only concentrated too far forward
This should be your first clue something was up.
>but the General Staff expected the main German thrust south of the Pripet Marshes.
There's no reason why they wouldn't be anticipating an assault in all areas, or why excluding one marsh somehow explains their overwhelming failure in the northern and central fronts. And yes I realize the Pripet marshes are vast,I'd compare them to the Everglades.
>Oh, fucking please, that retard straight up goes "dude, just trust me" and can't take criticism
He shows the maps with USSR markings. He has them in physical possession. You could have at least bothered to look this up. The fact you haven't even searched for the physical evidence and proof is evidence itself that you're an ideologue, unwilling to hear other viewpoints.
American liberation was far better for the average person than Soviet "liberation" and are the only two options, what you do to yourselves after the fact is irrelevant
>claim they single-handed defeated the germans
Source?
>The fact is they had invasion plans.
America had war plans for Britain, Canada, France, Japan even before she joined WW2, this means jack shit.
> that Germany was planning an invasion and made counter preparations in the months before the war.
Yes, that's why the Soviet military doctrine was that the Germans wouldn't catch them with their pants down and they would be able to react quickly:
>The whole organization of the border defense rested on the assumption that the Red Army would not be taken by surprise, that decisive offensive actions would be preceded by a declaration of war, and that enemy operations would be initiated with limited forces only, thus giving the Red Army time to fight covering actions to facilitate mobilization
>Deep Operations is an offensive doctrine.
[citation needed], its whole doctrine was that it can be a defensive/offensive combat theory hybrid, I literally explained to you its doctrine and even just showed you the plan the USSR had, repel the brunt of the enemy attack and perform a major counteroffensive, how many times do I ought to repeat myself?
>This should be your first clue something was up.
Yes, Stalin's paranoia:
>One of the scenarios that Stalin feared in 1941, was a German provocation, a seizure of some small salient of Soviet territory instead of an all-out invasion"
Now provide evidence to the contrary
>There's no reason why they wouldn't be anticipating an assault in all areas,
They would, refer to Stalin's idea of German's thrusting through a SINGLE LINE
also I'd appreciate it if you cited books/journals rather than saying "something was up" etc.
The german front almost broke man
stop bullshitting your way out of it
>The fact is they had invasion plans.
Every half-competent country does. US has plans to take or neutralize Canada, Japan and Mexico if shit were to hit the fan. I can guarantee you most countries in Europe have plans on how to invade their neighbours. It is not indicative of an invasion happening imminently
>Germany was planning an invasion and made counter preparations in the months before the war.
Counter preparations =/= building up for a first strike
>There's no reason why they wouldn't be anticipating an assault in all areas, or why excluding one marsh somehow explains their overwhelming failure in the northern and central fronts.
The majority of the Red Army was stationed in Ukraine, most of their tanks and the best of their equipment. It was their soft underbelly, and they feared a quick strike across the flat plains more than a strike through the forested north and center. The reason those fronts also collapsed was because the majority of their forces in the area was encircled and destroyed in biyalstok and minsk. You can't put up a defence without men. Kiev on the other hand only fell after they in turn got encircled by panzers rerouting from the center and going south, it was the only portion of the front able to slow the german offensive.
>America had war plans for Britain, Canada, France, Japan even before she joined WW2, this means jack shit.
That's a good point. It could've been a contingency that wasn't seriously considered-an operation unthinkable. Good job user.
>Yes, that's why the Soviet military doctrine was that the Germans wouldn't catch them with their pants down and they would be able to react quickly:
And there's been lot's of work, especially by Russian and Soviet authors, to emphasize the defensive nature of the Great Patriotic War. I'll just repeat the when German generals invaded, they compared the border guards and army units stationed there to the offensive ones, and concluded that invasion must have been specifically in the early phase of development. Not my word, theirs,and you have a name for when you decide to investigate yourself.
>[citation needed]
>asks for citations
>doesn't give citations
Interesting.
>Now provide evidence to the contrary
Where is that sourced from? You still haven't provided evidence discrediting Hoth or Suvorov. It's not your turn to make up a scenario and demand it be argued.
