The Soviets only won because they outnumbered the Germans

Not only that, but the later offensive towards Moscow worked as well as it did primarily because the Soviets tried to counterattack after Heersgruppe Mitte diverted south to mop up Kiev. It wasn't an unreasonable idea, but the offensive went belly up, and the Soviets took a LOT of losses.

If you want to attack Moscow in August as opposed to after Kiev, the defenses in the region will be heavier, not lighter.

>Almost everything you just stated was true, besides the last one
human waves are fucking bullshit
Russians rarely outnumbered Germans by 5-10% in the field, let alone 10 to 1 as I continue fucking hearing
just with that alone the war would be over in 1942

K

...

That includes the massive number of civilians killed by Japan and Germany.

every time i played HOI2 and HOI3 i tried to ally with or puppet the soviets as the germans.

>tfw creating a geopolitical master/blaster in the global thunderdome

pretty gr8 m8

During the Great Patriotic War, the Red Army conscripted 29,574,900 men in addition to the 4,826,907 in service at the beginning of the war. This totals of 34,401,807

This.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht

>The total number of soldiers who served in the Wehrmacht during its existence from 1935 to 1945 is believed to have approached 18.2 million.

Don't forget the Waffen SS, which is a completely different organization. Or the actually rather significant numbers of Hungarians, Romanians, Finns, Bulgarians, etc.

Then of course, we have the issue that number of men conscripted includes lots of people who aren't actually serving in combat roles on the front, or the fact that NOT ALL OF THOSE CONSCRIPTS WOULD BE IN THE FIELD AT THE SAME TIME YOU RETARD.

Seriously, look at something like this. usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/connor.pdf

1.3:1 ratio overall in 1944 right on the eve of the Bagration offensive.

Probably the Army standing in between the Germans and their objectives

>all the German military fought on the eastern front

So this is the knowledge of /leftypol/

>y-y-y-you retard

Not an argument. No one claimed they were in the field at the same time. Go learn how to read.

>German army roll into villages
>proceeds to execute unarmed civilians
>75 years later
>"Lol the Soviets were terrible at fighting, look at how many died!"

link doesn't work

>Not an argument. No one claimed they were in the field at the same time.
>Russians rarely outnumbered Germans by 5-10% in the field, let alone 10 to 1 as I continue fucking hearing

This is why I call you a retard. Not ot mention that your only "support" for the massive Soviet outnumbering was to cite a mobilization figure with no source, which is completely meaningless on its own.
>Ignoring the actual force ratios, again.

Works for me. If you're having trouble getting it to work, try google searching for

>ANALYSIS OF DEEP ATTACK OPERATIONS OPERATION BAGRATION BELARUS 22 JUNE-29 AUGUST 1944

And if necessary include the author, william M Connor. The tables I ratios to in the last post are on tables in pages 70-71 of the PDF.

>German army roll into villages
>proceeds to execute unarmed civilians

Only a very small portion of Soviet civilian casualties can be attributed to this;

anyway, the difference in military casualties only is still big enough

chris-intel-corner.blogspot.co.at/2011/11/strength-and-loss-data-eastern-front.html

>German army roll into villages
>proceeds to execute unarmed civilians

Nice commie propaganda, shill

Nice strawman

>this one photo totally shows that the germans didn't view slavs as subhuman, except for the whole Barbossa decree and generalplan ost

>complains about propaganda
>uses a single photograph to back up his claims
Why are wehraboos so pathetic?

Also the problems with rail and truck transport. People like to meme about the German army being largely horse-drawn, but the horses served their purpose as a fuel efficient way of transporting supplies from a railhead to the front over a short distance, for a country severely lacking in fuel and facing a similarly unmotorized army. Horses simply moved supplies that the railroads brought in to the bulk of infantry; any issues with the railroads would be a far bigger problem for the entire army, and the railroads and trucks faced serious issues regardless of season. Horses could operate year round on any type of terrain except in the winter when they took heavy casualties; even then replacements could be easily brought up from the countryside or in from neighboring countries. The trucks had to deal with an extremely poor and dusty road network, almost impassable mud during the spring and fall, lack of fuel and tires, a wide array and lack of spare parts due to no standardization, causing traffic jams with infantry and their horses when returning to resupply, and little emphasis placed on truck production back home. The trains, the main mover of supplies, had to deal with rebuilding the rail network and facilities after Soviet scorched earth and evacuation of rolling stock, a poor roadbed requiring the use of smaller and older locomotives, coal mined in Ukraine being unusable as fuel, partisans destroying the railways, and convoluted organization until 1942. The winter of course fucked with both, with impassable snow and extreme cold affecting their engines, but the winter fucked everyone over.
Horses are in no way an effective method of transport compared to more mechanized means, but in the Germans' situation it was the most ideal besides acquiring a couple hundred thousand 6x6 2.5 ton diesel trucks and the fuel and parts for them, which the Soviet Union did.

