do you agree with this photo?
if yes/no, then why?
not a bait in any sense, but i've heard that american education system teaches kids it was only usa that smoked nazi germany in ww2.
i'm not saying this because stalin was georgian, but soviet union definetely did the biggest part; neither china nor britain could even hold a candle to soviet army. usa wasn't the shit. hiroshima and nagasaki? bravo, bravo!!!
Burger education, was not taught this
damn
I learned all my world history from meme-tier Sup Forums infographs.
Japan should be a much larger dinosaur, so should the US.
more russians died in stalingrad than the combined casualties of the western, african and pacific front
The US Navy and the Eighth Air Force won WWII.
Navies win every war.
>american education mainly focused on what america did during ww2
whoa
Well first we have to understand that the myth of the russian numeral superiority is wrong.
The Soviets fielded like 30 Million men in WW2, Germany 20 Million + 5 Million Foreign Auxillery (Not counting other axis forces).
Otherwise i would say that its true that the Russians did the most fighting, but i doubt that they could have won without the western allies. The Soviet union recived extremly high ammounts of equipment while the german war industrial complex was bombed into ashes.
And yes, USA was the shit. The US Forces was the only ones that had their army not only equipped with semi automatic firearms but also fully motorized (For comparison, the Red army was like 20% Motorized and the Wehrmacht like 40%)
Not mentioning that they also had the biggest and most modern Navy
Why no China?
Japan fought with China and America
> american education
russians = best pawns
"World War Two" was basically "War on the Eastern Front and on the Chinese Front". From the 55 millions of military/civilian/POW casualties of the war, 30 happened on the Eastern Front and 22 on the Chinese Front. 52 out of 55 millions...
This is pretty accurate, although if the US hadn't joined the war, there's a non-trivial chance that Germany would've survived.
D-Day could not have happened without American forces. England could not have opened up the Western front on their own. Therefore if Germany was fighting a single front war with Russia, they would have had a much better chance of surviving.
America was absolutely critical to late-game strat
they didn't even have equipment ayy
Nope. Axis had much larger military force when they invaded Soviet Union in operation barbarossa.
>never dreamed a sail
Why am I not surprised?
>Not enough dead Soviets
>retarded OP believes the Soviets won the war
Burger here in Japan. Everybody knows the Soviets nearly got wiped out by the Axis forces. ~10,000,000 soldiers dead from war, not counting civilian deaths. The only thing that saved their asses was the Russian Winter that the Nazis couldn't handle. That, and the sheer number of Soviets being thrown at the Axis forces, there were just too many to kill. Just like rats in the NYC subway, kill 1,000 rats and another 10,000 show up.
The Soviet Union was absolute shit.
the had blood and lots of vodka in their blood
They should have genocided g*rms for that. But no they built DDR for them.
What's even funnier is that even though Russia did the most to stop Nazi Germany, all blame is given to the US for it while Russians are given a free pass and seen as based.
Yeah... something like 50 million casualties in WWII... 26 million russians.
>>high school student in early 2000's
>>exactly as op said in all textbooks
>>red-pilled Jewish teacher claims no proof of 6 million Jews in holocaust
>>goes on to teach the soviets took down Germany and US role was minimal in western front
>>instructs class to write the opposite of everything taught on ny regents exam
>>entire class scores above 90%
Without the U.S.'s financial support the Soviet army would have been a joke. However Stalin does deserve some credit for attempting to modernize his country and his focus on "Socialism in one state", if Trotsky or some other idiot had been in charge they probably would have surrendered to the axis in about a week and the russian 'army' would have been pre-WW1 tier.
This winter meme have to stop. If you are not capable of planning how to fight in winter, its not weather fault, its your mistake.
casuals dont even know Italy was bad, they assume they got curb stomped by the germans in 40'
We were taught the bottom for Europe. Of course we had a heavy focus on the Pacific theater which didn't include others.
commies propaganda is very heavy on Sup Forums...why do you hate freedom
>the red army didnt push across eastern europe clear up to berlin
>western leaders didnt do everything they could to convince stalin, who they were terrified of, from steamrolling the rest of europe as they knew they could never stop him directly
>the US nuked Japan because of the Japanese, and not because of precisely this situation
fucking burger education, folks
FAKE NEWS
US lost 416,000 soldiers
question here then: was germany smoked because usa helped russia or vice versa, thus russia helped usa?
