” our country’s Victory in the Great Patriotic War.”

What was your victory? You were slaves before the war and you were slaves after it. You should have joined the Germans. You still would’ve been slaves, but they would have treated you far better.

The myth of glorious Stalin isn’t going to die until the larger myth of WW2 being some crusade against evil dies.

In other words, I shouldn’t have fed the troll for so long. I agree, so I’ll just ignore him from now on.

‘Soviets murdered millions of Poles’

I didn’t write that, though maybe it was possible to attribute that meaning to what I wrote. I meant that the Germans murdered millions of Poles, as is obvious to anyone familiar with the issue. The Soviets themselves murdered a lot of Poles, though maybe only in the tens of thousands, and not in the millions.

Anyway, you are impervious to reason. If any other commenter wishes to get an answer to any part of this comment #927 (or any other comment by Anon #411), then please let me know. Otherwise I’ll just ignore anything else he wrote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_aces_from_Germany
German day and night fighter pilots claimed roughly 70,000 aerial victories during World War II, 25,000 over British or American and 45,000 over Russian flown aircraft.

Roughly 12,000 German day fighter pilots were killed or are still missing in action with a further 6,000 being wounded.

but the RAF broke the Luftwaffe in 1940

The Luftwaffe was broken by the 8th air force in 1944. Even if the Battle of Britain was a serious setback with significant losses, the Luftwaffe was still capable of offensive operations early on in Barbarossa (one just has to remember the many Soviet planes destroyed on the ground by Luftwaffe attacks) and then later of fighting a war of defense against the allied bomber offensive that caused very significant losses to the allies until the last months of the war.

The Red Army never fought alone. That was the British Empire . Not only the British Army but the RAF broke the Luftwaffe in 1940 and the navy blockaded Germany, other than the rubber, oil, grain and steel supplied by the USSR.

The best Main Battle Tank of the war in terms of operation in the field rather than specs was the British Comet but it saw only months of service. It became the base for the Centurion, a huge export best seller for decades. The Matilda at the beginning of the war was better than the German tanks (more lethal) but was badly deployed-infantey support- and numbers were small.

I wonder if you have any reflections on what one should do when meeting extreme trolls like the entity #411. He feeds off you and keeps escalating. He is unconstrained by logic and reality. My first position is to ignore. Polite discussion based on facts will not mitigate him. One could try escalation and hitting where it might really hurt him (Russians and Soviets have some very soft spots) but then you lower yourself to his level. Besides you would not want to do it on the blog run by a Russian blogger with many Russian commentators who seem to be decent people.

We believe there is no ‘dead union’ or ‘bad legacy’ of Imperial Russia or USSR, only a glorious history and culture that any other nation may only dream of.

I hold generally positive feelings about the Tsarist era but to deny that nothing negative ever happened in Russia’s past doesn’t seem all that healthy, when it means that those who mistreated the Russian people (as well as other peoples) are allowed to escape their culpability.

Acknowledging the past doesn’t have to be something perverted by liberasts and fifth-columnists.

with the bad parts of the Soviet

It started from claims that USSR killed millions of Poles in ww2. In reality, USSR build 0,44 mln strong Polish army. We believe there is no ‘dead union’ or ‘bad legacy’ of Imperial Russia or USSR, only a glorious history and culture that any other nation may only dream of.

That means at least 3 million deaths were Poles.

3 mln is a number of ethnic Germans expelled from Poland in 1945-1950. Having a nation acting so despicably during the war, Polish officials and nationalists try to exaggerate their losses today, buidling their victimhood myth.

You need to let go of the memory of the USSR. I can understand your emotional attachment to the Soviet Union – I myself have many family members who sympathised with Communism and had connections to former Eastern Bloc countries so I understand the feeling of loyalty towards the dead union.

But, at this point Russia cannot move forward without coming to an honest conclusion to overcoming the past.

That does not mean that the Soviet Union’s flaws should be exaggerated and its achievements erased from history. Rather Russians must come to terms with the bad parts of the Soviet and Imperial legacy and celebrate the good parts.

But that cannot happen without letting go of this emotional rendering of the past.

The population gap in pre- and postwar Poland is about 6 mln – that is so close for Jewish victims that were at least left to die by Poles.

The Jewish population of Poland was roughly 3 million. That means at least 3 million deaths were Poles.

Not sacrificing yourself to save others is far from being an “accomplice.”

It starts at least with cowardice and looks despicable without any other facts, just for being a Hitler’s b*tch. Yet you keep omitting the fact that deathcamps in Poland were not surrounded by vacuum, ostracized, or any rebellion or at least one local strike took place. Polish deathcams were fully supplyed locally with anything from firewood to burn millions of Jewish victims to Polish flesh for entertaining their custodians.

Soviets didn’t save anyone before 1941

The Soviets saved many Jews in Western Ukraine and Belarus, liberating them from Polish occupation. If Germans occupied that lands in 1939, absolutely all Jews woud go to deathcamps. USSR gave them chance to evacuate, and many managed to flee to the East. Moreover, many were provided with means of evacuation, e.g. children.

accusing Poles of being accomplices in the crimes which the Germans did while also murdering Poles by the millions.

Besides Polish incantations of victimhood and betrayal, you have no statistics of how ‘Soviets murdered millions of Poles’ – that’s deliberate lie. The population gap in pre- and postwar Poland is about 6 mln – that is so close for Jewish victims that were at least left to die by Poles. Many modern Poles live in houses built and owned by Jews, occupying them right after the previous family were taken away by Gestapo. Someone had to report them, qui bono.

Probably the H-man’s antagonists would have figured out quite quickly how to make nerve gas.

But how much worse would it be to get your cities gassed if they were also getting nuked anyway?

