Comments by "Андрей Борцов" (@Mentol_) on "Military History Visualized" channel.

  1. The percentage of allied aid from Soviet production. Import tanks - 12.3% Planes - 13%. Artillery - 2.7% Ships - 22.4% Infantry weapon - 0.75% Food (grain) - 2.8% Self-propelled artillery - 7.8% Anti-aircraft guns - 21% Antitank guns - 9% Automobile gasoline - 2.7% Aviation fuel - 40% Railway rails - 36% Steam locomotives - 72% Explosives - 36.6% Aluminum - 55% Copper - 45% Tires - 30% Sugar - 29.5% Cotton - 6% Industrial machine tools - 24% The percentage of imported cars in the Red Army: 22.6.41 - 0% 1.1.42 - 0,1% 1.1.43 - 5.4% 1.1.44 - 19% 1,1,45 - 30,4% 1.5.45 - 32.8% It is also necessary to remember that the share of supplies increased slowly. In 1941, only 1% of the total number of goods was delivered, and 1942 - 27.6%. Thus, more than 70% of supplies fall on the period 1943-1945 - the moment when a turning point in the war has already come. Plus: In late May 1945, US presidential adviser Harry Hopkins, in a conversation with Stalin, said: "... we never believed that our Lend-Lease assistance was the main factor in the Soviet victory over Hitler on the Eastern Front. It was achieved by the heroism and blood of the Russian army. "  In the report of the US President to Congress on the implementation of the Lend-Lease program until March 31, 1945, it was pointed out that the Soviet armies were supplied mainly with Soviet weapons and materials.
    23
  2. In early 1943, Red Army had 378,800 Soviet vehicles (of all types). Plus 22.000 imported (Land-Lease) and 3.700 captured (Germany). In early 1944, the Red Army had 387,000 Soviet vehicles. Plus 94.100 imported and 14.900 trophy. In early 1945, the Red Army had 395,200 Soviet vehicles. Plus 191,300 imported and 34,700 trophy. This is data from Soviet documents.
    13
  3. Arthur Brogden > A Soviet rifle division in WW2 was roughly 8500 men at FULL STRENGTH. An America infantry division numbered 14-16,000. Why? Soviet rifle division had 14,500 men at the spring of 1941. As the war started and continued, the number of divisions increased and large losses appeared, so the division’s strength decreased. Same for the Wehrmacht. United States did not fight for own survival in this war, therefore the direct comparison is not correct. Always try to find rational reasons. > Stalin's murderous regime For a correct understanding of history, we must correctly understand the historical context. What does this mean? To evaluate Soviet politics, we must use their own perspective, not propaganda from the times of the Cold War. You must discard any of your stereotypes and try to look at the world through the eyes of Stalin. Otherwise you will misinterpret the Soviet agenda, and the vacuum of misunderstanding will be filled with demonization. People who do not understand history often use demonization. > In 1944 at Yalta he admitted to 8 million total casualties at that point. A laughably low number At the end of the war, German documents "recognized" the death of 2.5 million people. Why aren't you funny in this case? In fact, accurate data on casualties during the war is difficult to establish. Plus, the fate of prisoners of war is authentically unknown. United States and Britain use expeditionary forces in this war, whose numbers (and losses) are much easier to ascertain. > At Nuremberg Soviet prosecutors used the figure "over 10 million military" repeatedly. This does not contradict the known data. > Glantz, Stahel, Citino cite numbers that average about 12.5 million This also does not contradict. 7.8 million killed, dead and missing plus 5.5 million prisoners. Total - 13.3 million operational losses. If you use a similar methodology for the enemy, then he lost more than 10 million (including those who surrendered after capitulation). Thus, any speculation regarding the exorbitant price of victory (for USSR) is an unfounded appeal to emotions (element of propaganda). > Given the shortages of Soviet infantry by Spring 45, that seems about right If I remember correctly, then the USSR called people into the army at the age of 17-50, and Germany from 12 to 65. Why did Germany use the elderly and children at the end of the war? Because human resources have come to an end. Why did this happen? The result of the war of annihilation. Why, in this case, you do not hear speculations about the fact that the Germans have lost the entire combat-ready nation? Because nobody needs it. Think why. ]v[acGyverFiN 1. After the Soviet defeat in the Cold War, his opponents gained a monopoly in the information space. That is why you appeal to the consensus that has arisen after this point. However, it does not make sense to understand the historical context. 