Why do Soviet fags always act like the USSR utterly crushed Germany while they had thirteen million casualties while...

Why do Soviet fags always act like the USSR utterly crushed Germany while they had thirteen million casualties while dealing with only Germany while the Third Reich only had Three Million but was dealing with four super powers?

Bumping for discussion

tragedy versus statistics, my man

Most Soviet politicians, their contemporary historians, and therefore the official Soviet history believed the West calculated our involvement in such a way as to most effectively bleed the Soviets while still insuring victory.

>It’s hard for me to judge now about our allies’ intentions then. Was their decision not to land expeditionary forces dictated by the desire to put a heavier load on the Soviet Union’s back and bleed us even more? I don’t rule out that possibility. On the other hand, is it true, as they explained, that they were not yet sufficiently prepared, that their war production had not yet expanded enough, so that they were not ready for a large-scale landing? They said they needed more time. I think that both considerations applied, but the first one was stronger. The desire to let us bleed was greater. Their thinking was to let their ally bleed, so that when they joined in the battle good and proper at the climactic point they could then decide the fate of the world. They could take advantage of the war’s outcome and impose their will not only on the enemy but on their ally as well. I grant this possibility entirely. And evidently such thinking played a considerable role.

>If you look at it from a class point of view, our allies had no interest in strengthening us. It was in their interest to make use of the USSR for a time despite the fact that our country was organized on a socialist basis. Our common fate worked out in such a way that we were forced to unite our efforts. Each of us alone could not have won the war at all, or could have won it only with enormous losses and over a much longer time span. Thus the various sides agreed to this alliance, and while combining their efforts in the struggle against the common enemy, they at the same time remained on separate class foundations. - Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev - Vol 1 - pg 686

Disregard, I misread your question.

I approve

>casualties
AHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA

>13 million
not enough.
That said if you really believe 13 million Russians were casualties in WW2 you are beyond retarded.

You may have misread the question, but it was kinda to the point. The allies were very reluctant to aid the soviets and didn't do nearly as much as they could have until towards the end of the war.

Churchill's decision to go dicking around in Africa, while the Stalin was begging him to open a second front so they could pincer Hitler, was one of the key reasons the war dragged on for as long as it did, and why the soviet's casualties were so much lower than the Germans. All the war for the soviets was on their own soil, while the Germans were fighting all over the world.

Which isn't too surprising, as a large part of the attitude towards Hitler before the war, was just the west hoping that nazi problem and the communist problem would "take care of each other".

>Why do Soviet fags always act like the USSR utterly crushed Germany while they had thirteen million casualties while dealing with only Germany while the Third Reich only had Three Million but was dealing with four super powers?
Because, on the surface, the Soviets did most of the heavy lifting. While the war effort by the Western Allies was by no means unimpressive, the Soviets conducted operations that often dwarfed that of the Allies. You've got things like:
>Being the first belligerent to really halt the German war machine at Moscow
>Annihilating the 6th Army at Stalingrad
>Consistently launching front-wide offensives in the dead of winter
>Sweeping across much of eastern europe and destroying Army Group Center while the Western Allies were fighting for their foothold on Normandy
>Soviets responsible for something like 80% of Axis casualties in Europe

So while there's far more to the war than what I just stated, it's fairly easy to point to those instances and the raw casualty figures while explaining away many of the "disqualifiers," like the high casualty count. For that, the best justification is a combination of horrible tactical decisions (particularly early in the war), the horrific treatment of the 5 million Soviet POWs taken (of which over 3 million died), and the scorched-earth policy on both sides taking a heavy toll on the locals, who were almost exclusively Soviet citizens.

The Western Allies certainly had their own significant contributions, but they're harder to quantify and thus easy for the Soviet apologists to dismiss.