Comments by "Андрей Борцов" (@Mentol_) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. Some sources take into account all sent resources, while others only those that were not intercepted by Germany and reached the USSR. Most likely my source takes into account only the resources received.
2. I did not understand what you had in mind when talking about the monetary value (which data), but in any case the bias in this case is on your side. Statistics show that in the period 1941-1942 (the most difficult) the USSR received 16% of the total American aid. Thus, the thesis "Lend-Lease saved USSR" does not hold critic. As you see, the western leaders at this time (before the start of the Cold War) themselves admit it.
The most important thing: Western aid is only a bonus in relation to Soviet economic efforts. That is, help is useless if there is no one who can use it. USSR risks the lives of its soldiers when it accepts this bonus, but the Western allies receive in return an absence of 80% of the land army and 50-60% of german aviation with minimal effort. Thus, in this equation, the allies receive a great benefit because they do not risk their lives on that scale as the USSR does. This time provides an opportunity to complete the mobilization of economic and military resources.
Thus, if you look neutrally at the facts, you will see that for the first time the thesis about the decisive significance of Western aid for the USSR appeared during the Cold War as part of information one. Thus, blaming of biased to my address means that you are trying to show the act of the Cold War as a neutral source, which is a manipulation.
1
-
1. What motivation do you have when trying to maintain your initial thesis? Are you trying to prove the moral correctness of the Western allies in comparison with the USSR or something else? This is very important because it shows directionality in the interpretation of historical facts.
2. In the period 1941-1942, 80% of the German land army fought on the eastern front. In the future, this percentage decreased to 60% in 1944-1945.
3. The maximum strength of the western front for Germany was 1.9 million people and 350-400 thousand people in Italy. If you add the African corps and marching replenishments to it, you will not be able to get the loss figures that exceed (or even equal) the data of the eastern front, which was larger (5.2 million at the peak for Axis) and was longer in terms of time. The only rational explanation here is that for the eastern front you consider only the german military, and for the western - military + paramilitary personnel.
In addition, the intensity of one day of war for the eastern and western fronts is also not the same.
4. If I remember correctly, Zhukov’s memoirs, where he positively assessed the Lend-Lease program, were not prohibited in the USSR. For Khrushchev, this information was useful in the framework of the de-Stalinization campaign. Most myths occur during this period.
My old thesis about the bonus for soviet economic efforts is still in force: even if the USSR uses 100% of Western materials (which is not true), this help itself is not a factor, since it would be useless without soviet soldiers and workers. Thus the discussion about percentages becomes secondary. Do you agree with this? Do you agree that the bonus (even significant) cannot by itself “save the USSR” without people who will use it?
1
-
1. Does this mean that you say that any propaganda on your side is completely absent? I mean that if in the new cold war "pro-Soviet fanatics" use their propaganda, then you do not have it in principle? That is, the information war goes on between the propaganda of Soviet fanatics and a man of a free society (?) who can be called a pro-NATO?
2. I read the history of the Second World War a few years ago and took the number 1.9 million from here. This is a Russian-language source and I do not think that its name will be useful for you.
I read that Western data (5.7M-5.9M) includes additional paramilitary personnel, so they are trying to show that they made an equal contribution to this war as the USSR did (is any propaganda here?).
Use critical thinking: why should the Soviet front who exist for almost 4 years and which had a larger scale should give an equal number of victims with the Western and Italian ones?
3. Purging the command of the Red Army does not begin with the goal of weakening it, right? If you certainly do not consider the Soviet leaders as idiots (any propaganda here?). At the end of the war, Goebbels, in his diary, said that the purge of the red army had benefited the Soviet state.
In fact, Soviet losses are explained by three rational factors:
- At the beginning of the war there were many large encirclement, which means the disproportionate destruction of people in large quantities.
- Germany had the advantage in the amount of heavy artillery ammunition in the east until 1944. These ammunition are the main factor for infantry losses.
- Germany destroyed Soviet prisoners of war in large numbers as part of their racial policies.