2. Britain received three times more aid from the US than the USSR, but no one talks about it. Think why. Jagnole101 You do not understand the most important thing: even if 100% of the Red Army were supplied with Western weapons, these weapons would still be used on the Soviet front by Soviet soldiers. In reality, world war is a coalition war. From the point of view of the Soviet perspective, it would be optimal for him if these weapons and resources were used by the allies to open a second land front in Europe. But the allies postponed this decision pursuing egositic interests (contrary to coalition interests). At the beginning of 1943, Britain had 5 million soldiers and other personnel plus United States had another 8 million. In total, 13 million people. But only about 1 million (8%) fought against the enemy at that time. Thus, the Allies preferred to supply the USSR, supporting it in the war, instead of using own an active offensive strategy. This decision can be understood, but after it, any rhetoric about the importance of Lend-Lease immediately becomes ridiculous. Daniel McGREW The data for the cars are taken from the automobile control of the Red Army. You can find the video "Великая Отечественная: миф о решающем значении ленд-лиза" where historian Alexey Isaev (at the seventh minute) shows the data from this document. I can not give a direct link because this can be considered as spam.
    10
  4. The ratio of losses in the Finnish war (4 to 1) does not show the quality of the armies, but the fact that when attacking a prepared defense, the attacking side is fighting in unequal conditions. You must understand this if your goal is to study history. But if your goal is to strengthen your own identity, then you diminish the power of the enemy in order to show yourself as heroes.
    10
  5. Most of the facts you mentioned are either wrong or misinterpreted. For example, the USSR never had 1 million paratroopers, and a large number of tanks does not mean preparation for aggression, but a different concept of using material resources. Any army needs foreign phrasebooks, especially the Soviet one, because its strategy was based on active defense, which involves fighting for the initiative and transferring the war to enemy territory.
    9
  6. Yes, the first column is the number of soviet cars / percentage of the total. The second column is import / percentage. Third - tropthy / percentage. The fourth column is the total number of cars. If I understand correctly, this data is not only for trucks, but also for ordynary cars, motorcycles and other equipment. After the outbreak of the war, the number of cars in the red army should had to double (mobilization from the civilian sector), so their number (minus losses) increased by the beginning of 1942.
    7
  7. The percentage of allied aid from Soviet production. Import tanks - 12.3% Planes - 13%. Artillery - 2.7% Ships - 22.4% Infantry weapon - 0.75% Food (grain) - 2.8% Self-propelled artillery - 7.8% Anti-aircraft guns - 21% Antitank guns - 9% Automobile gasoline - 2.7% Aviation fuel - 40% Railway rails - 36% Steam locomotives - 72% Explosives - 36.6% Aluminum - 55% Copper - 45% Tires - 30% Sugar - 29.5% Cotton - 6% Industrial machine tools - 24% The percentage of imported cars in the Red Army: 22.6.41 - 0% 1.1.42 - 0,1% 1.1.43 - 5.4% 1.1.44 - 19% 1,1,45 - 30,4% 1.5.45 - 32.8% It is also necessary to remember that the share of supplies increased slowly. In 1941, only 1% of the total number of goods was delivered, and 1942 - 27.6%. Thus, more than 70% of supplies fall on the period 1943-1945 - the moment when a turning point in the war has already come. Plus: In late May 1945, US presidential adviser Harry Hopkins, in a conversation with Stalin, said: "... we never believed that our Lend-Lease assistance was the main factor in the Soviet victory over Hitler on the Eastern Front. It was achieved by the heroism and blood of the Russian army. "  In the report of the US President to Congress on the implementation of the Lend-Lease program until March 31, 1945, it was pointed out that the Soviet armies were supplied mainly with Soviet weapons and materials.
