Now I may have been watching too much Spongebob WWII memes on YouTube...

Now I may have been watching too much Spongebob WWII memes on YouTube, but did the Soviets really own the Germans that badly to where they could be considered their biggest fear in a meme form?

The United States is portrayed in a similar fashion to Imperial Japan, but are the Soviets really the defining factor into why the Germans lost the war?

Yes, but lend-lease helped them survive the early parts of the war.

Didn't Hitler also choose to attack them in the winter time too?

>but did the Soviets really own the Germans that badly

No. Those are just commies memeing and trying to look like they've done something useful to the human race. Turns out that, even severely out of resources, the nazis still managed to buttfuck the soviets pretty badly

The only real advantage the soviets had is that they had more human shields than the nazis had bullets. All their casualties are pathetic for what should have been one-sided battles, specially for Stalingrad and Moscow

He attacked in summer but it took way fucking longer than he was expecting
They were able to get winter supplies but it just so happened to be the coldest winter in over 100 years so they froze pretty badly

Pretty much this

3/4 of Lend Lease came after Kursk though.

Based normalfag bros

That's true, but when Russia was in jeopardy and Lend-Lease saved them was early war. Russia might have been crippled beyond usefulness early on if not for Lend-Lease.

Why are there so many Soviet spongebob memes? I've never met a Russian who has grown up watching Spongebob

>Why are there so many X spongebob memes?
Normalfags

Who knows why memes get started but they just do

And right now there is a prominence of historical situations being given oversimplified depictions using spongebob footage

Yes. About 80% of the Wehrmacht died on the Eastern Front and it was by far the most important front of the war.
Actually lend lease didn't start in any significant amount until after the Battle of Stalingrad.
Casualty rates and wikopedia battle boxes are not respresentative of whether or not an army was skilled/effective. Please kill yourself.
This is inaccurate considering 1/3rd of Soviet military casualties were POWs being murdered and also the fact that Soviets and Germans counted combat casualties veeeeeery differently.
Um what? You do realize that the US only sent 2% of that year's lend-lease to the USSR in 1941? This contradicts everything I've read from primary sources so care to elaborate?

How is a death not a death?

Germans and Soviets had different ways of counting casualties, Germans tended to under-report their losses because they would only count really serious wounds as wounds, and would only count them once. Same thing with tanks, the Germans could have a tank totally wiped out but then repair it and it would be counted as just damaged, while the Soviets would have counted that as a loss. I'm sure the same thing happened for aircraft and artillery. When you take that into account the casualty rates for the battles are a lot less lopsided : in fact the actual military casualties for the Eastern Front aren't even that different, it is like 5.5 million Axis dead to 9 million Soviets, which isn't even that bad of a ratio given that the Soviets suffered a crippling disaster at the beginning of the campaign and were a much less industrialized and educated country.

And of course, none of that matters. The Soviets won. The Soviet flag was the one over the Reichstag, the Swastika wasn't the one over the Kremlin. K/D ratios are just nazis attempting to make themselves feel better about the fact that they lost to a bunch of fucking slavs, had half of their country occupied for half a century, and they'll literally never get back the Eastern regions from Poland lmao, not to mention forever destroying whatever chance for actual relevance and power beyond being an American satellite that Germany might have had.

Because Soviets usually didn't murder their POWs. Therefore it's unfair to count them the same.
this tbqh

>but did the Soviets really own the Germans that badly to where they could be considered their biggest fear in a meme form?
No, the Eastern Front was a brutal war and Zhukov's "deep battle doctrine" was by no means trying to ensure an easy victory, just victory at all costs

SpongeBob ww2 memes are tankie memes desu, the initial blizkrieg into Russia nearly destroyed the Soviets and if it weren't for Lend Lease they would've been conquered and subject to genocide by the Germans. The idea of the great patriotic war and the USSR's dominance over Germany is propoganda that was originally created by Khruschev

>Therefore it's unfair to count them the same.
Based tankie bro

The 2 1/2 ton truck took a huge load off of Soviet industry at the time during the time it was critical for them to grow their war economy. The trains helped greatly with logistics as well. Actually, pretty much everything supplies included took a huge load off of the crippled Soviet economy allowing them to focus on growth and development instead of trying to maintain production of essentials.