Now compare with the western front:
- Germany has no numerical advantage (in the east it was until beginning of 1942).
- Germany has no domination in the air (which it had in the east until 1943).
- Germany has no advantage in artillery.
- Germany has no technical advantage (which was in the east until the end of the war).
- Germany did not destroy allied prisoners in large quantities.
- Germany did not surround the Allied divisions in large numbers (even Dunkirk was evacuated).
Thus the conditions were different and this should be taken into account.
4. Russia in the First World War collapsed because of economic (transport) and moral depletion (crisis of motivation), and not because of the number of military losses. If your industry is saved and the moral is high, then you continue to fight.
The First World War had an imperialistic character (even for Russia), and the second had a sacred / liberating character. This means that the Soviet soldiers will have a stronger reserve of motivation, even with more serious military defeats at the front.
As for the economy, the USSR, in contrast to the Russian Empire, invested a lot of money in the development of its eastern regions, which were inaccessible to Germany. Plus, the socialist system allows for more efficient use of available resources.
Modern Russian military historians (for example, Alexey Isaev) agree that the USSR has survived thanks mainly to its efforts, and Western aid has only accelerated its advance towards Berlin.
5. My motivation here is to correctly restore the Soviet agenda after the defeat of this state in the Cold War. What for? So that people understand the point of view of the Soviet state and dont created false motives (for example, cleaning the red army) and, as a result, do not make false conclusions. Thus, the discussion about lend-lease within the framework of this logic is an element of the information war, which, in my opinion, is expressed in an attempt by the West to show its moral superiority to other non-Western peoples.
1
-
1. So you just confirmed my thesis about the moral superiority of the West. But my problem is not that. My problem is that you try to show it as a neutral / objective point of view.
2. Finnish officers received military training in Germany, and the Soviet army had 50% of the divisions that had incomplete training.
If we summed militarized personnel for the west, then we must also consider for the east.
3. Just look at the Polish, French and Balkan campaigns of the Wehrmacht. Who of the opponents of Germany could inflict equal losses on her? No one. Does this mean that her opponents were incompetent? Not. But you say that in the address of the Red Army and try to show it as a neutral opinion. You can have any opinion, but do not try to manipulate.
4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnWNnI6YlQQ
You yourself contradict yourself: you say that Stalin cleared the most experienced Soviet officers, but then you say that they were initially inexperienced. And who was experienced? For example Tukhachevsky? But he lost the battle even against Poland. I believe that the thesis about the execution of the most experienced is simply demagogy for demonizing Stalin (irrational factor = propaganda).
5. Germany had an advantage in numbers at the beginning of the war (4.3 million versus 3 million) and the amount of experience of modern war and the number of vehicles (610k versus 272k). She simply realized these advantages in practice for the encirclement of the Soviet divisions.
6. Britain and the United States had approximately the same level of development as compared with Germany, and the USSR was forced to catch up with these countries in a short time within the framework of five-year plans. Britain, the United States and Britain completed their industrialization much earlier and even had some advantages over Germany in the field of aviation technology, which the USSR never had.
7. I do not know anything about the protests of the Russians during the First World War due to heavy military losses. Protested against the war itself. The nature of the contradictions between the European countries and the nature of the war were not equivalent and it angered the people.
8. The Russian Empire lagged behind Germany in various economic sectors by 300-500%. The USSR reduced this gap in the short term to 30-60%. Germany had more potential than the USSR, but lost the fight in the east. The USSR, having serious problems, was able to more effectively use the available resources.
9. You also ignored the words of Harry Hopkins. It seems it does not fit into your concept. And why is the opinion of opponents rubbish? This means that you consider only your point of view as the only correct one, which confirms my theory of moral superiority.
10. I consider foreign aid only bonuses in relation to Soviet economic efforts. What is your problem here? A foreign state, in principle, cannot save another, - it can only help it.
As you can see, I do not deny that the USSR had economic problems. For example gunpowder. But why do I tell you this if only your opinion matters to you, and your opponent is rubbish? You say that this is a revision of history, but whose? Our nation or western interpretation? These are different things.