    6
  8. > ALL OF YOUR RADIOS It is not true. USSR has produced own radio stations since 1938. > running that shithole you call a country > When we want a laugh we watch Russian driving clips or industrial construction fuckups on YOUTUBE. > For over a hundred years you've screwed up everything you touched. You could just say that you are a Russophobe and not waste our time on a long discussion. This cannot be called an objective attempt to search for the truth because in this case you have a goal to create demonization. Do not try to preserve the look of a civilized discussion while you have such goals in reality. > For almost 30 years Stalin killed everyone in Russia he could find with a triple digit IQ. IT SHOWS. IT'S WHY YOU LOST THE COLD WAR. And how did Stalin define it? You will not be able to answer. In addition, you can not answer why the USSR stood the test of the Second World War. Attempt at all costs to make Lend-Lease decisive factor here is disgusting.
    5
  9. After the collapse of socialism, the Baltics rewrote their history and called the USSR an aggressor. This is the main reason why you called this video propaganda. There is no analysis on your part, you just feel uncomfortable outside your national propaganda (this is correct not only for Lithuania, but also for other countries).
    5
  10.  @artistjoh  This is a classic example of psychological defense when a person does not want to be responsible for his crime (desertion) and, in order to get an excuse in the eyes of others, he paints his boss as a demon.
    5
  11. Boris Sokolov is known in Russia as a forger of history. For example, he manipulates data on Soviet military losses and the value of Lend-Lease. In fact, what he does is part of the information war. Also, the numbers you named are not correct. I can give more information if you are interested.
    5
  12. In 1943, the Red Army lost 2.3 million soldiers killed and 243k pows, and the Axis countries lost 750k killed and 147k pows.
    5
  13. Finnish army - 265k man. Soviet army - 425k man. Ratio 1:1.6
    4
  14. to Samuel: 1. Repressions touched only 5% of Soviet officers. (10k of 200k total). 2. Ratio of Winter war 3 to 1 in favor of the Finns. This is explained by the fact that the Red Army did not continue destroy the Finnish army and signed a peace treaty. 3. German army start Barbarossa against army which was not fully mobilized. it gave benefits. Red Army was fighting against the enemy fully mobilized - so your comparison is incorrect.
    4
  15. Irrevocable losses of the USSR (winter war) is 95k man.
    4
  16. Soviet irrecoverable losses during the Battle of Berlin - 78.300. German - from 590 to 780 thousand (almost the entire army). Your comment: the losses of the Soviet army were terrible. My comment: what's wrong with you guys?
    4
  17. The total number of the Red Army throughout Soviet territory was 5.7 million. Of these, 3.2 million were in the western regions, 600k in reserve, 350k in the south against Iran and Turkey, 720k in the east against Japan. The remaining forces are within the country. But of course, these 3.2 million were not at the border, but were divided into three echelons that were stretched 400 km from the border line. Directly next to the border (no further than 50 km from it) there were 56 Soviet divisions. They were attacked by 128 German divisions from the first echelon.
    4
  18. 1. Your information that the majority of the soviet population hated their government is not true. There are no statistics that confirm this. 2. Nikolai Nikulin's book is a propaganda product. In fact, the tactics of the Red Army are based on orders, and not on the memories of random soldiers.
    4
  19. Defense exists as active and passive. The Soviet strategy was to use active defense in order to gain strategic initiative and victory in a potential war in a short time. The materials you are citing confuse the first Soviet operation with an act of political aggression.
    4
  20.  @mariahaselnuss3826  1. The USSR never had 10 million soldiers on the battlefield. The maximum (6.6 million) was reached at the end of 1942. In June 1941, the number of the Red Army against Germany was 3.2 million, some of the soldiers were removed from the border by 400 km. 2. All major states in Europe used an offensive strategy because it was optimal. You are doing propaganda when you try to prove that the Soviet strategy was the justification for German aggression. 3. Germany successfully used the Soviet government's disinformation campaign. The result was that the order to start concentrating the Red Army near the border came too late. 4. You really need to check your sources of information for authenticity because most of your facts are fake.
    4
  21.  @mariahaselnuss3826  You're just pleased to think that Operation Barbarossa was preventive. Because this thought reinforces your view of the world. And of course you will not be able to show the methodology by which you determined the validity of your information.