>They would, refer to Stalin's idea of German's thrusting through a SINGLE LINE
Which is exactly what they did, along several fronts. Why would they think one army was only going to be used? Protip: They didn't. The Soviets had advanced information on German movements and plans.
>Every half-competent country does
Don't get carried away, it's one thing to draw up a wargame and another to position and mobilize motorized units on an offensive pathway while providing said troops with language kits and maps of the target country.
>Counter preparations =/= building up for a first strike
Read the evidence and argue it. The evidence given suggests without a doubt a Soviet attack.They didn't make maps in English. They weren't dispersing their motorized units to reinforce invaded areas.
>The reason those fronts also collapsed was because the majority of their forces in the area was encircled and destroyed in biyalstok and minsk.
The German progress in the north and center actually had more to do with the lack of surrendering troops in the south. In 41 the Germans actually had to reroute troops from the center down south to support them, thus delaying the invasion of the center. Rokossovsky would write in his account that his plan of feeding his troops to the enemy piecemeal delayed them-but when you read the German commanders they remark how easy it was to snuff out Soviet troops in the sector because they were so divided and how they had to send troops to the south while that delayed their progress. The Soviets always thought more highly of themselves than they actually did.
>claim they single-handed defeated the germans
Who claims this? 12 year-olds? Almost nobody who studies history even at a beginner's level claims this. Why make posts to rail against an almost non-existent phenomenon?
>The evidence given suggests without a doubt a Soviet attack.
Not in 1941 which is what you are arguing for.
Some vague, shadowy concept of 'the American populace' I imagine.
>Almost nobody who studies history even at a beginner's level claims this
But everyone else does, we are talking about Hollywood, not historians. American history programs, which is the source of 90% of the historical knowledge of the average mutt, almost exclusively talk about D-Day, and the Bulge and so on as the turning points of the war, as if it had not already been won through intense fighting for three years on the eastern front.
>>[citation needed]
>>asks for citations
>>doesn't give citations
If you bothered to google the greentext in quotation marks you would've found, but just for you, user, here you go:
David M. Humpert (2005) Viktor Suvorov and Operation Barbarossa: Tukhachevskii Revisited, Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 18:1, 59-74
tandfonline.com
>You still haven't provided evidence discrediting Hoth or Suvorov. It's not your turn to make up a scenario and demand it be argued.
user I literally showed you the USSR was in no way prepared for an invasion, understrength, NKVD guards, Stalin's paranoia of Germans going through a single line. Suvorov's argument was that the USSR was ready for an invasion in 1941, if we're talking 1943 then yes it was probable. The whole journal article explains why the USSR was in no way ready to mount an invasion. Now can you cite your sources?
>Why would they think one army was only going to be used? Protip: They didn't. The Soviets had advanced information on German movements and plans.
[citation needed]
>The evidence given suggests without a doubt a Soviet attack.They didn't make maps in English.
I would agree with you if we're talking after 1942, but the whole argument is that Russia was invading in 1941.
Maybe because American programs focus on American experiences you fucking idiot, it's not a conspiracy to hide the truth as no one is stopping anyone from watching a documentary focused on the Eastern Front
lend-lease had zero impact on outcome of WW2, read Glantz brainlet
In this trail of thought the soviet contribution boils down to = letting polish uprising get killed, ebil russians moving into Germany, mass rapes etc.
They basically attribute the defeat of the germans to american invation, McArthur was the greatest general of all time and so on.
It is propaganda.
>which is what you are arguing for.
No it isn't. Like I already said, Hoth and the German commanders who believed the Soviets attack said they were in their early stages of ramping up. He doesn't specify a date, Suvorov does. I personally think it would've come between early 43 to mid 44.
youtube.com
Parts of this video are dubious, but he believes that Stalin knew not only when and where the Germans would invade, but who would become the Gauleiters of each territory. This is backed up by Fullers book where he mentions that the Germans signaled to their allies to prepare months in advance, and at the same time the USSR began making reinforcement plans.