I assume you're measuring Lend-Lease with dollar amounts of second hand machines or by tonnage. I'm not saying it didn't matter or it didn't help. But it was early Lend-Lease that was decisive. The USSR would have survived, albeit with significantly higher losses, even without later Lend-Lease.

>You do realize that the US only sent 2% of that year's lend-lease to the USSR in 1941?
>Not realizing how high priority supplies work
>Not realizing most of earlier parts of Lend Lease came from Britain

>Soviets didn't usually murder their POW's
Neither did the Germans in mass rates either, most of the POW's died in German captivity due to food scarcity as the Soviet Union employed a slash and burn policy to make sure Germans couldn't capture supplies. Also one of the reasons more Germans didn't die under Soviet control.

Also let's not pretend the Russians gave two shits about Poles , they saw Poles as the Germans saw slavs in general

The amount of foreign vehicles in the Red Army was insignificant before 1943.

Beyond that being wrong, Germans purposefully killed Soviet POWs as part of the Hunger Plan, it doesn't say anything about the point the other poster made. It doesn't matter why the Soviet POWs died in German captivity, the point is they did, while the German POWs in Soviet captivity didn't to the same extent. It is unfair to then say "haha look fucking russians losing millions of men lmao commies btfo", when a major reason for why Soviet casualties were higher was because the German POWs mostly survived while the Soviet POWs mostly didn't.

>german POW's mostly survived
From the 100000 german POW's in Stalingrad only 5000 returned home

Was Stalingrad the only theater during the war?

>if it weren't for Lend Lease they would've been conquered and subject to genocide by the Germans.
Can you please elaborate? This goes against everything I've studied so far on the topic

Could you please stop posting that meme pic. The soviets lost 9mil and the germans 5.
Also lend lease only started having an effect after the soviets already had a massive initiative

if you consider June 22 Winter, then yes

This.
Really fucking pisses me off, honestly. The casualties the USSR suffered were fucking ridiculous and disproportionate for the actual war. Millions of Russians died needlessly because Stalin purged the officer class but kept absolute autists like Budyonny on board.
Same goes for the Nazis desu, arming women and children with bird rifles and telling them to die for your country. Just know when to give up for fucks sake.

>Budyonny
>In World War II, he received the blame for many of Stalin’s military strategy errors, but he was retained in the Soviet high command because of his bravery and popularity. He was a notable horse-breeder, who declared that the tank could never replace the horse as an instrument of war.
Oh for fucks sake.

Nazis never armed women. They armed children, the women soldiers were the Soviets.

they actually died of diabetes, because they could eat all the candy they want in gulags

>Can you please elaborate
High priority supplies through Soviets needed most were supplied by the Allies and not by the Soviets themselves
>Meme pic
You mean the most current estimates based on Soviet primary sources.

Go be a tankie somewhere else plz

That's not what /pol/ told me.

I think the truth is somewhat in the middle. The Nazis were brilliant in their invasion of the USSR and almost pulled off the impossible, the Soviets were brilliant in managing to hold on with such determination that they bled the Germans out and turned the tide

>High priority supplies through Soviets needed most were supplied by the Allies and not by the Soviets themselves
Such as? What percentage of these supplies were made by thr Allies and not the Soviets?

>soviets didn’t kill pows

>are the Soviets really the defining factor into why the Germans lost the war?
People tend to disagree on just how much their contribution mattered, but the Soviets definitely played one of the largest single parts in the defeat of Germany, if not the largest role.