    4
  22. You know that the Red Army had more infantry weapons than the Wehrmacht, right?
    4
  23. You are talking about the tactics of the human wave in the red army, but you cannot quote a soviet order that has such a goal, right?
    3
  24. 1. The numbers of casualties for the Red Army in this operation can be found in the research of Grigory Krivosheev. German casualties are also well known - almost the entire army. You have not refuted this data. 2. "The General Staff gives me a book with biographical data and portraits of Soviet generals and marshals. From this book, it is not difficult to get various information about what mistakes we made in the past years. These marshals and generals are on average exceptionally young, almost none of them older than 50 years. They are ... extremely energetic people, and on their faces you can read that they have a good people's features... I have to make an unpleasant conclusion that the leaders of the Soviet Union come from better people's layers than our own. I inform the Fuhrer about the General Staff's book on Soviet marshals and generals that was provided to me for review, adding that I had the impression that we are not at all able to compete with such leaders. The Fuhrer fully shares my opinion. Our generals are too old, outlived themselves... which speaks of the colossal superiority of Soviet generalship" - (Diary of Goebbels, March 16, 1945).
    3
  25. Kill3rCat Stalin wrote more than 30 books about political and economic problems. How much did you write? Richard Schiffman How many French people died during the First World War and why do not you accuse the French government in this case?
    3
  26. 1. The Italian government has surrendered, not all Italy. Northern and central Italy was occupied by Germany and continued to resist. Germany cannot be threatened through Italy because the Alps protect it from the south. The only place suitable for creating a second front is France or the Benelux. The idea that in the event of the defeat of Germany, Italy and Japan automatically capitulate belonged to Roosevelt. Italy has no good industry, and Japan has a chance only if war continues in Europe. 2. Churchill was a consistent anti-communist. His idea was to sell weapons to the USSR (instead of opening a second front) and use a peripheral strategy to preserve his empire. That was true for his country, but not for a coalition strategy. 3. Modern propaganda has little to do with the realities of the Second World War. I oppose any nationalist propaganda (RT), but on the whole I agree with the fact that the USSR was able to survive in the first period of the war relying mainly on its own forces. This country did not lose, but without Allied help the war could go on longer. So RT simply exaggerated own rhetoric, but did not lie.
    3
  27. The question of opening a second front was constantly relevant until mid-1943 (if I remember correctly). In the period 1942-1943 this event was constantly postponed, which caused discontent in the USSR. After the Battle of Kursk, the Soviet leaders began to believe that they could defeat Germany without a second front.
    3
  28. Fake data. The Soviet mobilization potential was only 70% greater than the German one.
    3
  29. Soviet potential - 34 million soldiers. German - 20 million. This is documentary data. But you are spreading false information.
    3
  30. It is not true. During the war, the USSR produced 211 million tons of bread, while the allies supplied 4.5 million tons of food.
    3
  31. Fragment of the speech of the finnish prime minister Johan Rangell in the parliament, November 29, 1941: "The relations between Finland and Germany are clear and smooth. They are based on common military benefits and brotherhood in arms. They are also based on sincere friendship and mutual respect. Finland is grateful that this time she is fighting not alone against the enemy. The great forces of Germany who are fighting on the gigantic Russian front for the sake of annihilating Bolshevism, which threatens the security of all countries of the world, have so tied the forces of the Red Army that Finland is fighting on more favorable conditions in own front than two years ago".
    3
  32. In late May 1945, US presidential adviser Harry Hopkins, in a conversation with Stalin, said: "... we never believed that our Lend-Lease assistance was the main factor in the Soviet victory over Hitler on the Eastern Front. It was achieved by the heroism and blood of the Russian army. " In the report of the US President to Congress on the implementation of the Lend-Lease program until March 31, 1945, it was pointed out that the Soviet armies were supplied mainly with Soviet weapons and materials.
    3
  33. The population of the Third Reich in 1941 was 109 million people (Germany + Austria + Czechoslovakia + Poland). Before the occupation, the USSR had about 190 million. After the occupation, 132 million. But the problem for Germany was that the birth rate in the USSR was higher. This means that even if these countries had the same human potential, the USSR would still have more soldiers.