>user I literally showed you the USSR was in no way prepared for an invasion, understrength, NKVD guards, Stalin's paranoia of Germans going through a single line
You literally just cited Suvorovs work demonstrating the complete opposite. They had one of the largest airforces, NKVD was overstaffed and sometimes personally directed by Stalin's orders, the armor force was the largest in the world, and they had 100k troops qualified as paratroopers. Soviet strategic bombers were the first over Berlin.
>Suvorov's argument was that the USSR was ready for an invasion in 1941, if we're talking 1943 then yes it was probable
There we go then. That's my argument and we're agreeing.
>the USSR was in no way prepared for an invasion, understrength, NKVD guards
>[CITATIONS NEEDED]
Please, they had 4 million troops altogether. Do you need me to cite that basic fact or are you having trouble finding that one too?
>[citation needed]
Read above. I also gave you Suvorov and Hoth, which instead of looking up you shout for me to...Recite them? Well this is awkward. It's almost like when you can't argue and you can't look something up for yourself you just autistically shout that magic word, while not obeying it in the first place.
>it is propaganda
Have you fucking seen a Russian or British documentary? It's the same shit, they all suck themselves off
Can someone explain to me why the USA even joined the Western front in the first place?
>Soviet strategic bombers were the first over Berlin
>It was bombed by the RAF Bomber Command between 1940 and 1945
>1940
Did they send them through a time machine
>No it isn't. Like I already said, Hoth and the German commanders who believed the Soviets attack said they were in their early stages of ramping up. He doesn't specify a date, Suvorov does. I personally think it would've come between early 43 to mid 44.youtube.com
Then we, and the other user, are all arguing the same point. They did not intend to invade in 41.
>Hollywood
>Dumb patriotic mutts
>Rednecks
It goes on.
>They had one of the largest airforces, NKVD was overstaffed and sometimes personally directed by Stalin's orders, the armor force was the largest in the world, and they had 100k troops qualified as paratroopers.
How does this prove an invasion, though? Russia's entire idea was to muster up forces to stop an enemy from invading in the first place, they did this in WW1 as well with mobilization, although Stalin didn't really pull something off like that:
>One scholar who has successfully assailed Suvorov’s claims from a diplomatic perspective drew his ammunition from primarily historical and diplomatic archives. Gabriel Gorodetskii’s Grand Delusion: Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia, thoroughly refuted Suvorov’s depiction of a campaign of aggression stealthily and cynically plotted in the Kremlin through the use of first-person memoirs of Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs V.M. Molotov, for example. Gorodetskii painstakingly portrayed Stalin as a desperate leader using all means at his disposal to avoid a German attack, while energetically trying to prepare for the inevitable.
>There we go then. That's my argument and we're agreeing.
Then you should have been more clear, because the way you began arguing made it seem like you were talking Russia was going to invade in 1941 which has been disproven and what I was disproving this entire fucking time.
>I also gave you Suvorov and Hoth, which instead of looking up you shout for me to...Recite them? Well this is awkward. It's almost like when you can't argue and you can't look something up for yourself you just autistically shout that magic word, while not obeying it in the first place.
A citation is providing a source with the page, you keep saying "I cited" when you cited nothing, a citation is providing where you gained your evidence, now provide me with the book and page so I can check for it myself, or are you gonna scream "BASIC FACTS"?
>read Glantz brainlet
Not this again. Don't we have these same threads every other week? You've already proven the only thing you've read is Glantz. Stop reading shitposts and go read something else. Here's the thing: you keep citing Glantz, and others(myself included) keep citing people who contradict Glantz. Stalin himself said that WW2 could not be won without lend lease. In fact, some of those issues go back to ww1, like having a lack of boots which was detrimental before.
>inb4 citation on that ww1 claim
It's Brusilov's "A Soldier's Notebook of 1914-1918". Just because you read one book by Glantz doesn't qualify you, it should actually disqualify you.
>it was used to bomb Berlin in August 1941.
en.wikipedia.org
You're right, I meant to qualify it as "one of the first". I got so triggered by that asshat I got carried away. I'm sure I riddled my posts with typos too.