The majority of Axis casualties in the war took place in the East, and it was there that the most tangible signs of success are apparent. While the theaters that the Western Allies were fighting in were important and pulled away nontrivial amounts of men, the only theater I'd argue that really was as strategically important as the Eastern Front was the strategic bombing campaign on Germany.

On a similar note, the general feeling in Germany during the war seems to have been decidedly anti-Soviet much more than it was anti-Anglo or French. Nazi ideology was very vocally against "Judeo-Bolshevism," and, with most casualties happening in the East and the Soviets beating down their door later in the war, the sentiment among Germans in general was generally more favorable towards the Western Allies. Note that doesn't mean they loved Britain and America or anything, though - people weren't too happy about the strategic bombings, but they saw the Soviets as the "real" enemy.

>He attacked in summer but it took way fucking longer than he was expecting
Probably because he told Army Group Center turn back to go capture Kiev with Army Group South in July when they were less than 200 miles away from Moscow. They didn't start going toward Moscow again until August/September.
To be fair, some will support this by saying a few somewhat valid points like
>they captured over 100,000 soldiers in Kiev
>Ukraine was the breadbasket of the Soviets and the Germans would need those supplies

But I still think Moscow with its status as the seat of Soviet government and the fact that it was a major railway hub for the entire Soviet Union made it a lot more valuable than capturing grain fields.

>>but are the Soviets really the defining factor into why the Germans lost the war?
No. The Soviets on there own would not have been able to defeat Germany, same as either the US or Britain. The casualty figures that revisionists like to talk about do not take into account POWs. The US and Britain captured some 3 million German military personnel over the course of the war in addition to any casualties they inflicted on the German military.

Germany would have fell eventually due to it's leader being incompetent. Get back to fourteen year old.

>Romania, Bulgaria
Why is it lumping Axis nations in with Soviet casualties?

The general consensus is that
A) The Eastern Front was the largest and most important front of the war
B) The Soviet Union played the largest price for the Allies winning WW2
What people tend to disagree upon is how important Western aid was. Some argue that without Western aid the Soviets would have fallen. Others point out that the vast majority of Western aid started after the Soviets had won the decisive battles of the Eastern Front (Moscow and Stalingrad).

t. retard. Not even the guy you're responding to, but if you don't divert Heersgruppe Mitte south to deal with Kiev, the Soviets aren't going to launch the Roslavl–Novozybkov offensive, and you're actually going to face MORE resistance just in theater (nevermind what those guys around the south are going to do to mess you up) than they did historically.

Despite what you were taught by videogames, nations are not singular entities that stay on one team for the duration of a conflict.

Ok sorry lol

Just noticed Romania is listed under both. No need to be a condescending ass.

Romania and Bulgaria joined USSR in late '44.

Do you think that grain was the only contribution Ukraine made to the Soviet economy? What about large deposits of coal and iron, essential heavy industry like steel, and electricity from hydroelectric dams?

le epik meme XDDD!!!

there were battles other than Stalingrad, around 20% of German POWs died in Soviet captivity, around 60% of Soviet POWs died in German captivity

They were both dog shit anyway, Capitalist USA was king and could've taken the war any direction they wanted. They could've beaten the Germans had they beaten the Russians and the Russians had they shaped up after the Germans.

Fuck off, what you just mentioned has nothing to do with what I said, and Germany falling over eventually is something that would have happened long after the Soviets would have lost the war on their own.

>60% of Soviet POWs died in German captivity
Good desu.

>alt history post
>calls someone else a 14 year old

I heard that they didn’t count sickness as military deaths

>muh k/d

The actual combat k/d was less than 2 to 1 in favour of the germans
Half the soviet losses in your graph were pows that the germams starved to death thanks to the nazis being a bunch of subhuman barbarians with no respect for the laws of war

70% of soviet prisoners taken by the germans died of starvation or being worked to death, especially in 1941, compared to only 30% of germams taken prisoner by the soviets

The communist oligarchs instigated conflict and sent hordes of their peasants to their deaths. That's rich that you would call Germans subhumans.