    3
  34. This is an old myth - Stalin did not have a nervous breakdown at the beginning of the Barbarossa. The materials of visits to his office have long been available and they show that he did not leave his workplace.
    3
  35.  @mariahaselnuss3826  You are using the wrong method. For a correct understanding of soviet military planning, you need to read the original soviet documents. But if you do not know Russian, you can at least read the chronology of how various historians discussed this issue (this is reflected in scientific monographs). After that, you will see that the person you are citing is a classic revisionist whose arguments have long been refuted in other books.
    3
  36.  @Bialy_1  Suvorov is a propagandist whose theories have long been disproved, even on this channel, lol.
    3
  37. Информация о том, что Ленин Немецкий шпион - не соответствует действительности. В остальном - согласен.
    2
  38. 1. The war of extermination is not a struggle for human rights. Another context. Cruelty in this battle is logical. 2. Most German prisoners of war after Stalingrad died of exhaustion after they had not received food for a long time. 3. USSR carried out rapid industrialization, and he simply did not have time to completely complete many things. This is the reason for the imperfection of Soviet technology and some violations of safety procedures. This is a rational reason, not the immorality of the political regime.
    2
  39. I need no channel youtube! I dont see your arguments.
    2
  40. The Baltics and part of Romania were in the Soviet sphere of influence under a secret protocol.
    2
  41. 1. In June 1941, the Red Army was equipped with cars for only 36% of the planned capacity. Out of a total of 272,600 cars, trucks accounted for 193,200. 2. To sum up the supply of foreign cars (for each date) is not necessary because they gradually accumulate, and losses amount to a small percentage. In addition, mobilization from the civilian sector can continue. Plus own production. 3. USSR lost from 35 to 40% of own economic power at the end of 1941, not 80%. 4. USSR produced 1,146,700 cars in the period 1928-1941. Plus another 265,000 during the war. 5. Even if the USSR had 100% of foreign weapons, it would be used on the Soviet front by Soviet soldiers. For the USSR, it would be optimal if these weapons and resources were used to open a second front in Europe, and the economic burden on the participants in the anti-Hitler coalition was distributed more evenly. But this was not done - the USSR had to do a significant part of the dirty work on its own. Thus, any attempt to idealize foreign aid without these nuances becomes immoral. 6. Nikita Khrushchev used a lot of lies regarding Stalin’s policies during the struggle with the cult of his personality, therefore his words need to be taken skeptically.
    2
  42. 1. The Soviet mobilization potential was only 70% more than the German one - 34 million versus 20 million. 2. Soviet losses have nothing to do with tactics. The main factor affecting infantry losses was artillery fire where Germany had superiority until 1944.
    2
  43.  @chekvb  1. After the Polish campaign, the Germans created "tank groups" that made it possible to break through the defense to a great depth. In these groups there was a good balance between the number of tanks, vehicles, infantry and artillery. Their organization allowed them to operate autonomously even when separated from supply bases. Another situation was in the Red Army. The Soviet command did not have the experience of breaking through modern defenses (the Finnish war was a specific experience), therefore, in the shock units of the Red Army there was an excess of tanks and a lack of transport, infantry and artillery. In 1941, the Red Army captured German documents and studied them. This made it possible to balance the amount of equipment and at the end of 1942 tank armies were created, which were analogous to German tank groups. For the first time they were successfully used to encircle the German 6th Army near Stalingrad. 2. Infantry losses are affected by the number of artillery shells (where Germany was the leader on the eastern front until 1944) and the quality of education of soldiers and the level of your technologies. When you attack the defense, if it is not broken through, then you usually suffer more losses than the enemy. But if it is destroyed, then the enemy loses its organization and communications, which either compares the losses, or makes them more than those of the attacking side. In 1943, the Soviet government abandoned the large encirclement of enemy armies for political reasons (Stalingrad was an exception). This led to a more rapid expulsion of the enemy from Soviet soil, but without its complete destruction (the German organization was preserved). This was one of the reasons why Soviet casualties in 1943 were still higher than German ones. In 1944, the Red Army changed its strategy of driving the enemy out to a strategy of destroying him. In addition, Germany lost its leadership in the number of heavy artillery shells. As a result, German losses increased from 814k in 1943 (killed and captured) to 1756k in 1944. If we add the German allies here, the result will show that the ratio of losses on the eastern front in 1944 became 1 to 1 and rose to 2 to 1 (in favor of the Red Army ) in 1945. When you need to compare the ratio of losses on the eastern front in 1944, then people usually take Krivosheev's data for the Red Army, which includes all categories of losses and "ten-day reports" for the Wehrmacht, which exclude those who died from wounds, slightly wounded, non-combat losses, missing who were recognized as killed through time, losses of supply personnel, as well as aviation and navy personnel. The German casualty system showed short-term losses for the their high command, but it is incorrect to use ten-day reports for a general comparison of losses. So, for example, according to these reports, the Wehrmacht lost 359k killed on the eastern front in 1944 against 1233k according to Overmans, whose study takes into account these categories.
