One man gets a rifle, the other gets ammo. When the man with rifle dies, pick it up and fight for the motherland!

NKVD and MGB did that even when soldiers weren't running away, shits just a typical tuesday for state security of the Stalin era

Leftist American college student detected

t. Ivan

Call of Duty Finest hour had this.

youtube.com/watch?v=7AHBfg3caxs

It's a half truth. Field executions for desertion and cowardice was practiced but never on the level that's depicted in American media, and such things were more common in penal battalions than in regular line units.

There was actually a huge outrage amongst Russian veterans of Stalingrad when Enemy At the Gates came out because 90% of the movie was bullshit.

You also had tank units so poorly equipped that they became rifle divisions.

>The 26th Tank Division had barely started organizing when the war started. Formed without a base of equipment or personnel from a tank brigade or cavalry division, this 'tank' division had no tanks, no heavy howitzers, no antiaircraft guns, few trucks, and virtually no unit training. Effectively, it was a rifle regiment with a battalion of howitzers attached. By July the Soviet high command was officially listing the division as "without equipment", acknowledging that it was no longer had combat value. Division strength report of 7 July showed just 3800 men and 5 guns. it was destroyed in the Minsk pocket and disbanded in mid-July 1941.

>27th Tank Division was missing most of the support elements from the division: it had few light armored cars, but few trucks or tractors, no maintenance units formed, no antiaircraft guns, and no tanks. The only armor in the division was a single battalion of 25 training tanks. Reduced to the equivalent of an understrength rifle regiment, the division was disbanded on 1 August 1941.

>After 1st Mechanized Corps HQ was shut down in August, 3rd Tank Division came under the Novgorod Operational Group, fighting in the swampy forests just north of Lake Urnen. This was the worst possible terrain for armor, but the division had no armor left by then. In November 1941 what was left of the unit was redesignated as 225th Rifle Division.

>13th Tank Division was not disbanded until August, but after 10 July it was little more than a slightly-motorized rifle regiment with a handful of light tanks.

>20th Tank Division fought under 9th Mechanized Corps across the Ukraine until early September, when both were destroyed in the Kiev encirclement. By then the division was little more than a rifle brigade; in one of its last official strength returns, on 25 August the 'division' reported a total of 2400 men, 12 guns, 6 mortars, and 0 tanks on hand.

it was a pretty shitty movie senpai. we need more accurate movies of nazis and soviets breaking brains and notching numbers in the name of diversity.

It also had you shooting a commissar just so you could retreat a short ways and flank the enemy without risk of BLAM.

>you

Okay.

Source for that greentext? Is that from Glantz or something similar?

mega.nz/#!1Yw0gRxY!IwZQK-yXjvxrXFKD1lO6iWSNnjisLn7uryCjwmhmcMw

Cool, thanks.

I'm pretty sure they took it directly from enemy at the gates.

The myth probably came from the People's Volunteer divisions at Leningrad. They didn't have enough rifles and would instead equip volunteers with just grenades.

>Now where in hell did this deliciously tasty meme come from?
Barely formulated, zeitgeist-y reptilian brain feeling of "russians are backwards" makes content creators create memes like this which then become self-sustained by it's own variations

I was legitimately taught in my American highschool that this kind of shit was true. I very vividly remember reading paragraphs about Soviet soldiers being forced to fight at gunpoint, and remember seeing a picture of them on a train that had bars over them, because they apparently would try to escape. Funny.

How shitty was the WW2 Russian army, anyways? I remember some russiaboo awhile back posting shit about how the lend-lease didn't reach the Soviets until the later stages of the war, and how they were adequately equipped in actuality. That true?

>bars over them
over the train's windows, I mean.

>How shitty was the WW2 Russian army, anyways?

Depends HUGELY on what time and place you're in. The Red Army of 1941 was way different than 43 which was in turn way different in 45; and the Soviets probably had the biggest variation in the degree of quality from their best troops to their average troops of any major power in WW2.

>how the lend-lease didn't reach the Soviets until the later stages of the war,

That's not entirely false. I don't have my stats in front of me, but the amount that made it in from 1943 onward was like 3 and a half times what made it in in 1941-42 by gross weight anyway.

>and how they were adequately equipped in actuality.

Not without lend-lease, they weren't. Those massive counterattacks were made possible by it. I suppose theoreitcally the Soviets could have redirected some of their other industry to try to compensate, but it would have been nigh impossible to get them to take the offensive like that without it.