I think getting the nuke above German cities might still have been a considerable difficulty in case they had won Barbarossa. And the Germans would’ve had a lot of resources to devote to nuclear development themselves. They’d also have worked overtime to just move their industries and populations (especially the children) inland, far away from the nukes. Nukes are not very effective against dispersed troops, so they could still control the territory.

So I’m actually unconvinced if the US could’ve won the war solely by using nukes.

Not sacrificing yourself to save others is far from being an “accomplice.” Soviets didn’t save anyone before 1941, when the Germans already started cramping Jews into ghettos, instead they kept supplying them with raw materials necessary for the war.

Hosting a 6-mln death industry

That’s what I call chutzpah. The USSR assisted Germany when it attacked Poland, then stabbed Poland in the back by attacking it after its armed forces had been destroyed by the Germans, killing tens of thousands and deporting hundreds of thousands, supplying Germany with raw materials for another two years, and now Sovoks are accusing Poles of being accomplices in the crimes which the Germans did while also murdering Poles by the millions.

Probably the H-man’s antagonists would have figured out quite quickly how to make nerve gas.

That said nerve gas perhaps could’ve been used as a war winner during Operation Barbarossa.

In which case you and I would presumably have different things to complain about.

Józef Tusk spent time in a German concentration camp as a “dangerous, fanatical Polish nationalist,” but was released later during the war. In 1944, as Germany was getting desperate, he was conscripted to the Wehrmacht, because he was Kahsubian, and they were considered “Polonized Germans” by the Nazis. After a few months, he surrendered to the Western Allies. It’s unclear if he joined the Polish Armed Forces in the West, or if he was just put into a POW camp. The circumstances of his capture are also unclear, whether it was desertion, just a lack of resolve (at that time the Allies captured very few Germans, so statistically speaking, it was quite an unlikely event), or bad (good?) luck.

So, he wasn’t a collaborator, he wasn’t a volunteer, he wasn’t exactly Polish, but you got at least one fact correct here (that he did serve in the Wehrmacht), even if his service was probably a net negative for the Germans, and if refusal to serve would’ve been considered desertion and so punishment both for himself and especially for his family.

No. Hitler didn’t want to use chemical weapons because he found them abhorrent and feared retaliation in kind. He didn’t fear camp inmates retaliating in kind.

He didn’t know that neither the Soviets nor the Anglos could retaliate in kind. (I.e. they didn’t have nerve gases like tabun or sarin.)

Countries usually don’t have friends. Except the US has Israel.

Russia has no friends. Never did, never will. Look at them: Freedom loving people all. the British, the French, the Germans, the Americans. Whose friends are they?

And the Germans under the Nazis were more civilized than anyone else.

“Liberal Opinion” in the West, was manufactured by unseen people in back rooms. That is what the Balfour agreement was all about. There is a book by Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays, entitled “Propaganda.” You may find it enlightening. Your opinion today, is also manufactured for you by someone else. Very few people are in control of their own minds. Someone else is. Especially in a “Democracy.”

You say “It’s also well known that Hitler was unaware of German chemical superiority, which made him opposed to the usage of chemical weapons (except in mass murder).” Is this what they call “Doublethink?”

Basic point about Tunisia is that the Axis inflicted a completely unnecessary own goal on themselves by sacrificing all of Army Group Africa for no gain at all. Hence the term “Tunisgrad”.

The sacrifice of the 6th Army prevented Army Group A from being pocketed and destroyed.

As for specific casualty figures and force levels, when in doubt defer to Glantz.

On top of that, reading it like ‘in Tunisia campaign only the Germans lost…’ can not be a display of simple campaign loss in a series of campaigns. Tunisia was the end of entire Nazi African adventure, where all remaining German and Italian forces surrendered. It is like saying ‘in Berlin campaign only the Germans lost…’

The entire German AfrikaKorps was… only 140-thousand strong, being just minuscle relative to Eastern Front with million-strong opposing army groups and fronts.

“The Germans lost about as much men and materiel in Tunisia as they did at Stalingrad.”

I think that statement is simply not true. If I recall from reading Anthony Beevor, the Germans lost 20 complete divisions in the Stalingrad pocket. In addition there were Romanian divisions lost also. Also consider German and allied losses from the failed rescue attempt in Stalingrad. And the losses to the Italian 8thArmy along the Don river, and the losses of the Hungarian 2nd Army.

Agree.

Most people in West who analyze Soviet war effort (including Stalin contribution to it) have, say, difficulties, in understanding the theater.
From the land itself, through people inhabiting that land up to that tool. The Tool.

The starting point wasn’t even which tank was better. It was that Sherman was seen as better for that theater by Soviet crews.
Weird guys those Russkies, then.

Hehe…I often have a feel that not many guys here would be good G-2s regardless of accumulated, bookish, knowledge. Often just because of that.

What’s the expression: he has all the facts and is still clueless.

And, of course, always that undercurrent of disdain and disrespect.

The Eastern Front, land war, was a vale tudo heavyweight championship; Western, amateur boxing middleweight, for a challenger.
Or, Western, rapier duel; Eastern Medieval melee combat.

Soviet people fighting there weren’t fighting against the same enemy as American people. The aim of war was different. Quite different.
The Soviet crews weren’t as American crews…haha…did I just say that? Imagine a path of a Soviet man from civilian life to a (tank) battle against Germans and then his counterpart in US Army. Funny.
Etc.

That’s why I mention “put yourself into Soviet Colonel’s place”.

Doesn’t work, most of the time, in Western forums.
Well, to be honest, doesn’t work the other way in Eastern forums either when you think about it.

For Operation Bagration the superiority was 4:1 initially, falling to 2.5:1 as the battle matured.