The winter thing isn't even true, the axis didn't lost more men to winter than the Soviets.
The Wehrmacht lost 734,000 Men
The Red Army lost about 713.00 Men due to natural effects of the Winter
The tiny french chicken walking away from the fight in that pic gets me every time.
more accurate
I fucking love those threads. Inb4 stormfaggots
>haha fucking soviets unprepared for the war we wreck you easily
>w-wait i though were only allowed to bring equal amount of troops
>w-w-wait i though we only allowed to use equipment that we make ourselves
>w-w-wait it was just a prank bro
>please don't rape my daughter
wait is Stalin actually respected by Georgians today?
And again, the numbers of the Red Army wasn't that much higher despite what Media tells us
it was greece's fault
they managed to push back italy into albania, forcing germany to intervene in the balkans. they made quick work of it, but got stalled by one critical month in launching the soviet invasion, so they couldn't take moscow. they also lost their paratroopers for the remainder of the war because of italy's fuck up.
When did they push across Eastern Europe? After the allies pushed in from the east of Europe and southern Italy?
Yup.
Axis was too occupied getting their asses kicked by UK and US to care about the Red Army barreling through Poland and stumbling across the concentration camps.
>inb4 no holocaust meme
My mom is Finnish, and she was part of the state department in Finland. From a young age she taught me about the atrocities of the USSR committed on Finland and how the Soviets caused Finnish families to be split up over the course of the winter war. I went through private education and the fight of the Soviets was always taught, but there was particular focus on the war in Japan and D-Day. The thing is, I never really saw it as some war between the good guys and bad guys, because the US was allied with the Soviets, who wantonly attacked Finland, forcing Finland to ally with the axis.
Ok, here's the rundown on history classes in the US. It's generally centered on the US, with a few classes about the ancient world. We get taught about ww2, but it's mostly about US involvement, but we did learn about the eastern front, it's just that most kids don't give two fucks what happens to commies in a frozen hellscape.
Remember, we've only ramped down out anti commie propaganda for a decade or two. Most Americans still hate commies.
Put the commie raptors and the american rex on opposite sides of the Nazisaurus and it's fairly accurate. A war on two fronts is difficult to win.
In Beevor's books there is a quote that British officers thought they were going to fight fiercely to their last dying breath for freedom and democracy but in the end they realized that war against Germans was more of field exercise between old friends as everyone on the western front but SS was tired of the war already and wanted to let Americans and Brits take Berlin before the Soviets.
Soviets attacked Berlin alone with more troops than Germans begun Operaation Barbarossa with. Stalin was also very scared that western front would make a peace agreement and Brits and Americans would re-arm Germany to fight off Soviets from Europe.
Also Americans did not realize at all that he who controls Berlin, controls Europe. Stalin lied to Eisenhower that Soviets didn't care about Berlin at all and southern Germany was the most important last stand for Germans. Without Churchill talking sense to the Americans Soviets could have taken a bigger part of Germany and Europe would have been swept by communism during Cold War. Americans did not undetstand that Cold War was coming, Brits understood very well.
>france
every single time
Germany was smoked because US helped Russia, even though US did nothing in Europe and only showed up to the last minute, therefore all blame rests on the US for stopping Nazis and we should hate our WW2 veterans but none on Russia because they're based and they deserve to honor their veterans
Lmao aspies will debate everything but the truth.
Integers confirm- USSR relied on our jeeps and boots to win the war. It's the same reason why they had so many problems in the first world war and ended up losing, according to "A Soldier's Notebook:1914-1918" by Brusilov. The USSR literally couldn't compete without us. And yes, they took Manchuria, but without our island hopping Japan would've held it's most resource rich areas to the south. Not to mention the bombs-which we should've dropped on those ungrateful louts. Not to mention if the USSR wasn't full of actual 90 IQ brainlet running things they wouldn't have lost their entire initial army of 3 million in the first year.
Undernourished Eurocucks will never admit this.
>France
These figures are all underestimating. The Soviet Union lost 27 million, while Germany lost around 5.
America is the only country on this planet that matters.