Although I suppose it might have stopped them from those idiotic "ATTACK ALL ACROSS THE LINE" plans they did from beginning until end.

Without lend/lease the Russians would have lost the war. It wasn't just weapons we gave them. Trucks, oil, food ,clothes, boots, the list goes on.

Wrong photo, sorry

At the very beginning after you get off the boat, if you turn around and head back to the boat, the commissar there will kill you.

>he doesn't know about Order 227

> americans completely UNIRONICALLY present their money as their greatest contribution to war

>How shitty was the WW2 Russian army, anyways?

You can't really compare the Soviet military in 1941 to the Red Army of the mid-late war. They had the largest tank force in the world and saw 90% of it destroyed in less than six weeks. It wasn't until they were reorganized and resupplied that they turned it around, something they could not have done without Lend Lease. That they were able to recover from such a clusterfuck at all is almost unbelievable.

Marshall Zhukov himself said "[Lend Lease] shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.”

>I very vividly remember reading paragraphs about Soviet soldiers being forced to fight at gunpoint

Penal units were a thing in both the Wehrmacht and Red Army. Neither side had the time or resources to deal with military litigation as the vast majority of cases weren't significant enough to hold military courts. It was instead easier to place such men in penal units.

Order 227 was a thing, as were blocking units, but a penal unit of 200 men wouldn't be able to stop a division in retreat nor were they expected to. Death is a possible punishment for desertion/misconduct during combat in Western armies too, and extremely rare in all cases, regardless of nationality.

American production and Soviet manpower won the war. This is a consensus among historians. The only time I see it challenged is by anonymous posters on the internet, which says all you need to know.

>This is a consensus among historians
no, this is just what you've been told and happily believed

for example
>It wasn't just weapons we gave them
Yes, US provided soviet with incompatible ammo to their rifles and they shipped millions of us-made T34 and IL2

>Finest hour
I'm sorry you had to play the butchered console version, user

He didn't say money, he said guns, trucks, oil, food, clothes, and boots.

You try fighting a war without those things, why don't you?

Whether you believe his assertion that Russia wouldn't have won without lendlease is one thing, but don't be such a contrarian cunt and pretend supplies aren't important in wars.

>Yes, US provided soviet with incompatible ammo to their rifles and they shipped millions of us-made T34 and IL2

Don't forget nearly 2 million tons of food and 2.5 million tons of oil, among other things. Try driving T-34s and IL2s without gas or a crew.

And in 1940, the Baku refineries alone were turning out 22.4 million tons of oil. American fuel aid was pretty irrelevant, user. IT was the other stuff that really mattered, especially machine parts and trucks.

I'm glad we agree that it mattered.

youtu.be/anwy2MPT5RE

Yes, Spam saved the Soviets. Even Zhukov said it was important.

Video related; it's the American's biggest contribution from Lend-Lease.

Trucks were a huge part of Lend-Lease. They made the late war offensives of the Soviets feasible - or at least gave them longer logistical legs. Without them, you'll see shorter offensive sweeps. Red Army loved the Willy's jeep and the Ford truck (technically the 'home-grown' Zis truck was a copy of a Ford, anyway).

Really helped make the war shorter. Food aid was also of great help. Soviets loved them some spam.

However, it is worth noting that the Soviets stopped the Germans cold in '42 and 43 - before Lend-Lease really kicked into high gear. Where Lend-Lease helped the most was in those late war pushes.

i literally never said they weren't

i am just pointing out that americans are too hasty to undermine soviet victory on eastern front by instantly going "muh landlease", like pavlov's dogs

And proudly proclaiming shipping of spam as the most important achievement of the war from US side should logically be insulting to the memories of their own vets

I don't necessarily subscribe to "Soviets won because of lend-lease" I just think that a lot of people get so sick of the "America won WWII singlehandedly!" chest-pounders that they go so far in the other direction that it's just as retarded. It seems like when some people get sick of an opinion on this board they just jump ship to the polar opposite contrarian opinion.

>i am just pointing out that americans are too hasty to undermine soviet victory on eastern front by instantly going "muh landlease", like pavlov's dogs
>even the Soviets admitted they couldn't have won the war without Lend-Lease
>Historians hold the same consensus
>Some fuckboy on a mongolian vase art website says otherwise because he's a contrarian
Lad...