Watch any amerimutt WW2 movie.
Glantz made a relevant claim, you didnt. Also what is that WW1 stuff?
>because the way you began arguing made it seem like you were talking Russia was going to invade in 1941
Negative. I mentioned way up above that the Germans believed it was in the early stages of development. I can see why you'd think that mentioning Suvorov would make that happen. Maybe I overreacted to that, because he does constantly shill a Soviet invasion happening mere months after the German one.
>American history programs, which is the source of 90% of the historical knowledge of the average mutt
>Watch any amerimutt WW2 movie.
So itt we have non Americans giving us what they think Americans think, and it's just them projecting what the saw on American movies. If you want the real American opinion, it's this: Patton was right, the US should have pushed east. WW2 was not over when they ended it. Also, the Soviets are rapists.
They needed to make some movies, and kill some of their men.
To cement their rule over Europe (they still have forces in Germany), and to stop the USSR from dominating the continent. Literally just suckerpunching to stop the other guy from taking his rightful prize.
>Negative. I mentioned way up above that the Germans believed it was in the early stages of development. I can see why you'd think that mentioning Suvorov would make that happen. Maybe I overreacted to that, because he does constantly shill a Soviet invasion happening mere months after the German one.
Ah, fair enough, I didn't notice the "Early stages of development", my bad. Yeah Suvorov is a silly goose for trying to say the Soviet Union was going to invade in 1941, in fact the journal article I provided even states:
>Suvorov contended that it was Stalin who intended to attack Germany in 1941
And I guess I overreacted as well when you mentioned Suvorov since I instantly came to the conclusion you were mentioning the 1941 invasions. But if we're talking 1942-43 invasions then I definitely agree with you Russia would have had the opportunity to invade.
>"American WW2 movies aren't propaganda"
>Fury
I'm sorry?
>A citation is providing a source with the page, you keep saying "I cited" when you cited nothing, a citation is providing where you gained your evidence, now provide me with the book and page so I can check for it myself, or are you gonna scream "BASIC FACTS"?
No, I'm not going to. And here is why: I've done it before. I know you, you're the Glantz stalker guy. I've given you pages to Hoth, Brusilov, Rommel, Guderian, and Fuller. You never read them. We've been at this for months and you keep repeating the same nonsense, ignoring the videos, ignoring the books, ignoring the page numbers- and you just keep demanding [citations] and repeating your same stupid arguments. It triggers me how willfully stupid and how autistically arrogant you are about the one book you read, never giving up real information, only citing one source per argument, and as we see in this thread, it disagrees with you. You're the worst kind of poster and he worst kind of person. Citations isn't what you need. You need a brainstem and some drive to do something other than shill the same shit day after day, without ever evolving because you think reading that one book a few years ago was an achievement. Which is really just a form of Dunning-Kruger in effect. I wish I could block you but I can't.
And I do apologize if I have the wrong guy. I might.
>No, I'm not going to. And here is why: I've done it before. I know you, you're the Glantz stalker guy. I've given you pages to Hoth, Brusilov, Rommel, Guderian, and Fuller. You never read them. We've been at this for months and you keep repeating the same nonsense, ignoring the videos, ignoring the books, ignoring the page numbers- and you just keep demanding [citations] and repeating your same stupid arguments. It triggers me how willfully stupid and how autistically arrogant you are about the one book you read, never giving up real information, only citing one source per argument, and as we see in this thread, it disagrees with you. You're the worst kind of poster and he worst kind of person. Citations isn't what you need. You need a brainstem and some drive to do something other than shill the same shit day after day, without ever evolving because you think reading that one book a few years ago was an achievement. Which is really just a form of Dunning-Kruger in effect. I wish I could block you but I can't.
I'm And user, I literally never argued with you or remember arguing with you "months", I rarely even engage in WW2 discussions. You have me confused for someone entirely else. I fucking personally don't like Glantz either, don't make assumptions on anonymous posters.