These estimates as well as others you present vary significantly even in Russian and English wikipedias. The German wiki estimates for Bagration are 0,85 vs. 1,4 mln.
For Barbarossa, Germans + Allies deployed had exactly no less than 2-fold superiority.

that Italians, Rumanians, and Hungarians were worse than Soviet formations.

As well as Wehrmacht after 1941 since all cadre, elite troops were almost annihilated like in ww1 during Barbarossa. German manpower was exhausted in 1944. So did Red Army deployed vs. Germans, and both sides gained experience during the war. Both sides could also maneuvre with their elite formations and place them against major goals. Germans also replaced their troops with other ethnic waffen SS.

it suffered more casualties than it inflicted.

Comparative estimates of casualities are the sacred cow of any side in the war.

Well, in contrast to Latvia, Estonia, and Ukraine, there were no Polish Waffen SS divisions. Then again, there were volunteers serving in Hitler’s army. Donald Tusk’s grandfather was one of those: he tried to deny it and finally gave up.

Maybe.

I wouldn’t want to tangle with either of those tigers.

That is my position on the matter, but it is not certain.

For some reason Russians consider this an insult.

The Red Army had 2:1 superiority for Operation Blue and more than two to one for Operation Citadel. For Operation Bagration the superiority was 4:1 initially, falling to 2.5:1 as the battle matured.

The Germans did not have 2:1 superiority for Barbarossa (perhaps at the local points of attack), actual figures were 3.3m to 2.7m.

Whether or not Little Russian and White Russian conscripts were worse than Great Russians I do not know. But I do know that Italians, Rumanians, and Hungarians were worse than Soviet formations.

The Red Army outperformed the Germans in that it won, but just as with every other army the Germans engaged from 1914-1945 it suffered more casualties than it inflicted.

Historian Christer Bergstrom claims the Axis had a large numerical superiority at the start of Barbarossa and maintained this superiority throughout 1941.

https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/operation-barbarossa-9-popular-myths-busted/

Man. I certainly didn’t expect you (whom, for other commenters, I do not know at all–I just read his blog) to comment.

Thank you.

ex-USSR renegades

lol

Journal of Slavic Military Studies article

The article was of 1994 (3 years after dissolution of USSR). Before Perestroyka (1985-1990) the lend-lease importance was officially underestimated, after Perestroyka – largely overestimated, all due to politics. Anti-Sovietists tried to diminish the performance of Soviet system in the same way as ex-USSR renegades in this thread always try to find drawbacks in Soviet past. They do it for the sake of their broken identity, like remnants of any extinct Empire. Yet in ‘Slavic studies’ such articles and professors may be just funded by Western NCOs.
I recommend you watching Red Square V-day parades of 1985, 1990 and 1995 to feel the wind of changes.

I had a question for you in #446 in the #45 Open Thread. Can you look at it and reply?

Regarding Lend Lease and its importance to the Soviet war effort read the Journal of Slavic Military Studies article: ‘The role of lend-lease in Soviet military efforts, 1941-1945’ by Boris V. Sokolov.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13518049408430160

901! Onwards to 1,000!

I recommend you to watch ’4 tankists and a dog’ Polish TV classic series – Soviets could take a Pole, a Georgian or Kazakh with only basic literacy, and make them elite tank crew.

I loved it as a child at age 7, but by age 10 I was no longer convinced it was a documentary.

Russian Pilots who flew the Bell Airacobra

The US planes were paid with gold and blood, so they were provided for best pilots, as tokens of recognition too, and for testing also.

Why wealthy Americans prefer BMW and Mercedes? Imported means luxury in some aspect.

Soviet/Russian designs had worse supply and logistics in mind

If you take theater of war many times more vast, less inhabited and with less road infrastructure, that supply and logistics will do. When tank designs became obsolete quickly and each tank was intended to have short battle life, T34 was just perfect. Soviet tanks took cities, traversed swamps and forests in Europe and crossed the mountains in China. Many Soviet weapons were assembled by women and teenagers in ad-hoc factories in the middle of nowhere. I recommend you to watch ‘4 tankists and a dog’ Polish TV classic series – Soviets could take a Pole, a Georgian or Kazakh with only basic literacy, and make them elite tank crew. No sophisticated designs, Zeiss optics and Maybach engines, or centuries-long family craftsmanship with engineer diplomas when manufacturing, or learned SS pure Aryans manning the tank. That’s how WW2 was won.

(which other than the P-39 Airacobra they generally didn’t like

They must have liked it.

Russian Pilots who flew the Bell Airacobra

Pilot — Total Victories — P-39 [lend-lease airacobra] Victories — % victories in P-39

Aleksandr I. Pokryshkin — 59 — 48 — 81%
Nikolay Gulaev — 57 — 41 — 72%
Grigori A. Rechkalov — 56 — 50 — 89%
Dimitriy B. Glinka — 50 — 41 — 82%
Aleksey Smirnov — 34 — 30 — 88%
Ivan I. Babak — 33 — 32 — 97%
Mikhail S. Komelkov — 32 — 32 — 100%
A. Klubov — 31 — 27 — 87%
Boris B. Glinka — 31 — 31 — 100%

admittedly most of the Soviet tanks and aircraft in 1941 were obsolete

A huge portion of German tanks were also obsolete, only PzKpfw III and IV were considered modern.

As an aside point, it’s interesting that a lot of Soviet fanboys (not only here, I noticed it elsewhere, for example on Hungarian language forums, too) are making an emotional issue out of the T-34 being good or bad.

First, as you also mentioned, the T-34M/T-44 design was already almost ready for mass production in 1941 when war broke out, and they had to put it on hold, because they couldn’t afford the several months (possibly half a year or more) delay that would’ve come with introducing the new design. This means that saying that the T-34 wasn’t that good doesn’t mean that Soviet/Russian designers were shit, it just means that it wasn’t a very good design (not nearly as good as the hype would tell you).