>And proudly proclaiming shipping of spam as the most important achievement of the war from US side should logically be insulting to the memories of their own vets
Except no one is claiming that. YOU are claiming that people are claiming that, but no one is. Things the U.S. is solely responsible for: Victory in the Pacific, salvaging Market Garden, Lend-Lease allowing the Soviets to hold on and eventually counter-attack, Victory in Italy, Victory on the Western Front.

Things the Soviets are responsible for:
Victory on the Eastern Front once they could manage on their own, subjugating Eastern Europe

Things Britain is responsible for:
Fucking up Market Garden and Victory in Africa

I don't think you know what "solely" means.

Britain and Australia were America's Italy in the war, don't kid yourself.

I said the shipping of Spam was the biggest contribution from Lend-Lease.

I am not taking away the contributions of WW2 Veterans. They've done so much and had to eat all that fucking Spam to the point they were legit sick of it.

>he doesn't know where the aluminum needed to make t34s came from

I'm not even trying to downplay that America was important, arguably vital, for the victory of the western allies.
Solely is still not an appropriate word, and you're fucking retarded if you think the British and their dominions didn't contribute to victory.

>and you're fucking retarded if you think the British and their dominions didn't contribute to victory
>Cuckstralia sits at home and watches their women get fucked by Americans
>Britain fucks up the offensive on the Western Front so badly that the war is extended by almost a year
Again, they get Africa and Canada gets a pass for doing what Britain couldn't. In Europe, Britain was to America as Italy was to Germany. The US won the Western Front and the Pacific.

> solely
> Lend-Lease allowing the Soviets to hold on
> once they could manage on their own
again these underhanded proviso-s keep >implying and diminishing soviet effort while bolstering bald eagle shaped feelings

land-lease program wasn't in full gear until fater soviets stopped german offensive dead on it's tracks in 41 and 42

but you still keep implying that US

> solely
had any hand in that

Call of Duty ripped most of it's elements straight from WW2 movies.

>In Europe, Britain was to America as Italy was to Germany

I'd like to see how Overlord would have went without the immense strategic bombing campaign conducted by bomber command to destroy German transportation and infrastructure, or the massive holding operation around Caen that allowed for operation Cobra to commence with minimal German resistance, or the immense decryption efforts conducted at Bletchley park, or the Royal Navy basically enabling the invasion.

America had the privilege of being the hammer in the hammer and anvil, but you need both.

If the only books on WWII you've ever read are books about Patton or MacArthur or some shit I can see how you could get it in your head that America singlehandedly won the war, but that isn't the case.

you're right, you helped evacuate retreating frenchmen from dunkirk

>What is Ultra

How are people this stupid?

If that's the only thing you've ever read about, you need to read more books.

There's a brand of stupid that ignores anything contrary to the conclusion they've already decided upon. Sadly there are a lot of Americans happy to buy into the "we singlehandedly won WWII" meme, so they just dismiss anything that challenges this theory.

>I'd like to see how Overlord would have went without the immense strategic bombing campaign conducted by bomber command to destroy German transportation and infrastructure
Because Britain was the only one doing strategic bombing amiright? You know, there's an old song that goes something like "USA by Day, RAF by night" because Britain could do fuck all with their strategic bombers unless it was night time.

> or the massive holding operation around Caen that allowed for operation Cobra to commence with minimal German resistance
You mean fail to capture the city and thus put it under siege because you fucked up. That's some spin you got there britfag.

>or the immense decryption efforts conducted at Bletchley park, or the Royal Navy basically enabling the invasion
It's almost as if the British didn't do any of this alone.

Either way, I was referencing Market Garden. The biggest fuck up of the war. Break an arm jerking yourself off if you so desire, Britcuck. You fucked up the offensive so badly that the war lasted another full year.

I wonder what the war would have looked like without American L&L.

A German victory is right out, I think - Moscow and Stalingrad were won before any help (or any meaningful help anyway) reached the SU.

But then again so are the sweeping counterattacks of 43 because you don't have the trucks to move stuff. You also have far fewer supplies and food and materiel in general, because you.

Maybe some kind of a terrible attrition warfare, with precious few offensives, with both sides bleeding out for a couple more years and Soviets edging it on numbers with an absolutely impoverished and starved country?

>In Europe, Britain was to America as Italy was to Germany
what the fuck

Takes some balls to talk about spin while moving the goalposts like this.

Why don't you take a quick look at what sort of resources Germany poured into Caen while the US army worked its way around? Get your head out of your fucking ass. Caen was a shitshow because the Germans put so much effort into defending it, they considered it the key to Paris. American success in Cobra hinged on the Germans being occupied in the Caen area. Encirclement at Falaise depended on the Germans being locked into the Caen area so they could be encircled. The destruction of the German army in France needed both the hammer AND the anvil.