Japan had a meme army, only their navy was somewhat decent and they didn't even had ennough oil to to use it propperly
France was the pivotal power in WW2 but american and english propaganda robbed us of our honor and Pétain of his name.
Yes, i know that, and they are still pushing this "omg its just winter guys!!! if not for winter you all die for sure!! :DD"
Isnt that embarassing for germans as well?
All those baboons literally think nazi army was not ready for winter. Yeah, most advanced war machine of those times could not prepare for winter...
this is how nationalism works
Ukrainians worship quite literal collaborationists and war criminals that massacred Poles (which Poles are very aware of and express concern), but what can you do about it
It's the technology of the time to. For instance, obviously Germans wore winter gear, but the materials and the layering techniques used by Soviets kept them many degrees warmer.
Probably not just direct deaths to weather but indirect deaths. Stuff like inhibited due to frost bite, difficulty to travel due to frozen/iced roads (mud and slush also) which made logistics difficult, weapon and vehicle malfunction sometimes oil froze up, poor quality of life which leads to poor moral and performance etc.
Not true; the bit about american education, that is. Kids in the U.S. are taught about our involvement in the war, but not that we were the only ones involved. The picture looks accurate to me.
Now, as to whether the soviet union did the biggest part; how do you define "biggest part"? If you measure that in the sheer amount fo corpses left on the battlefield, then yeah, the soviets definitely bled the most. However, the soviet union didn't have the infrastructure or equipment to fight properly; all they had were bodies, which they threw on the germans until they smothered them... Fine, the soviets played a part in holding their line in the East, but to imply that the soviets were somehow the most effective player on the allies is silly. The soviets could only throw the bodies of their men into the grinder to hold the line long enough for the western front to cause Germany to collapse, and that was WITH things like lendlease....
Moscow is just another town, we burned it before.
That number for the red army is way too low. I don't know about the German number. The soviets lost that much in the first year of the war(1941) due to sickness and conditions. Most of that was due to weather so far as I can tell. Not to mention the Germans did proportionally moderately better than the Soviets in cold weather.
In Hoth's book(yes, I always have to bring this gem up on every ww2 thread) "Panzer Operations" the Soviets were supplying the Germans on accident. The Germans would capture a town and the Soviets would run supplies to it for a day or two after- which meant the Soviets were giving the Germans informal clothing to supplement their normal uniform items-which was increasingly allowed as the war dragged on.
Note that Hoth was in the central front, not the northern front.
One thing the Nazis did not prepare for was the mud during the spring, which heavily bogged down their offensive, the mud's the real hidden meme
The soviet regime was basically suiciding their own people in the early stages. They were not prepared for an invasion so they sacrificed 80% (!) of their young male population in the death pits of the eastern front. The plan was just to hold on for the nearing winter and aid from americans.
The russian untermensch didn't protect his motherland, he protected a corrupt regime that killed half their population just to stay in power.
True.
Also roads here are mostly on paper.
Just because you send poorly equpied peasants to run at German machine guns and set up Russian machine guns behind them go deter retreat and a shit load of them die....well that doesn't exactly make you a superior force...
I was raised in Burgerland but in a state that funded education fully until Reagan's second term and stretched the years of previous full funding into a few more quality years of teaching. We know that the Soviets called it the Great Patriotic War, that they lost more men than any other nation (and most of those in defense before the Lend-Lease supplies had been used to establish production facilities and rolling stock). We also learned a lot about the lolocaust, the after-war deportations of Warsaw Pact and other people to gulag and the missing western prisoners that were held hostage for credits and debt forgiveness, which may have triggered the West deciding to end alliance and reconciliation in favor of a Cold War.
Signed Jozef Ismail Turka
You can't agree or disagree with something that's so childish and simplified. You should only reject it.
Who do you think supplied the Russians to mass produce tanks, planes and guns?
This is one of the reasons that claims the Soviets won WWII always pisses me off, they were near the point of breaking until the US and other allies gave them basically infinite supplies compared to the WWI technology they were still using before hand.
Stalingrad is practically 1000 miles into Soviet territory for fuck sake and was only possible because of allied supplies and because the US money train finally arrived.