Second, if it really had been so good, than that only makes Soviet/Russian soldiers look worse. I mean, if it was the undisputedly best tank of the war, and already 1,000 was available (at a time when the German had maybe 3-4,000 battle tanks, including PzKpfw 38(t) and PzKpfw II and even some pieces of the PzKpfw I. So by saying that the T-34 wasn’t that good, all we’re saying is that the Soviet/Russian soldiers weren’t that bad. Logical, isn’t it?

Third, a lot of the T-34 were produced, which speaks highly of Soviet/Russian industrial management and organization skills, something not normally associated with the USSR or Russia. It has jack shit to do with worth of the T-34 as a design. So saying that “they only won because they had more tanks” is like saying “they only won because they managed to get their shit together and organize a successful crack war production effort in the Ural under extremely difficult circumstances.” Is it a bad thing? I don’t think so.

So, I don’t think one needs to emotionally invest in it that much. Reality is what it is.

PeterAUS, you are a smart commenter, but you are making an error of judgment here.

Yes, generally speaking, Soviet/Russian designs had worse supply and logistics in mind than American/Western designs.

However, general rules aren’t always true. The T-64 was for example less reliable and way more expensive than other Soviet designs. The T-80 (basically an improved gas-turbine powered version of the T-64) was also less reliable and difficult to supply. While the T-72 and T-90 are cheaper and easier to supply.

The T-34 wasn’t much cheaper to produce than the Sherman, for example its aluminum engine was highly sophisticated, but not very simple to produce, nor very robust.

Being a Millennial

by 1943 there was an effective second front in Europe as a result of the Allied combined bombing offensive.

Massive bombings started in August 1943, after Kursk – when German defeat on Eastern front was assured already by Red Army alone.

As an example over a million Germans had to man flak cannons

Even more Russians had to man the flak, VNOS points, civil defense, firefighting brigades etc. in remaining European USSR since 1941 – they could not direct this manpower to industry or outsource to collaborators and occupied other countries like Nazi did. USSR had Siberia to relocate major industries destroyed or occupied in European part of USSR. Nazi Siberian-like (yet not ad hoc, but elaborate and long-existing) safeplaces were France, Czechia, Denmark etc. where millions produced war materiel until 1944 – when Red Army fought alone.

as much men and materiel in Tunisia as they did at Stalingrad.

Combined German-Italian forces in Tunisia were only about 350000. From Wikipedia, Axis losses in Stalingrad were between 647,300–768,374 with only German over 300000.

True, except for National Socialist Germany and Democratic Kampuchea.

And US has contributed more to fighting terrorism than Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan combined, but all that would have been virtually impossible without you casting your vote and making a vital contribution to the process of democracy. Keep up the good work.

Poland is perhaps the only country where no real collaboration ever existed on a significant scale

Repeating again? In a 30-mln Poland, there were located the major Nazi deathcamps, none of them being liberated by local ‘Resistance’ or ‘partisans’ or any permanent escape mechanism elaborated by locals. Who supplied deathcamps with firewood and coal, food and other supplies? Hosting a 6-mln death industry is a serious business.As well as providing Nazi with war material and maintaining the long communications network on Eastern Front.

The Soviet Union itself probably contributed more to human rights than any country ever

True, except for National Socialist Germany and Democratic Kampuchea.

Actually it seems a random/unlucky attack by drunk police (with the police probably not knowing he was a famous musician).

willing collaborators from Poland

Do you seriously believe it? Poland is perhaps the only country where no real collaboration ever existed on a significant scale. The Blue Police occasionally participated in the roundup of Jews, but even that was rare.

Gerard is mentioning about a history of persecution of black musicians in America.

This is an interesting topic. I can remember (from memory) one or two examples of this. In these ones, it may seem more from a context of causal actions, than related to a higher government decision.

For example, Miles Davis was attacked by police in 1959 (the same time Kind of Blue is recorded), but this seems in a random way.

1959
August 25
The great jazz trumpeter Miles Davis was beaten by New York City police officers and arrested on this day. Davis was finishing a two-week stint at the famous Birdland Jazz Club. While taking a break, Davis escorted a young white woman outside where they could smoke. A white police officer ordered him to “move on.” Davis replied, “For what?” The officer decided to arrest him, a physical struggle ensued, and three detectives joined in and began beating Davis.

–

Noting the date – the beating happened one week exactly after Miles Davis has released “Kind of Blue” (the most famous jazz record).

As someone else put it:

The basic reasoning behind the T34 being so much better than the Sherman is that on paper, with the basics that most consider, it clearly is.

It has more firepower, better armour, was produced in greater numbers and has a better range and speed. So most people with little in depth interest in the period or sense automatically believe it was the greatest tank of the war. After all, it continually outmatches the Sherman and even the Panzer IV in these fields.

Of course, when you then go into details and discover that actually, the T34 had no radio, no dedicated gunner and poor optics, it gets a bit different, but most people taking a passing glance at history don’t consider these.

Of course a lot of the disparity in casualties comes from the fact that on the Eastern front, fighting was a lot harder. I’d imagine (although I can’t say for certain) that Soviet aircraft would also show a comparatively higher loss rate. You also need to consider, that although it may not be a big factor, at least some of those losses likely come from the start of Operation Barbarossa, when the Red Army had its head up its ass for the most part. Therefore it’s not really a reflection on the quality of the vehicle.

From the Sherman’s side, there’s also a common conception of it as just being the basic model, the one with the 75mm gun and little armour. There were far better, albeit rarer versions which were far better tanks, such as the Firefly’s, who had a 17pdr gun

Fighting the German Army is serious business, as Konstantin Rokossovsky said.