1
-
1. In the past message you said that western information is more diverse and less biased than Russian. Thus, you gave the West moral superiority here, and Russia / USSR took away their own agenda.
2. The socialist economy is not built around money and profits as capitalist. An appeal to the inefficiency of a socialist economy means that you again deny the agenda of the soviet government and rely on western opinions that have nothing to do with the functioning of the soviet economy.
3. You are mistaken. Finland has had good relations with Germany since the First World War. In the interwar period, her officers received military training in Germany. These relations were one of the reasons why the USSR was afraid of military intervention from Finnish territory led by Germany, which then happened in reality later.
4. You constantly talk about Stalin's incompetence, but why? Try to name his positive achievements so that I can see how objective you are. When Stalin gained power in 1924 his country was destroyed after the civil war, and when he died in 1953 it was the second superpower in the world. How is this possible if western propaganda constantly tells us that Stalin was a monster and killed his people for no reason and did nothing positive for them?
5. Poland was defeated by Germany before the soviet invasion. Her industry was in the west in the center of the country that had already been occupied by Germany. If you have lost your industry, you cannot supply your army and lose the war. In addition, the polish army had few modern weapons and could not withstand the german military machine. The soviet invasion only determined the border of the german advance, but did not predetermine the polish defeat.
Compare the loss of the Wehrmacht in Poland and USSR. Compare the losses of the Wehrmacht during the Western campaign. These data show that the effectiveness of the red army was higher. In addition, the german generals themselves admit that Red Army was the first serious opponents for Germany.
6. How do you determine that Stalin executed the best officers? How did Stalin himself determine it if he was incompetent in your words? What is the correlation between the experience of an officer and his loyalty to the government?
7. Germany had a 50% numerical superiority on strategic level at the beginning of the war in the east. But in the places of the main blow this advantage increased many times. It was used to effectively crush soviet defenses and create large pockets.
Try to name any country that better opposed to the wehrmacht in the initial period of the war (1939-1942). Support your opinion with concrete facts.
German generals said that the soviets constantly counterattacked (active defense) which distinguished them favorably from the french army, which was more passive. It's funny that some people blame the soviet army in passivity and at the same time in the senselessness of counterattacks. This is how propaganda works.
8. Why do you think that you have a monopoly in determining the role of Lend-Lease for USSR? Why Russia has no right to have its own agenda here? Why are you struggling with this agenda and how you decide that you are right?
1
-
What country are you from? Are you ready to change your point of view after learning new / alternative information?
1. Your words about private media do not reflect the culture of different states. Some states are more inclined towards centralized control and conservatism, while others are more inclined towards privateism and liberalism. People tend to collectivism (Russia) have fewer private companies, but this does not mean that their point of view is false. For example, during the war in Georgia (2008), almost all Western media said that Russia attacked this country for no reason, although it was Georgia that attacked South Ossetia.
2. Stalin said in February 1946 that the socialist economy proved to be very effective during the war (historical fact). Thus, if we want to understand the Soviet agenda, we must rely on the opinion of the people who ruled this state. Your disagreement with this does not change this.
I said that the capitalist economy relies on profits, not socialism. You are trying to measure the effectiveness of a socialist economy through the lens of capitalism, but this is a mistake.
3. Finland was formally neutral, but had good relations with Germany. This country helped Finland during its civil war. Thus, the Finnish elite had many pro-German sympathies. Later, the Finns invited Hitler to their territory and created the SS. From the point of view of the USSR, it was a quasi-fascist state, like Poland.
4. For a neutral researcher there should be no problem to name Stalin’s positive achievements. Do you easily call negative? So you can also positive one. But you do not do it. Why? I think you are biased.
I also do not see any correlation between the positive achievements of the USSR and the elections in Eastern Europe. How could the USSR reduce the industrial lag behind Germany if socialism is ineffective? If this were true, then the war would have been lost for him.