This jew really thinks 20 million soldiers died? Discarded.

>With this photo history will forget that we besiged a city of 3 million people for 3 years and caused the death of 1 million from cold and starvation
>Wunderbar Hanz ja bretzel wassermelon

>Hitler's generals/commanders: Mein Führer we must retreat from our positions in RUssia, we are surrounded and outnumbered.
>Denied.
>Hitler's generals/commanders: Mein Führer our supply lines are stretches and our troops are defending too large a front.
>Denied and fired.
>Hitler's generals/commanders: Mein Führer We are trapped in Stalingrad, we are trapped in Crimea, we are surrounded at Kursk, we are outnumbered in Leningrad, the Soviets have far too many troops for us to defend, we are freezing to death, we have no weapons, our men are demoralized! etc
Denied and fired.
>Hitler's generals/commanders: Mein Führer you must listen to me. You would be making a terrible mistake to attack city X in Russia. We are almost certain Stalin will attack city Y, which is on the other side of the front!
>Denied.

Hitler deserved everything he got. He was one of the dumbest nigger strategists ever.

Why is China's flag the communist one? The communists basically pussed out and let the KMT bleed to death fighting Japan, then backstab the KMT and take credit for it.

>the russians never developed a heavy bomber
But the Russians bombed the Germans just like the allies did. Hell, the Soviet airforce began dropping bombs on Berlin in the first months of the war.
>warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/soviet-deadly-air-attack-over-nazis-berlin-june-1941.html
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Berlin_in_World_War_II#1940_to_1943
They did that using a wide variety of planes - il-4, Pe-8, Er-2. And Pe-8(pic related) was a strategic heavy bomber.

your a dorable

>Over 20 million Soviet soldiers died
Uh, what? The largest "permanent losses" one I could find is 14 million for the USSR military, and the highest "killed" I can find is about 8,6 million. The only way this guy managed to reach over 20 million is if he counted "Wounded in action" as well.

JOINT
EFFORT
FAGGOT

Yeah, but his identical orders in 1941 in front of Moscow did actually stop the Soviets, at a high price, when everyone wanted to retreat, but retreating in the middle of winter in such shit weather while already low on supplies could have been catastrophic.

That still includes roughly 10-12 million military losses for the Soviets, which is still greater than then German total losses

The Soviets had a shitty fucking kill death ratio, even for T-34s against Panzer IVs, a tank it was superior to on paper.

>muh k/d
They were playing capture the flag doe

Total losses for Soviets during WW2 was 23-25 million, at least 13 of those being civilians.

So I'm gonna guess he just looked at total losses and thought it was all military.

If we want to go with permanent losses, Germany only had a 1.4 average against the USSR. Regards to K/D it was decently high, but regards to Permanent losses it was fairly equal.

go back to pol kid

Not particularly. The French army actually outnumbered the German at the start of conflict in '39, and actually held greater numbers for most of the '40 conflict.

The reason the Germans won were threefold:

1) Blitzkrieg, Schwerpunkt, and modernized warfare (a smaller part than post people think)

2) Joint Arms Force

3) Better Tactical doctrine.

As for the first part I won't bore you, since most people have a fairly good idea about how modernized and Blitkrieg-y the German army was at the start of the war. Everyone knows this.

As for the Joint Arms Force, it's fascinating, but hardly worth a long discussion. The Germans, simply put, mastered the combination of Infantry, Artillery, Planes, and Tanks long before everyone else. During WWI, literally everyone learned to combine Artillery efforts with Troop movement, but the Germans brought that expertise to other departments, as well.

Finally, the most important part, was tactical development. The German field sergeants and captains had a MUCH greater say over decisions in combat than their British and French counterparts, who often waited hours for super easy decisions, which cost them dearly.

A humorous antiectode with this is when the Germans were crossing the Meusse river, the colonel wanted them to retreat again across the river to regroup and await reinforcements, but a sergeant correctly assessed that the French were extremely close to breaking, and commanded all the battalions to keep up the advance, which won the day.