I would say that fighting the Russian army is even more serious business, since the Germans lost, and I bet the Red army did manage to enjoy few laughs in Berlin (among other things – those who know my history of postings here, know what I am talking about).

So if it was strictly Germany vs. USSR, no Brits, no Italians and Romanians, no American suppliers, Germany devotes 100% of its military to the war – likely Germany wins.

A country that hadn’ t lost million in WW2 was banning , arresting, blacklisting, blackmailing pretty much all the great negro jazz musicians

LOL, Sovok makes the classic Soviet “but you lynch Negros” argument:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes

Persecution of blacks in America is not linked to persecution of Bulgakov in Russia.

But I guess because for Soviets living materially the same as poor blacks in housing projects is normal and acceptable, they probably think the treating Bulgakov like a black jazz musician in 1930s America is also normal and acceptable. He was actually treated worse, because his works were banned for a time. Black jazz musicians were only banned from certain clubs.

Bulgakov was a great Soviet writer

Just because you are a Sharikov does not mean that everyone else stuck in the Sovok nightmare was one too.

Steinbeck wrote critically of the exploitative forms of capitalist America..that disqualifies him from being classified as a great 20th century American writer

It might disqualify him from being an American capitalist writer.

Bulgakov was a Russian writer, not a Soviet one. Sovoks want everyone to be a Sovok. Sorry, Sharikov, Bulgakov was not one of yours. He despised your kind, and rightly so.

Thanks Cyrano!

The Germans lost about as much men and materiel in Tunisia as they did at Stalingrad.

Albert Speer stated that by 1943 there was an effective second front in Europe as a result of the Allied combined bombing offensive. As an example over a million Germans had to man flak cannons in the Reich.

In 1944 half the motorized and armored units of the German Army were stationed in France to counter Operation Overlord.

Then there’s the fact that the British and especially the Americans supplied the USSR not only with weapons but also industrial products. Half the rolled steel and nearly all of the high octane aviation fuel used by the USSR during the war came from America for instance, as did almost every single locomotive.

I realize Westerners (especially Americans) tend to discount the Eastern Front, but Russians have the opposite problem.

The Italians and Romanians on the Eastern Front are mainly noteworthy for getting wiped out at Stalingrad. You’re better off citing the Finns, who were truly formidable soldiers and pilots.

And yes, the Soviet comeback was impressive. German officers generally highly praise the Soviet performance in their memoirs.

Well written, not disputing any of that pal. But I think Russians do take an interest in the North African campaign, know the British navy were intensely involved from 1939 onwards, respect the role of the British intelligence services in deciphering German messages, sabotage and of course locating and discovering the V-2 rocket launch sites and facilities…but tend to occasionally underestimate the scale and difficulties of the allies retaking Italy and France in different offensives, because they focus more on the timings, which they regard as being done to stop the Red Army retake Europe and not necessarily because of anti-Nazi impulses.

The USSR suffered more casualties during Operation Barbarossa than the size of the entire German Army.

As we said, not only Germans invaded USSR (having twofold superiority together), and in major Red Army offensives of 1944-1945 the millons-sized German forces obliterated or taken POW were no less substantial than in German offensive of 1941 with Red Army never having twofold superiority in manpower in any operation (e.g. Ten Stalin’s Blows). Such is the dynamics of war. Considering losses, German professional army was obliterated in summer of 1941 by defending Red Army. Germans lost their capacity to win the war even before Moscow offensive.

Germany’s allies on the Eastern Front other than Finland weren’t worth much either

That’s another propaganda cliche. Red Army fans may say as well conscripts from Ukrainian and Belorussian republics in 1941 were less worthy, since their homes were near, so they could easily desert or surrender explaining higher casualties around Minsk and Kiev. There were many local and dubious reasons for events of every year 1941-1945, yet finaly Red Army outperformed Germans, and USSR won the war against the rest of continental Europe largely on its own.

You make me proud to be a co-poster on this tread. I think that when it comes to dishing “compliments” to that Ukro-retard, you are one of the few people who has managed to beat me in that category

errrmmmm……British and American forces didn’t step foot in the USSR you laughably retarded lowlife….Italians and Romanians did…with huge armies……much larger than the armies of Italy and Germany encountered by the British in the North African desert…..you insidious retarded attentionwhore POS . Sheesh you are dumb as well as being a nutjob loser

The Germans lost about as much men and materiel in Tunisia as they did at Stalingrad.

Albert Speer stated that by 1943 there was an effective second front in Europe as a result of the Allied combined bombing offensive. As an example over a million Germans had to man flak cannons in the Reich.

In 1944 half the motorized and armored units of the German Army were stationed in France to counter Operation Overlord.

Then there’s the fact that the British and especially the Americans supplied the USSR not only with weapons but also industrial products. Half the rolled steel and nearly all of the high octane aviation fuel used by the USSR during the war came from America for instance, as did almost every single locomotive.

I realize Westerners (especially Americans) tend to discount the Eastern Front, but Russians have the opposite problem.

The Italians and Romanians on the Eastern Front are mainly noteworthy for getting wiped out at Stalingrad. You’re better off citing the Finns, who were truly formidable soldiers and pilots.

And yes, the Soviet comeback was impressive. German officers generally highly praise the Soviet performance in their memoirs.

The USSR suffered more casualties during Operation Barbarossa than the size of the entire German Army. Wrap your head around that for a second.

The Axis had superiority in manpower during the opening phase of Operation Barbarossa, something which was not to occur again for the rest of the war. And they were outnumbered in tanks and aircraft, though admittedly most of the Soviet tanks and aircraft in 1941 were obsolete.

In 1942 the Germans launched Operation Blue with numerical inferiority.

Germany’s allies on the Eastern Front other than Finland weren’t worth much either–generally all inferior to Soviet units. Some of the foreign Waffen SS units were excellent however, such as the 5th SS Panzer Division Wiking.

