Comments by "Aleksa Žunjić" (@aleksazunjic9672) on "Did the Soviet Union win WW2 alone?" video.

Basically US and US did that - sit on sidelines at waited until Soviets beat Germans and then they swoop in as liberators.
13
@grogery1570 Compared to battles in the East D-Day was walk in the park. In fact, except Omaha beach, casualties were relatively light. Overall, my little Ziobot, without Soviets breaking the back of Germans in 1942-43 (destroying their best troops) D-Day would not been attempted. Nor would landings in Italy.
9
@katrinapaton5283 For starters, US was also neutral in that war until the end of 1941. Britain was also on sidelines after being kicked out of the France until 1944. Japan was never as strong as Germany, even Roosevelt said that Germany is the main priority and Japan could wait. Churchill agreed. UK and US constantly delayed D-Day to have Soviets and Germans weaken each other as much as possible.
8
@morningstar9233 Reality on the ground was that everyone was plotting against everyone. This is the reason why Germans were so successful in the beginning. But Soviet plans and hopes were not fulfilled, and British were - historically Soviets and Germans fought to death, while US and UK waited until 1944.
6
@alanmcentee9457 US officially started fighting Germans only from December 1941. In reality, except for relatively small forces in North Africa and Italy, they started fighting in earnest only in second half of 1944 . British were fighting and lost in 1940. Then they sat on sidelines same as Americans until 1944.
6
Complete BS 😁 First of all, Donbas is far from being only source of coal in USSR. Second, main cargo of Lend Lease convoys were never raw materials, but mostly completed weapons (tanks and aircraft) and machinery (trucks) . Soviet Union fired more ammunition then all other countries combined . Do you really think all of that was shipped from US ? Thirdly , convoys only picked up in late 1942. By that time supposedly munitionless USSR would disintegrate.
5
@tvgerbil1984 US land lease did slightly help British, but it did not help Soviets until 1942 (when the worst crisis was over) . Had USSR collapsed in 1941 (best chance for Germans) WW2 would be lost because Americans did not have millions of troops to die in Europe in order to defeat Germany. USSR did not "switch sides", they were simply neutral in the conflict just like US until June 1941.
4
Millions ? Total tonnage of Artic convoys was less than 4 millions. Around 8-10% of cargo was lost at sea (sunk) .
3
@morningstar9233 No, but it means that West has no right on any kind of "moral superiority" and giving lectures to the world. It also means that, like it or not, USSR won the WW2, i.e. USSR was 80-90 % responsible for victory against Germans. These are historical facts, and there is myriad of reasons why it happened way it happened.
3
@luis.m.da.s.cesar1968 He was talking about Artic convoys not Persian corridor.
2
@fazole Before 1943 shipments trough Persian corridor were relatively small . It started in August 1941 with barely 10 000 tons per month. In 1942 this increased to 30 000t per month , and full capacity of 100 000 tones was reached in May of 1943 - interestingly at the time Allies were afraid USSR could negotiate separate peace with Germany.
2
Stalin knew that USSR could win against Germany alone, but that would cost few more million men. Thus, USSR would become easy picking for "capitalist vultures" i.e. US and UK, which were actually standing on the line for the most part of worst fighting.
2
@grogery1570 Well, if their men turned them over to slavery, unfortunately yes.
2
@fazole Exactly. Despite war starting in 1939, US was reluctant to join and population was mostly isolationistic. Nothing wrong with that, but then do not portray US as some kind of virtuous paragon. They were simply minding their own business. And during the war they were glad that most of the fighting was happening on Eastern front.
2
Truth is simple. Poland signed non-aggression pact with Germans in 1934 . They helped with dismemberment of Czechoslovakia in 1938, and got one morsel of Czech land for their effort. They were secretly hoping to become German ally in invasion of USSR. British on the other hand signed non-aggression pact with Germans in 1938. They too were hoping for German-Soviet war and thus were unpleasantly surprised by Ribbentrop-Molotov pact . Even when Germans attacked USSR they withheld help for a few months, expecting USSR to collapse. Most of the British help arrived from 1943 onwards, when it became clear that Germans would lose.