Hitler was a lot more detrimental than you make him sound, IMO. Hitler should have basically declared war, then turned to his generals and said, "Win for me." They could have done it.

Hitler didn't "Side" with one general over another. He would literally pit them against each other on equal footing (i.e., OB West had both Kesserling and Rundstedt at eachothers throats), because Hitler accurately assessed that this way no General would have enough power to overthrow him.

He fucked up bad.

The initial Guderian drive on Moscow WAS the correct decision, as was Guderian's next step: Burn the city to the ground, and take massive back steps to a hugely defensible line for the winter while we wait for spring to renew the Blitzkrieg.

That's actually fairly accurate. My Chinese teacher had a great-grandfather in Shanghai who was fighting for the KMT, but upon seeing them get butt-raped by the Japs, became a Nip interpreter. After the Japs were forced from the city due to the peace treaty, the KMT were seen by the average civilians as traitors because they lost the battle.

The greatest strategic decision Mao ever made was not getting too involved in the war, but instead taking down the KMT once they were well and truly exaughsted after the war, which still took him fucking four years to do.

People were acting like soviets didn't lose a shit ton of military personnel because of the civilian losses, which only accounted for roughly 60% of their total losses, the remaining 40% still dwarfs the german total losses including both civilian and military deaths.

It still speaks in favor for soviets winning due to numerical superiority rather than not, because they wouldn't have been able to win with the losses they suffered without.

It has nothing to do with political leaning.

>It has nothing to do with political leaning.
Where did I mention politics in the statistic I provided? I never said USSR didn't lose a fuckton. I said Permanent losses for Germany and USSR were fairly equal, yes regards to casualties if we count wounded is fairly high or "killed" only, but "permanent losses" which is what most people seem to entirely ignore showcases both sides suffering nearly the exact same amount.

Solid point, the political comment was mostly for the latter dude with the /pol/ comment.

>posts nazi propaganda photo
kek

Kind of true. The plan was to steal the commie farm land and give it German families. So yeah the operations of the Nazis lead to a LOT of deaths both civilian and martial forces

>>the Soviets would have lost if it weren't for Lend Lease aid
i agree with everything else you were posting, but i want to know more about this? last i heard was that Soviet logistical capabilities were about 100% facilitated by lend lease.

Yeah, American vehicles were extremely important for the Soviet victory. The two main types of trucks produced by the USSR were actually knockoffs of US civilian trucks designed over 10 years prior. The Soviet Union determined that they would produce the teeth and America would produce the logistics tail of the Red Army.

>This image proves that the Germans never killed civilians
Wew lad

>They could have done it.
Extremely unlikely, epecially since Halder opposed the Manstein plan.

>The initial Guderian drive on Moscow WAS the correct decision,
No, it was clearly the wrong decision. Again, when Guderian wanted to attack Moscow, that road between Smolensky and the capital actually had MORE troops along it than when it was historically attacked. The Soviets are not going to launch an offensive into the teeth of your main effort, and now you have all sorts of unpleasant things that that force around Kiev can do.

>Burn the city to the ground and take massive back steps to a hugely defensible line for the winter while we wait for spring to renew the Blitzkrieg.

Remember those battles to seize Smolensk, Kiev, or Odessa? Remember how each one took months? And that's without the Soviets being in a perfect position to launch a flank attack, and only counting the operations in and around the city, not starting by fighting your way some 300 miles, against smaller, less heavily defended targets.

Obviously, I get the benefit of hindsight and more accurate information than Guderian had available in the summer of '41, but that plan would never have worked.

Not OP, but check this out. Lend-Lease was overwhelmingly important with providing the Soviets with motorized logistical transport. However, logistical needs are hugest and most pressing when you're advancing, not when you're defending. Mobile troops need to not only get more stuff sent to them, but you also need to have fast, not just high capacity transportation, to be able to keep up with a force that's constantly moving away from your depots, not towards it.

As it was, the overwhelming majority of Lend-Lease arrived from mid-43 onwards, and played a very small part in the first stage of "desperate defense" warfare. They were important in helping the Soviets roll all the way back to Berlin more than they were in keeping the Germans out of Moscow.

Literally all of these except for 3 and 5 are right

Fuck off tankie

No but its a fact even residents said so, most of the killings of the wehrmacht (nOT SS) where against Partisans of any sort.