I don’t mean to disparage the USSR or Russians in saying this either. Fighting the German Army is serious business, as Konstantin Rokossovsky said.

You deliberately misplace the facts and numbers. Nazi Germany had allies that invaded USSR, and together their forces outnumbered Red Army (about twice). Population of Nazi Germany + only allied Austria-Italy-Romania-Hungary-Finland was about 80% of USSR population

If you are going to add those countries than add the population of the allied British Empire and later the USA.

And with willing collaborators from Poland to Spain – 200% of USSR population.

Germany had to use resources to occupy those countries. This makes Sovok poor performance even worse.

Please grow up from your petty Russophobia

Russophobia is to equate the disgusting Sovok monstrosity with beautiful Russia. That is what you do.

So yes, as a Soviet C.O., I would prefer the Sherman. Assuming good supplies of spare parts, shells, and fuel were available.

O.K.

So a country with only 40% of USSR’s population was busy occupying much of Europe

You deliberately misplace the facts and numbers. Nazi Germany had allies that invaded USSR, and together their forces outnumbered Red Army (about twice). Population of Nazi Germany + only allied Austria-Italy-Romania-Hungary-Finland was about 80% of USSR population. And with willing collaborators from Poland to Spain – 200% of USSR population. GDP of Germany + Allies + Collaborators was at least 3 times larger than of USSR.

Please grow up from your petty Russophobia. Either you or your ancestors chose to leave our land. Enjoy and keep what you have. You have no need to blame us and find any reason why you stay there.

This is a myth.

The T-34 was in fact a highly unreliable tank. During the Great Patriotic War the average T-34 not destroyed in combat suffered mechanical failure after just 200km. Red Army leadership considered this acceptable because the average T-34 only lasted 66km before getting destroyed by the Germans.

The air filter was of such a bad design (allowed in far too much particulate matter into the engine, resulting in engine destruction) that American evaluators at Aberdeen considered it to be a work of sabotage.

Stalin, per usual, assumed that mechanical breakdown was in fact stealthy desertion and issued this order in 1942:

Our armored forces and their units frequently suffer greater losses through mechanical breakdowns than they do in battle. For example, at Stalingrad Front in six days twelve of our tank brigades lost 326 out of their 400 tanks. Of those about 260 owed to mechanical problems. Many of the tanks were abandoned on the battlefield. Similar instances can be observed on other fronts. Since such a high incidence of mechanical defects is implausible, the Supreme Headquarters sees in it covert sabotage and wrecking by certain elements in the tank crews who try to exploit small mechanical troubles to avoid battle.’

Henceforth, every tank leaving the battlefield for alleged mechanical reasons was to be gone over by technicians, and if sabotage was suspected, the crews were to be put into tank punishment companies or “degraded to the infantry” and put into infantry punishment companies.

Mechanical unreliability nearly cost the Soviets the Battle of Kursk. The 5th Guards Tank Army lost nearly a third of its tanks to mechanical breakdown on its road march to Prokhorovka.

So yes, as a Soviet C.O., I would prefer the Sherman. Assuming good supplies of spare parts, shells, and fuel were available.

That German tanks (and weapons in general) were “high tech” and unreliable is another myth. Over 60% of Panthers at the front were operational for its entire service life, and this includes late war deterioration owing to the collapse of Germany’s industry and logistics train.

German weapons did have a problem in requiring too much machining, welding, etc. reflecting Germany’s vast stock of machine tools and skilled labor, but this is something that they improved on throughout the war. MG-42 vs. the MG-34 being a classic example.

Likewise the Panther, despite weighing 20 tons more than the PzKw IV and being a much more sophisticated and powerful tank, barely cost more at all than the PzKw IV–which in turn cost about the same as a T-34.

Most of continental Europe vs. USSR

So a country with only 40% of USSR’s population was busy occupying much of Europe, fighting Britain, and still killed 30 million Soviet people. Even more pathetic.

Somehow other countries robbed other nations off their resources and human potential

And Sovoks robbed their own people.

Whom did Austria rob after World War II, while Hungry and Czechoslovakia (largely equal to Austria prior to Soviet rule) got progressively poorer and shabbier under Soviet rule.

Somehow USSR citizens received better education and healthcare

As Karlin has pointed out, Soviet life expectancy declined under Soviets. Somuch for better healthcare. Education is a plus, I will give you that. Lots of education people in Sovok living materially like American blacks in housing projects.

An average American physician lived in a wooden panel house paying mortgage, returning education loan to work and car loan just to reach his clinic. For an average Soviet physician USSR provided free education and granted him monolith or concrete condo (with almost free electricity, gas and heating), and built a new clinic next to his door, or he got almost free public transportation.

LOL, Sovok thinks physician in USSR had it better than one in USA. Did you know poor people in USA also get free healthcare, free housing, free utilities and free transportation?

The same was provided FOR ALL

That’s true. In Sovok all (or nearly all) lived like poor Americans. But it was more or less equal.

Well…..you appear to be a dedicated poster here so I’ll bite, a bit.

You approach the issue from a technical point of view.
That’s fine, could be correct, and doesn’t mean much.

Try…..to approach the issue from a commanding officer point of view, there and then.
Say, a Colonel, CO of a tank battalion, then and there.
Which tank you’d use, then and there, as a Soviet C.O ?

Same, for rifle, for any war since/including Vietnam, for any force not having US logistical train.

Just try, as a mental exercise.

You’ll find, maybe, that what’s better in design, production, tests before delivery, even tests in peace is NOT the same for combat in certain particular theater.

There is a prevalent belief that approach, technical, is what really hampered Nazi war effort.
Superior design and overall quality of production, yes…..MAINTENANCE and use by not well trained troops tend to make that irrelevant.