The US was an industrial powerhouse by the end of the war. They won it by creating a pipeline of men, weapons, and machines across the atlantic to Britain and eventually to Europe. Best summary is the scene from band of brothers where a group of german soldiers are taken prisoner... well here it is:
youtube.com
Most people confuse what wins wars... Germany had the best tanks... Russia had more tanks... it's the factories that win wars. Factories and mines. And warm bodies to churn out things like bolts. It didn't matter that the German Panzer was the best tank on the battlefield.. how large a shell it could fire or how thick it's armour was, when the plants that produced the steel plating were bombed to smithereens.
Russian on the other hand essentially tried to plug the german meat grinder with human beings in order to stop it. Which wasn't successful. Had Hitler not gone insane and forced the german army to invade Russia during the winter, the german army would have killed every man, woman, and child in Russia. I'm sure everyone remembers the movie scene (Enemy at the Gates I think) where russian "soldiers" are forced to charge german positions in pairs: one gets a gun and the other gets a clip of ammo and no gun. The idea was to run behind the your partner with a gun and pick it up when he was slaughtered.
Russia had the most casualties during WWII, by far. But they most certainly didn't win it, by any measure.
>Soviets would run supplies to it for a day or two
But, why?
Seems about right, insofar as a meme can accuratly describe an historical episode.
>The Soviets fielded like 30 Million men in WW2, Germany 20 Million + 5 Million Foreign Auxillery
Total amount of soldiers fielded barely means anything, as this doesn't take into account where and when those soldiers were deployed. in '44 and '45 the Soviets did have a large numerical advantage on the eastern front.
>The Soviet union recived extremly high ammounts of equipment
Between 5 and 15% of Soviet supplies came from the west. That is hardly an extremly high amount.
American education system teaches kids that their white cis privilege is responsible for holocaust and rise of Hitler, so they should pay reparations and suck Jamal's cock.
Burger here, its not so much that I was taught that the US single handily defeated Nazi Germany, but my education was focused more on the US role in the war so it is kind of natural that some of us would draw the conclusion that it was basically our victory.
This are the reccorded numbers, wehrmacht had a better bureaucracy than the red army. So the russian numbers are maybe lower that they was
This. You don't win a war by dying, you win by killing.
>Confusing propaganda with fact
>retards think Soviet propaganda is somehow more factual
>even bigger retards think the French Resistance actually existed in any meaningful way
I'm not even going to attempt to condense the truth, but there are a few posts in this thread that aren't bad.
No you win a war by winning a war.
>if you kill your enemy, they win.
This
Russian winter wasn't just winter and muh cold air. It was snow, ice, sickness, frostbite, famine, frozen machinery, blocked paths, mud, etc, and all that comes with it.
Bir Hakeim literally saved the north african and levant front and Pétain delayed Hitler and prevented him froms eizing the French Navy。
Where do the numbers for the Russian deaths come from? If the commies said they lost 100 men, they probably lost 1000 in all actuality. Remember, all commies lie.
Don't forget China
>This
Whomever got the USA funding backing them was assured to win the war. The fags that say otherwise don't understand just how much wealth the USA had compared to the rest of the world at the time. Having nearly free market capitalism for almost 60 years created such a vast amount of wealth that the USA could have taken on the entire world by that point and probably won. The Soviets had hardy and brave warriors but they would have been steamrolled without USA backing. The only country that could have possibly held off Germany without the USA backing them was the British Empire.
Because of a break down in communication. The USSR used centralized nodes for government and military transmission of documents and records. When a town fell-they just didn't know about it until it was reported directly from the HQ's of corp commanders to the front commanders. The corp commanders wouldn't know about it for a day or two until couriers sent from one of the responsible divisions would report it by foot, horse, or auto. So they ran supplies thinking they still held the town until they knew better and simply didn't know better for extended periods.
That actually makes a lot of sense. I wouldn't doubt it if the Reds fudged their numbers as well.
USA did the majority of the Naval work (UK was close) in the Atlantic and the vast majority of the bombing.
USA bombers were far superior to any other nation. And US equipment in general was superior in almost every case.
Russia only won because of American supplies. They were literally kept supplied by US logistics. The only reason Russia was able to push was because the allies destroyed the German industrial machine and launched a western invasion. Russia is not based it only survived because of western actions, otherwise the Germans would have absolutely destroyed them. The only thing they have over is a body count but that's due to shitty training, leadership, and technology. You're not based for losing millions of men due to incompetence and basically being a proxy state for the west.