    2
  44.  @DomWeasel  Only a part of Ukrainian nationalists supported Germany. But the nationalists were a statistical minority.
    2
  45.  @DomWeasel  Germany had a strong propaganda machine that produced films with local residents welcoming the Wehrmacht in every occupied country. You must understand that this was a statistical minority, mainly local nationalists. The majority never supported Germany either at the beginning of the war or at the end.
    2
  46. The mobilization potential of the USSR was 35 million of soldiers, and Germany's about 20 million. The difference is not infinite.
    2
  47. 1. The Bolsheviks did not kill tens of millions of people. This is propaganda. Documentary data show that 787 thousand people were killed during the entire Soviet period. Hunger is not murder. Gulag is not murder. 2. Lenin said that other countries should positively value the Soviet revolution and do something similar. Thus, an alliance of friendly socialist states in the world can emerge. This does not mean that the USSR is trying to conquer other countries. 3. Operation "Thunderstorm" never existed in reality. It was invented by a Soviet dissident.
    2
  48. The percentage of allied aid from Soviet production. Import tanks - 12.3% Planes - 13%. Artillery - 2.7% Ships - 22.4% Infantry weapon - 0.75% Food (grain) - 2.8% Self-propelled artillery - 7.8% Anti-aircraft guns - 21% Antitank guns - 9% Automobile gasoline - 2.7% Aviation fuel - 40% Railway rails - 36% Steam locomotives - 72% Explosives - 36.6% Aluminum - 55% Copper - 45% Tires - 30% Sugar - 29.5% Cotton - 6% Industrial machine tools - 24% The percentage of imported cars in the Red Army: 22.6.41 - 0% 1.1.42 - 0,1% 1.1.43 - 5.4% 1.1.44 - 19% 1,1,45 - 30,4% 1.5.45 - 32.8% It is also necessary to remember that the share of supplies increased slowly. In 1941, only 1% of the total number of goods was delivered, and 1942 - 27.6%. Thus, more than 70% of supplies fall on the period 1943-1945 - the moment when a turning point in the war has already come. Plus: In late May 1945, US presidential adviser Harry Hopkins, in a conversation with Stalin, said: "... we never believed that our Lend-Lease assistance was the main factor in the Soviet victory over Hitler on the Eastern Front. It was achieved by the heroism and blood of the Russian army. In the report of the US President to Congress on the implementation of the Lend-Lease program until March 31, 1945, it was pointed out that the Soviet armies were supplied mainly with Soviet weapons and materials.
    2
  49. The Unseen 1. How much steel the allies put to USSR (concrete nubbers)? I found information that 3.575.084 tons of metal - this is it? Meanwhile, USSR produced 60 million tons at the same time. 2. From the Soviet perspective, these allied aid could be used to create a second front in Europe. The World War is a war of coalitions, and not the unselfish help of one country for another. Therefore, the rational use of resources should be the rule.
    2
  50. Paul Benedict > It was build around the concept of sacrificing millions of people to the god of war Try to find something similar in the Soviet documents. You can not? Because this is the Nazi rhetoric. This is not a neutral study, it is the rhetoric of the Nazis. In this case, you stand with them on one side.
    2