>So itt we have non Americans giving us what they think Americans think,
We get showed enough american propaganda down our throats in Europe too, it's there to cement the idea of the US presence in Europe as a liberating force and how they have the moral and godgiven right to rule over us.
Just look at the average program on history channel or nat geo. And before you say "who watches that shit", the answer is 90% of average americans with some inclination towards history.
>And user, I literally never argued with you or remember arguing with you "months", I rarely even engage in WW2 discussions. You have me confused for someone entirely else
Could be. There are a few Glantz posters, but there's one who constantly
>requests citations and sauce but never gives them
>argues that the USSR would never invade
>says lend lease dindu nuffin
So yeah it looks pretty incriminating from where I'm sitting.
>We get showed enough american propaganda down our throats in Europe too
Idk if I should bask in in our cultural overflow or feel sympathy. The history channel isn't history, I know it gets ratings but nobody here thinks it's really a genuine history channel. Kind of like how memey the military channel got.
THE ARDENNES WERE THE TURNING POINT OF THE WAR, WE HELD BACK THE GERMAN AND IT WAS AMERICAN TRACKS THAT ROLLED OVER BERLIN
HOORAH
>>argues that the USSR would never invade
Yeah looks like we both misunderstood each other, I guess I should've made my case more clear that I do not agree Russia would've invaded in 1941, but I whole-heartedly agree Stalin could, and most likely would have invaded somewhere in 1943. Also I am in no way a fucking "lendlease was pointless", one of the few things that pisses me off, actually.
Oh shit my fault. I've been arguing with a bro. The hazards of an anonymous site I guess
Yeah I guess shit happens, I swear to fucking god Veeky Forums needs an ID system like on /pol/ or something, in return have this journal article:
sci-hub.la
It basically showcases some of the more important resources the USSR received during lend-lease, pretty good journal article and showcases the importance of raw materials/fuel.
>Stalin would attack the germans in '43
So obvious mate, he wouldn't do it earlier because he knew german armor was far superior.
By the way, at what point he rolled his t-34s? '42?
Making media that focuses almost entirely on the US experience in WW2 isn't the same thing as making media that tries to make it seem like the US won WW2 singlehandedly. There are many examples of the former kind of media. I can't think of any examples of the latter.
Those supposed "static division" mounted Operation Watch on the Rhine 6 months after Normandy, lad, so they must have had some offensive capability.
You do understand the "quality" of the 1,000,000 highly trained military required to fend off the West's strategic bombing campaign, right?
That and the germans actually did try to launch counter attacks after the landings. en.wikipedia.org
Here's one of them. There may have been others, I don't remember. The thing is though that all of these offensives failed miserably. Germany lost the war for control of the skies over western europe, and that meant that they could no longer effecitvely stop American and British armies on the ground.
>The Soviets did not join the war because they wanted. They were forced into it
The Sovs invaded Poland and Finland, lad. They were forced into precisely fuckall.
>Reminder that the North African campaign and the invasion of Sicily and Italy proper were all primarily conducted by British and Commonwealth troops.
Reminder that the bongs were getting BTFO in North Africa before the Americans got involved.
>landing in Italy in 1943 was more important
>invading into a dead end, up against geological barriers, with no chance whatsoever of attacking the enemy's center of mass is "more important" than attacking to the heart of Germany
>t. brainlet
>The Soviets were completely incapable of mounting an offensive in 1941
The Sovs butchered 14.5M of their own troops in WW2, lad. That's the only way they could ever have advanced anywhere, because they're barbaric animals. They were that in 1941 and would have sacrificed just as many then, and with the initiative they might very well have succeeded.
>attacking Poland and Finland
>Any relation to the war with Germany
>Implying the Soviets wanted to go to war with Germany
Nigga you what?
t. frozen mutt Hun in Staligrad
t. underage call of duty historian
>at the last minute
t. retard
America and the USSR joined the war less than six months apart you fucking retard
sure mutt, go back to /pol/ to shill for Hitler there
>Nathan Bedford Forrest
>Shilling for Hitler
He might be a dixiefag but if anything he is not a Kraut lover
are you special?