Also war has no rules. If we hate on the Nazis for their atrocities we should hate on the soviets even more and quite a bit on the allies.
All sides did insanely fucked up things and germanys deeds are completly blown out of proportion due to the giant propaganda machine against germany in the late war years.
They painted the devil incarnate, how could they go back from it after they won. There was a giant pro germany movement in the US, the propaganda held that down.

>the soviets aren't to blame for Ukraine cause weather lol
>the nazis wre to blame because of the weather
Why are anti white SJWs so stupid?

> anti white SJWs
ALL NEURONS FIRING

>ll licks in in 43-44

>soviets destroy german armies in 41-42 without significant ll or a 2nd front

>the Soviets would have lost if it weren't for Lend Lease aid
I'm not sure about lost.. but wasn't Lend Lease a huge source of soviet resources?

I blame it on the Cold War narrative.

For example 1/3rd of Soviet trucks were American.
Significant without doubt, and they were reliable, but saying Soviets would be fucked if Americans sent them nothing is rubbish.
It made things easier. Overall LL was 10% of Soviet war production.

>Overall LL was 10% of Soviet war production
Oh I thought it was closer to like 30-40%, maybe that was another country and my memory is fucked.

UK perhaps, they recieved much more than Soviets.

>Oh I thought it was closer to like 30-40%, maybe that was another country and my memory is fucked.

There has been conflicting statements on the matter by different members of the Soviet leadership during the 1950s on the matter. Neither of those figures can be trusted because the people who said those figures had political motives. The higher numbers were from anti-Stalinist and the lower numbers were from pro-Stalinist.

german army was largely horse drawn and achieved significant victories without motorization

soviets lacked mechanized infantry, yet they were successfull (armored troop carriers, like the US halftracks or the german Sdkfz-s)

>the Soviets only won because they outnumbered the Germans

Except this one is literally 100% true you fucking moron. They lost 20 million souls in the war but just kept shitting out more meat for the grinder.

>>the Soviets just used human wave tactics to overwhelm the Germans
the did use human waves

>>the Soviets would have lost if it weren't for Lend Lease aid

even stalin admitted it

Except we know what was sent and what Soviets received.

>They lost 20 million souls in the war
If you mean military losses then [citation needed], otherwise you're just factoring in civilian losses as well.

found the angry poltard
die in cancer fuckface, you know absolutely nothing about your beloved germans

Strawman.

soviets were getting slaughtered in 41 and 42 though

how about not generalizing on a board dedicated to the discussion of history?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kiev_(1941)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

Both sides had victories and heavy losses until 1943, only after Kursk the Soviets clearly dominated (see Operation Bagration). The Germans still managed to inflict heavy losses, and had minor victories until the very end of the war.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bautzen_(1945)

No idea what youre on about but apart from the 20 mill being all soldiers hes correct.

"found the angry commie LOL" thats how retarded you sound.

The russians got their shit pushed in for a while even tho they were advancing. But old men and kids can only fight for so long. (Pretty much the whole of Berlin was defended by reservists, old vets and kids aged 11 to 15. How bout that for info?

>Pretty much the whole of Berlin was defended by reservists, old vets and kids aged 11 to 15. How bout that for info?
How about a source on that claim?
(not the guy you responded to)

>soviet contributions to winning the war mean jack shit because they lost many men
t. /pol/

But you need to compare that to what the Soviets built domestically to come up with how much of a percentage of their overall production Lend-Lease was. Getting accurate Soviet production figures is tricky.

tandfonline.com.sci-hub.cc/doi/abs/10.1080/13518049408430160
this paper has a lot of those comparisons

>No idea what youre on about but apart from the 20 mill being all soldiers hes correct.
[citation needed]

Great link, and I've saved it. I've only had time to skim it at the moment, but I have noticed a few oddities. Still, having any point of comparison is very helpful.

If you're interested there's also this:
www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/lendlease.pdf
Written by someone who specializes in Economic history, Russia and the Soviet bloc and lectures "War and Economy in the Twentieth Century" in a University as well.

Page 35 is where the graphs and shit start.

>Spend a ridiculous amount of money spending just 1 single soldier, turning him into the ultimate warrior
>Send him into battle against a superior force
>He gets a few good shots in, but ultimately is killed rather easily
>"Hehehe - he only lost because he was outnumbered, we were the TRUE victors!"
>Repeat infinitum

Thanks again. I don't really have time to read it at the moment, but saved.

nigga do you even understand what a siege is?