5. Poland was an agrarian state. Do you understand this? She will be defeated in any case by Germany (you ignored my argument about the Polish industry). The French offensive in the Saar was local and had no strategic significance. The Germans simply retreated to the Siegfried Line. France did not have an active strategy in the first period of the war and Poland was doomed without foreign aid.
The French operation ended on September 16th. Soviet began on September 17th. The Polish army was ordered not to resist the Red Army and retreat to Romania.
6. Polish campaign of the Wehrmacht: Germany’s death toll - 17,500, Poland’s loss - 66,000 killed + 700,000 prisoners. Ratio 43: 1
Wehrmacht French campaign: Germany’s losses - 45,200 killed. The loss of the allies - 112.000 killed + 1.5 million prisoners. Ratio 35: 1
Wehrmacht Balkan campaign: Germany’s losses - 10,000 killed. The loss of the Allies - 441 thousand dead and prisoners. The ratio of 44: 1
Operation Barbarossa (June-December 1941). German losses - 302.000 killed + 81.000 Axis allies. Loss of prisoners - 11 thousand together. USSR losses - 800,000 killed and 4 million prisoners. Ratio 12: 1
It should also be borne in mind that the Wehrmacht in 1941 was more experienced than in 1939-1940. This reduces the Soviet ratio even more.
7. You could not name your criterion - how did you determine that Stalin executed the best officers? How could Stalin know it if he was incompetent? Are you sure that you correctly understand the logic of Stalin during the repression? From his point of view the destruction of anti-Soviet and anti-social elements should strengthen the state.
In Russia, after the First World War there was a civil war. In Germany, it was not. Germany had the experience of large campaigns (Polish, French, Balkan). USSR had experience only in local operations (against Japan, Poland and Spain). The Finnish campaign had a specific experience. Polish army had only local resistance to red army.
I have already mentioned the remaining rational factors which affect losses (superiority in artillery ammunition, destruction of POWs, large encirclement), but you lost them. “Destruction of the best” is not a rational factor and therefore cannot be accepted as a proven fact.
8. I never said that the USSR did not need foreign assistance. From what source did you learn that the Russian documents of the Soviet era were changed?
1
-
You did not answer what country you are from.
1. You still use the profit criterion for a socialist economy, but why? This is the capitalist method.
2. I talked about the prewar reduction of the economic lag of the USSR from Germany (1926-1940), not during the war. You must explain this fact from the point of view of your (?) theory about the inefficiency of socialism.
3. According to the marxist definition (as Stalin was), fascism is the terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary elements of finance capital.
Are you mean that the Finns created the SS against their will, but didn’t actually support it?
4. USSR could not enter eastern Europe without being a superpower. Why? Transformation into a superpower is obtained by destroying another influential state.
5. The french had no active offensive strategy in the first period of the war (plus a year after the start) therefore Poland was doomed. The French will not attack because they have no military plan. Poland industry is occupied. The resistance of the Poles will be broken, but the USSR cannot wait for this to happen because Germany can seize the Soviet sphere of influence.
6. You ignored my loss data. You can simply compare the number of dead, without prisoners.
Polish campaign. The ratio of 3.8: 1
French campaign. The ratio of 2.5: 1
Balkan campaign. The ratio of 3.8: 1
Barbarossa. The ratio of 2.1: 1
The data you mentioned (8.6 million and 14 million) includes Soviet soldiers who killed in German captivity, did you forget about it? If you considered only those killed at the front or including all prisoners, then the ratio depending on the methodology will be between 2:1 and 1.4: 1
USSR won, but you say it was like he lost. And Poland and France lost, and you say that they had better result. You have to prove it or apologize.
Considering that Germany had more ammunition, had a technical and qualitative superiority, had a higher level of education, created more large pockets during the war, the result was expected. But such a conclusion will be made by a normal person; propagandists will talk about the inexperience of Soviet officers and the moral superiority of Germany in the east (otherwise, all the rhetoric about the terrible ratio is meaningless).
1
-
1
-
1