1
@hendriktonisson2915 Yeah right 😁They actually promotes such ideas to Germans with their "Promethean movement" in 1934 and 1935. They also opposed action against Germany during Sudeten crisis of 1938, and as reward their got their pound of flesh. In their stupidity Poles considered themselves as prospective partners of Germans, just like today they think they are some kind of power in Europe.
1
@Gridlocked Like it or not, Poles were actively hoping to become allies of Germany 😁 That did not mean they were allies, but they were trying to become. Thus that episode with helping Germans dismember Czechoslovakia. Germans on the other hand were never interested in partnership with Poles, since they wanted to expand to the East and Poland was in the way, but they did pretend they could become friends. Until of course time was right to strike. Japan and USSR actually had strategic reasons to freeze their conflict (both had other enemies) , but they never pretended to be friends.
1
@hendriktonisson2915 Poles were actively promoting idea of Prometheism to Germans. In fact, Germans did implement some of it when they invaded USSR. Of course, Germans were never interested in creating mini national states in USSR, but they needed useful idiots to do certain tasks for them. And in 1938 Poles were that useful idiots, i.e. they prevented united action against Germany in order to get small piece of Czechoslovakia. Of course, we could argue that Soviets were idiots when they accepted non-aggression pact with Germans in 1939. But in reality no country at that time was willing to stand up to Germans against their own interests, and there is no moral high ground in the period.
1
@Gridlocked Yeah right 😁 Face the facts, Poles were hoping to became German allies. Germans on the other hand knew they would have to occupy Poland if they wanted to have large Eastern empire. Also, despite all their bluster about "Western values", for Germans Poles remained to be Slavic Untermensch, no better than Russians (thing that remains to this day). Thus, Germans were just toying with Poland, but in reality they planned all along to end their existence as state. In Sudeten crisis Germans found out that Poles would become their useful idiots for a small land grab. Poles on the other hand were high on "great power" dream.
1
@juanporzio5990 Not true, Toluene is byproduct of coke production (from coal). USSR did not stop producing steel during WW2. Also, critical industry was actually evacuated from Donbass during the retreat of 1941.
1
@ewelltuber Japan made its own decision to go with South Strike doctrine (i.e. against Western colonial powers) . West did not start fighting Japan to help USSR on its own.
1
@jameshannagan4256 If you consider being dead to be better than living under Soviet rule 😁
1
@Nyet-Zdyes 88s needed crews, ammo, transport ... and were vulnerable to artillery fire. Germans actually preferred PaK 40 which at least could be dug up and camouflaged .
1
@Nyet-Zdyes Germans did not lack 88s at Kursk. But 88s is not a wonder weapon, especially in the offensive. It is relatively high, difficult to hide, vulnerable to counter-fire, requires lot of crew, could not be towed by standard Opel Blitz etc ..
1
@Nyet-Zdyes Well, you have certain misconception. In N Africa 8.8s were effective against British tanks that did not have HE ammunition and charged on without infantry support (as per British doctrine) . As soon as M3 Lee and M4 Sherman arrived, situation started to change. In USSR they were partially effective against "stupid" Soviet attacks without preparation. When Soviets started using copious artillery preparation before attacking (late 1942) 8.8 became more vulnerable than Pak 39 or 40 . Germans of course knew this, so they did not transfer thousands of 8.8s to Kursk area . Had it been so effective they would do so, even at the cost of increased bomb damage. It must be sad that against high attitude bombers 8.8 was more of morale weapon than real threat since Germans did not manage to develop proximity fuse.
1
@alansewell7810 Stalin did what he had to do. Of course he would hint Soviet defeat in front of British and Americans, as he knew that they could not afford that. Thus he secured more supplies for USSR, and later second front. If he proclaimed that USSR would win no matter what, US and UK would gladly oblige him, thus USSR would suffer even more casualties then they historically suffered. Stalin did not care much about dead, but more dead would simply weaken his empire and his might.