As for day bombing - so what? Read about the tonnage of bombs dropped on major German cities by the RAF. We're not arguing about who more willingly threw themselves at German anti-air fire and interceptors, we're talking about bombing operations. You have to be a real cunt to pretend like the RAF didn't pull its weight in strategic bombing. As far as strategic bombing was concerned this was not even close to a singlehanded American effort and you need to intentionally be being retarded to consider it so.

>It's almost as if the British didn't do any of this alone.

Are you going to try to take credit for Ultra now? Fuck right off.

>Either way, I was referencing Market Garden

A fucked up offensive doesn't magically make Britain not contribute anything to a war effort.

>Break an arm jerking yourself off if you so desire, Britcuck.

I'm not British, and I'm not jerking myself off. You're the one making the outrageously stupid claim that America singlehandedly won the war in Europe. I'm simply asserting that British wasn't as useless as you're trying to pretend. Who's jerking off here, dipshit?

Also, do you think Italy could have happened without victory in Africa? Where do you think the invasion was launched from, fucking Massachusetts or something?

> aluminum tanks

Just stop this bullshit. All lend/lease did was have the war end earlier than it would have and it was metals that made any kind of difference not weapons.

I never learned any of that shit in highschool, Let me guess your history teacher was in his 50s wore a coat with elbow patches and talked like some tough-shit no-nonsense teacher who was actually clueless because he gleaned his knowledge through hollywood and his macho-man rose tinted glasses
that or you are falseflagging

relax guys, he said "the list goes on" so hes probably memeing, that or i spend too much time on /mu/

>Now where in hell did this deliciously tasty meme come from?
From WW1. Back then it was a thing.

>I remember some russiaboo awhile back posting shit about how the lend-lease didn't reach the Soviets until the later stages of the war, and how they were adequately equipped in actuality. That true?

Not at all. There is a misquote from 'The War Economy of the USSR during the Second World War' by Nikolai Voznesensky that says something like "Lend-Lease supplies only ever amounted to 4% of Soviet wartime production." but this is taken out of context and only meant to apply to a specific area of military production (and even then is blatantly wrong).

Some contradictory examples:
664,600 tons of canned meat - 108% of Soviet production
610,000 tons of sugar - 42%
1,900 locomotives - 426%
409,500 trucks
16,000,0000 pairs of shoes.

The real issue, and where the confusion stems, is that the bulk of Lend-Lease wasn't readily visible, (this is where the "lend-lease was too late to matter" argument comes from), as only 20% of Lend-Lease was in the form of military equipment. Resources and raw materials would make up the bulk. Aluminum (125% of Soviet production), for example, would be used in more than half of all Soviet-produced aircraft, though you wouldn't call these Lend-Lease airplanes because of this, or the same for tanks made with Lend-Lease sheet metal. Or any engine running only high-octane gasoline, something the Soviets could not produce.

These are all arguments presented by Russian historians, btw.
forbes.ru/mneniya-column/istoriya/288019-lend-liz-fakty-i-mify

>aluminum tanks

T-34 tank engine used aluminum alloys

Americans are this delusional (and ignorant, I know from experience)

>Where do you think the invasion was launched from, fucking Massachusetts or something
Malta. Gibraltar. Crete. Literally anywhere in the Med because the Axis didn't have control over anything strategic.

>I know better than Marshall Zhukov. Here, look at all my no sources.

"But you can not deny that Americans drove us so much material, without which we would not be able to form our reserves and could not continue the war. We had no explosives and gunpowder. There was not enough rifle cartridges. Americans really helped us out with gunpowder and explosives. And as they drove us sheet metal! How could we quickly establish a production of tanks, if not American aid steel?"

forbes.ru/mneniya-column/istoriya/288019-lend-liz-fakty-i-mify?page=0,1

Crete was lost

There is no reality in which the Germans could have won. It's a miracle they lasted as long as they did.

>met person once who claimed this was true for all ruskies in the entire war

Remarkably parallel to Pearl Harbor in that regard.

The Nazis sneak attack took the Soviet Union by surprise and resulted in disorganized chaos so it is completely feasible that during operation Barbarossa mistakes happened and soldiers ended up without rifles.