Soviets had that right.
Simplicity and robustness.

It’s one thing to use a weapon in exercise.
Totally different to use it in a real war, with minimum/no maintenance and with dead tired, hastily trained troops.

Bottom line, you are probably correct.
And wrong at the same time.

Depends on who’s making a call.

This is what the link you posted has to say on the topic:

“From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Siberian Curse: How Communist Planners Left Russia Out in the Cold is a book written by Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gaddy, two political scientists and fellows of the Brookings Institution in 2003.

In the book they propose the thesis that Siberia, while one of the most resource-abundant regions in the world, is too big and harsh to be populated and industrialized on an economically rational basis. Consequently, since the collapse of the USSR, which planned and subsidized Siberian towns, a westward exodus to the urban European part of Russia is occurring. The large territory, they state, is not one of the greatest sources of strength of Russia, but one of its greatest weaknesses.”

So, Siberia is a source of weakness for Russia.
And you believe two American political scientists from Brooking Institute?
Hey, I have an easy solution for you. Why don’t you sell Siberia, like you did Alaska?

The ArmaLite AR-15 was superior to the AK-47.

After Army dweebs “improved” the gun into the M-16, it was plainly inferior to the AK-47.

The T-34 was in many respects a superior design to the Sherman. That much is obviously simply by looking at the two tanks.

The superior design features of the T-34 are of course the hull design (first tank with all-around sloped and rounded armor), the engine (diesel instead of gasoline), the track width, and the suspension.

The Christie suspension was obsolete at the time of the T-34’s introduction. The Soviets themselves intended to replace the T-34 with the T-34M (or T-44) which had a torsion bar suspension (and a three-man turret), which was first introduced by the Tiger.

The main focus of the Sherman design was reliability and ease of use, rather than particular combat characteristics. US Army doctrine at the time was that the combat role of tanks was to break through and wreak havoc in the enemy rear. Other tanks were to be engaged by dedicated tank destroyer units.

I say the Sherman was superior to the T-34 owing to its reliability, ergonomics, transmission, optics, visibility (i.e. view from inside the tank), and fire control.

There was a case of a particularly dedicated PzKw III firing 23 shots at a T-34 in a single engagement. No doubt the T-34 crew was not well trained, but that tells you something about the T-34 design.

Also worth pointing out that an internal 1943 Red Army study found the PzKw IV to be superior to the T-34.

Lend-Lease tanks constituted 30 to 40 percent of heavy and medium tank strength before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941.[51][52]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease?wprov=sfti1

Wikipedia is a disgusting dump, it’s not worth using

“For the first time lend-lease equipment entered the combat units shortly before the counteroffensive near Moscow. Only a small part of the 145 Matilda, 216 Valentine and 330 Universal Carrier delivered to the Soviet Union managed to take part in the battle….” (after that, a list of lend-lease tanks involved in the battle of Moscow – a few dozen tanks)
http://www.rulit.me/books/tanki-lend-liza-v-krasnoj-armii-read-310840-9.html

I know.

Had related courses/lectures/exercises during my service, held by experts in the field. During those had a pleasure to sit and play a bit in both models.
This very topic would always pop up.

Not once I heard those guys preferring Sherman to T-34/85 for that particular theater. Quite the opposite, always.

This topic (as AK/M-16) has some fascination for some people.
I’d suggest skipping that here.

You are still at it. I wrote this:

Isn’t that some Russian nationalists reproach Stalin for not being radical enough in many of his “final reckoning[s]?” Wouldn’t they like h[i]m more if there were no Estonians or Latvians left after the WWII?

You could have answered that (1) I was wrong because that there are no Russian nationalists that… or (2) There are some but you were not one of them and/or Kholmogorov is not one of them.

Now look at Kholmogorov. He approves of Stalin ‘anschlussing’ of the Baltic states:

Stalin fixed the crimes and mistakes of Lenin, a fellow Bolshevik. He pushed the balance of Russian history from “in the red” to “zero”. Doesn’t sound much for a “great leader”.

and immediately regrets that Stalin turned them into the ethnic states:

But what happened to the regathered lands? They were turned into ethnic republics that easily “de-occupied” themselves in 1991.

because in it lead in 1991 to Russia losing control over these sates. What possibly could prevent the de-occupation? What would make Kholmogorov happy? Wouldn’t creating conditions for a permanent irreversible Anschluss make Stalin a great leader because it would not be just a move form “in the red” to “zero” but “to the black”? It would be a gain over the status from before the Revolution. Stalin would have done what Tsars did not.

Wasn’t my rhetorical question justified? What Stalin could have done to make the Anschluss permanent and irreversible? You do not have to approve of the means but would you be glad of the result? You have an opportunity to answer it. You are not shy. You like your ‘sizzlingly hot takes.’

I didn’t mean to disparage western technology as inferior. In fact, the T-34 had American designed suspension – Christie suspension. For some reason the Americans never used it on their tanks. It was mostly used on lighter weight tanks, T-34 was probably one of the heaviest tanks that had Christie suspension. Apparently it gave them greater mobility over rough terrain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christie_suspension

This topic, as AK-47/M-16, apparently, creates certain debates/discussions.
I’ll pass.

So, let’s agree to disagree and just move on.

were given to Guards formations, hence Sherman tank was better

Again, Western fondness in comparing techs.

The USSR asked for and was provided with different tanks (Stuart, Sherman, Valentine etv.) mostly for testing grounds, to compare them with Soviet and German models for design purposes. And in the times of urgent need when Soviet production was halted and less predictable (lost Kharkov and almost losing Stalingrad and Leningrad with their major tank plants). Western tanks were used in small quantities. Personnel had to be trained for their use, hence Guards like testing pilots. BTW Red Army could name Guards any unit for any reason, not because of elite training or war record only.