>US bombers were far superior
I know that and you know that, but can we at least give respect to bomber Harris?
Friendly reminder: Soviet bombers were the first over Berlin as soon as Germany invaded. They sucked so hard they got called off with no real effect in the war.
French military that were never captured and didn't submit to Vichy France aren't what I mean by French resistance. I am refering to the secret agent partisan meme.
>implying the Soviets weren't proud of their losses
>implying they didn't select entire towns with the express purpose of making them a combat loss
>implying they didn't execute their own people and claim it as combat loss
You could kill literally anyone, anywhere and claim the Gemans did it.
>China
>implying 10million weren't teamkills
The Russian medium bombers was in fact great and reliable, (and thus often captured)
The reason the Russian Airforce failed with bombings so often was more their unexperienced pilots than the equipment
Lend-Lease was 7% of Soviet War production, and most of it arrived in 1943 and 1944. Moscow and Stalingrad were won before that.
>otherwise the Germans would have absolutely destroyed them
Then how come Germans didn't destroy them in 1941, when not a scrap of American aid arrived?
Soviet counter-offensive almost wrecked Germans after Moscow.
Combat deaths were 30% higher for Soviets. So that's 1.3 Soviet soldiers for 1 Axis soldier killed in combat.
Soviet casualties include civilians and POWs.
That's because Pétain was preparing an uprising from within, hence why Hitler invaded vichy France and removed Pétain from power.
Pétain did nothing wrong.
Zerg rush memeology and 1:100 ratio is a Cold War campaign of demeaning the adversary. It wasn't even 1:2.
Dudes like this have time to write a comic book scenario, but not check Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The UK/US bombing campaign alone put more than 2 million men into the defense of western Europe. By 1943, 40% of total munition production (sans small arms) went to air defense guns. In 44 it ballooned to 70%. It's no stretch to say that allied lend lease made the Red Army motorized after providing more than 200,000 Studebakers alone - by 1944 they were so numerous that the Soviet Union began to find uses for them other than logistics, most famously many served as Katyusha platforms. So much Spam alone was shipped to the USSR that the entirety of the Red Army could have eaten more than a pound for Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner for an entire year. Meanwhile, the USSR stubbornly refused to help with the eastern front until Germany was defeated despite having an overwhelming men and material advantage in the Far East district. To proclaim that the USSR could have done everything alone is revisionist history at its finest. Not even Stalin ever dared to claim so much.
jrbooksonline.com
But lets be honest, the Soviets deserved every casualty they got for their hand in starting WWII.
>frogs
>winning wars
Kek
>if yes/no, then why?
No because its a vast over simplification of the war. For example the Royal (and later American) Navies were able to completely control the seas preventing Germany, Italy, or Vichy France from projecting any of their naval power. Additionally the fact that the US and Britain could and did launch naval invasions of Europe drew forces away from the Eastern Front, most notably during the battle of Kursk and in the prelude to operation Bagration. Beyond that the US gave the Soviets significant aid via the lend lease and the western allies did most of the work in defeating Japan and all the work in defeating Italy whose forces weren't insignificant.
>east of utopia
Meant Western Europe, but you get my point
I don't disagree, you're right. I don't want Russians to get a big head about their planes though.
>But lets be honest, the Soviets deserved every casualty they got for their hand in starting WWII.
THANK YOU
It kinda goes both ways for both countries. In terms of history, both the US and the soviets smoked germany, however, the US did more so against japan and germany in africa during the war. For about the first year of fighting, Germany did pretty well against USSR, to the point where they were only 20km from moscow. However, when they were mass mobilized, they started to beat the fuck out of germanty thanks to their superior numbers in 1943 onwards. When It comes to an education aspect, my mom lived in one of the communist satellite states during the cold war, and its pretty much all propaganda, and says the the soviets alone without any help. and smashed them from the time the war began (Which isn't true, the western front in 1944 helped alot, and the lend lease efforts helped during their mass mobilization). For american education, at least in my school, pretty it talk als oabout the huge gain for the soviets, but is what I said earlier, that both the allies and the soviets smoked germany.
We won more wars than years your country has existed and Pétain put France in a position that we couldn't lose WW2.