However by Stalingrad they had reorganized and in theory any reasonably competent member of staff would never make that mistake. Soviet military law wasn't strictly hierarchical and soldiers could go over the head of an immediate superior to report to a higher rank, if there was enough evidence those responsible would have been promptly charged with military incompetence and executed.

And then Russia made its own movie about Stalingrad, which was brilliant, respectful and accurate.

The end.

It's an amalgamation of several factors like: Operation Paper clip-influenced Cold War propaganda,Enemy at the gates,forced American point of view of 20th century history and the influence of various video games such as Call of Duty I and II,Company of Heroes 2 etc.

But then again,they did send newly formed Siberian and Prison units to soak up the German artillery and ammo.

Highly unlikely,considering that the Lend-lease was accounted for only 7% of all the resources which the Soviets have used in World War II.

Also,they've defeated 80% of the German army several months before you've decided to play hero on the newly opened Western Front,which was ironically opened up to stop the Russians from occupying Western Europe.

No it's not,considering the fact that the Soviets have outproduced everyone else in the later stages of World War II.

>The only time I see it challenged is by anonymous posters on the internet

Every single non-American historians that has amounted to something begs to differ.

>Things the Soviets are responsible for:
>Victory on the Eastern Front once they could manage on their own, subjugating Eastern Europe

You mean,defeating the bulk of the German army,approximately 80% of it and entering Berlin while you were busy brutalizing undermanned and overburdened German veterans of the Eastern Front?

Also,the Soviets would've never taken Eastern Europe if you and the British didn't assure them that you wouldn't be taking any actions against them during the conference of Yalta.

Many seem to have forgotten about that fact,some even intentionally.

That happened in China actually, in both Communist and Nationalist guerillas.

But the logic being "here, use this spear/sword. We with the guns will pin the Japanese patrol down. Then, you guys rush in and try to kill as many as you can. Then take their guns."

Happened with the 1st aif north africa thats why the 6th divvy engaged the french, the 7th didnt have the rifles

Called?

Holy shit those cats look miserable. Like they all know they're going to die..

Then why can't you produce a single source?

You're right, it wasn't a commissar, it was sentry emplacements (better supplied than normal infantry) whose job was to kill deserters

Because there is no point in enlightening those who're more than fond of embellishing their historical illiteracy,plus,we both know that you won't even glance at them,let alone read them.

It's true that the Brits did a shit ton of retarded things that was literally Italy-level at times, such as splitting the tank into cruiser and infantry support lines even though there was literally no need and firing the guy who created Britain's first tank units because MUH HORSES, but Britain did contribute to the war effort, yanno. RADAR was primarily British, as is the entirety of Bletchley Park.

What about food production? What about the literal fucktons of Spam lying in Soviet stores that was shipped in 1941 and 1942?

What sources say that the Soviets fucking produced enough food to feed all the Soviets that were not dead or captured in WW2?

Which non-American historians say that the Soviets produced more food than what Lend-Lease gave?

Most of Russian history is one big myth in West. What's funny is that even Russians themselves believe some memes.
Like Ivan IV blinding his architect.

Which one?

...

Pretty sure he was being sarcastic, guys.

Great shitpost user!

>Zhukov

Fucking Stalin could have said it and it wouldn't have changed the fact that only 7% of total Soviet war products were Lend Lease.
Statisticallh

Honestly could be more effective than guns in certain situations.

>What sources say that the Soviets fucking produced enough food to feed all the Soviets that were not dead or captured
From the top of my head: History of the Second World War (104 volumes), Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London 1949 to 1993 and Kumanev, G.A., "War and the evacuation of the USSR: 1941-1942", New Age, 2006

"What about food production? What about the literal tons of Spam lying in Soviet stores that was shipped in 1941 and 1942"-The Lend-lease has only been accounted for only 7% of all the resources which the Russians have used in World War II,and it wasn't merely given,but bought with gold.

"Which non-American historians say that the Soviets produced more food than what Lend-Lease gave"-You're clinging to the argument of food because that's the only thing that has truly made a difference,together with the steel that you've sent,but that's where your "assistance" ends.

Also,there is a reason why I've said in "the later stages of the War".during the first two years,the Soviets had to relocate their entire industry to the Caucasus and other,southernmost regions of their country,in order to protect it from German areal bombardment.

Here comes the Russian Army.
So when do the atrocities start?

Not him, but it was really more just good old fashioned overrunning by ground troops.

Luftwaffe strategic bombing capabilities were pathetic, and the Soviets mostly ignored what few raids they mounted. (Their CAS, on the other hand........)