The only working logic here is: if Shermans were considered superior by Red Army, USSR would not hesitate copying them like they reverse-engineered really superior bomber.

Maybe, the Industrial Revolution happened too early and we needed a few more hundred years of downward mobility.

Still, I think there is something to be said for the poorer classes in England once having a certain self-respect. The question is, what destroyed it?

Not answering direction your question, but a couple of more serious writing on the disjunction in the pictures (which was a bit joking).

1. There is a situation for the UK (a little similar to the situation of Russia) where the current economic reality does not match fully the recent historical military/civilizational power and status of the country.

The British economic level is not bad, but neither is close to as high (in per capita sense) as a country like Switzerland (the external image we have of Switzerland correlates more strongly with experience of actually exploring Switzerland, partly because they are so rich they can afford to build a country which matches their image).

2. The whole world spent the last 150 years in love with English civilization, and like any one-sided love affair, it creates some idealized image.

Exploring England, there are plenty of little places which are matching even the most over-top fantasy image of England – but sometimes go to the next town, or even the outlying area of the same town, and the reality is just completely the opposite.

Really, there are places like London, or Oxford and Cambridge University, which are satisfying any of the most idealized image of English civilization, in my experience of exploring them. It’s enchanted places like a fairy tale. But then to visit e.g. a poor part of London, and all this is almost the opposite.

Stalin had no intention of ever taking over Europe in the name of the “evil” communism. Stalin was resigned to the idea of Socialism in one country:

He was committed to that on the practical premise of why biting off more than you can chew?

The end of WW II Austrian, Greek and Finnish situations serve as examples. In Korea, there’s historical overview suggesting that the Chinese were acting more on their own than doing as told by the USSR.

Yes. That’s called revealed preferences. The Soviets gave the Shermans to elite Guards formations.

Likely on the basis that the superior military grouping could better work with an inferior tank. How much substantive Red Army fighting was the Sherman involved in? Never minding the general consensus that the T34 is the better tank.

How about this:

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/top-10-tanks-of-all-time.html

T34 is not only better than Sherman – it’s the best tank of all times. It won WW2 for the Russians.

Sherman tank was superior to the T-34 owing to superior reliability, optics, ergonomics, fire control, shells, transmission, and manufacturing quality.

See the article I linked.

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2015/03/article-on-soviet-t-34-tank.html

So, Sherman tanks were given to Guards formations, hence Sherman tank was better than T-34/85 on Eastern front, or Soviet leadership believed that Sherman tank was better than T-34/85 on Eastern front.

I see…..

Stalin had no intention of ever taking over Europe in the name of the “evil” communism. Stalin was resigned to the idea of Socialism in one country:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country

What we see today – and in all the days since WW2 – in the form of the US rampage around the world is because the opposite is not true. US can’t resign itself to the idea of “Capitalism in one country” – because they know that the idea would not be sustainable. Hence, the global crusade to spread and thus save capitalism – or as they like to call it – “democracy”.

Yes. That’s called revealed preferences. The Soviets gave the Shermans to elite Guards formations.

Agree.

The Sherman tanks later were not so important, but they mostly served with the more elite Guards troops, so were probably considered better than the T-34/85s.

You serious?

“Soviet project had fulfilled its task – the large, diverse and cold territory was finally protected, inhabited and supplied by energy.”

Excellent summary of the legacy that SU left to contemporary Russia.

Many think this is a trivial thing to do and could have been accomplished at a fraction of the cost or much faster. Given the Russian/Soviet harsh geographic, climate, demographic and geo-political realities, I don’t think they have a clue what they are talking about.

If as I generally suspect the Suvorov Hypothesis I’ve discussed elsewhere is largely correct,

“Suvorov Hypothesis” is definitely not correct. The book of Suvorov is made from lies and manipulation (in Russian it has long been investigated http://militera.lib.ru/research/isaev_av1/index.html ). As for Stalin’s hypothetical attack in 1941-as the archives have shown is a groundless fantasy. Stalin wanted to avoid war and prepared for defense.

allowed a country with 40% its population

Returned to the start? Most of continental Europe vs. USSR => overwhelming manpower, resources and industry combined from the West.

did so without the general population living in poverty

Somehow other countries robbed other nations off their resources and human potential. Somehow USSR citizens received better education and healthcare with all basic needs supplied by the system since 1930s. They had no coca-cola and Star wars, or some top-notch home appliances, living in much colder climate. An average American physician lived in a wooden panel house paying mortgage, returning education loan to work and car loan just to reach his clinic. For an average Soviet physician USSR provided free education and granted him monolith or concrete condo (with almost free electricity, gas and heating), and built a new clinic next to his door, or he got almost free public transportation. The same was provided FOR ALL, e.g. like in USA it would be provided for Hispanics, Afro-Americans, White Trash, fresh immigrants etc. even regardless of their working performance.

70 years of failure?

Like defeating Europe and sending human to space?

If as I generally suspect the Suvorov Hypothesis I’ve discussed elsewhere is largely correct, then Stalin actually came within a hairsbreadth of gaining control of all of Europe, and probably afterward the overwhelming majority of the entire Eurasian landmass.

It makes more sense to postulate this of Stalin than of Hitler (because a Communist party existed in various numbers everywhere that could serve as occupation troops), but it makes not a lot of sense to suppose that Stalin’s postulated offensive aimed at sweeping to the Atlantic would have been successful, given that it wouldn’t be Germany alone or with a few unenthusiastic allies he was facing.

Also, if the Mannerheim Line was so vastly successful at increasing Soviet and reducing Finnish casualties, wouldn’t the Ostwall (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festungsfront_Oder-Warthe-Bogen) have been equally successful?