1
@jameshannagan4256 Why do you think anyone would consider Western forces as liberators if they try to conquer your land 😁When did West actually liberate anyone ? 😁 For all intends and purposes, most of post-WW2 conflicts were colonial wars as nations were trying to liberate themselves from Western rule.
1
@lloydchristmas1086 Ziobot 😁
1
@grogery1570 And you fail to understand that USSR killed vast majority of German soldiers in WW2, and they are now killing (sadly) thousands of Ukrainians who allowed themselves to become Zio slaves.
1
@grogery1570 Am I, little Ziobot ? 😄😁
1
@davidchicoine6949 You are blabbering nonsense 😄Poland occupied parts of Ukraine and Belarus in 1920-21 that were east of Curzon line, with mostly non-Polish population. USSR only used the opportunity to get them back. As for who get what it deserved, beware of your words, it may bite you when you least expect it ;)
1
@GilesMcRiker You mean platform running on servers in Malesia, programmed by Indian developers, and on a hardware manufactured in China 😁 How surprised you will be when your world crashes down and you discover your complete redundancy for the world 😅
1
@Outlier999 They were not liberators, they were the guy that waits to fight to die down, and then plays the hero 😁As for those famous US trucks, try to find some pictures of Soviet troops on them. Surprisingly little.
1
@zarekbeck3358 Wrong. Despite formal declaration of war, US started fighting Germans only in early 1943 (Kasserine Pass) . And even that was limited (North Africa, Sicily, Italy mainland ) , as few German divisions were engaged. Real war for US started only in 1944 (Normandy). Bulk of the German forces was fighting in the East .
1
@pro_master2486 US was not neutral in traditional sense of the word even before 7th Dec 1941. They actively patrolled Atlantic, gave enormous quantities of weapons to Britain, embargoed oil for Japan, armed China ... Roosevelt on request of his masters tried to involve US as much as possible in the war, without formally declaring it. US public was against the war, so Roosevelt did what ever he could to provoke Axis, which finally worked.
1
@garymathison8361 What you describe is precisely "being kicked out" in plain English 😁 Leave or you get destroyed, if you like.
1
@TheNelster72 What would happen with British forces if they decided to stay in France in 1940 ? 😁
1
@TheNelster72 That is the whole point 😁In 1940 French and British were utterly defeated. France had to surrender, British were kicked out of France (and Europe) , otherwise they would be destroyed too. And British remained on sidelines of war until 1944 when Germans were sufficiently weakened (by USSR) . In 1944 there were practically no French forces, but Germans were relatively weak compared to UK+US, so they could fight and win.
1
@TheNelster72 This is akin to someone witnessing bar fight, and then throwing darts at one of the participants 😁Would Soviets collapsed without Lend Lease ? Very unlikely since Lend Lease started coming in earnest only in 1943. Reason being that Western Allies started fearing USSR would conclude separate peace with Germany. So, there is your answer, without US & UK help Soviet Union would likely not defeat Germany, but it would not lose the war.
1
@TheNelster72 I said "coming in earnest". Lend Lease in 1941 was miniscule. Then it picked up somewhat when Germans were repulsed at Moscow, and then lapsed again in summer of 1942 when Fall Blau started. Officially because of PQ-17, but in reality Western Allies probably again concluded that USSR will collapse and that is beyond help. What Zhukov said is mostly about continuation of war. After Stalingrad and third battle of Kharkov, there was lull in the fighting in spring of 1943 (mud season). during that time, there were some peace feelers between USSR and Germany, as both sides were exhausted. UK & US tried to allay Soviet fears of being pushed into bloody war without help with declaration of unconditional surrender at Casablanca Conference. Stalin did not trust them, and turns out he was right, as British later admitted that declaration was only for show. Thus, Soviets changed their minds only when Lend Lease started flowing in much increased quantities in 1943.
1
@FunnyGlobe-ce1yp Air battles, naval battles ... this is all sideshow. Humans live on land. Most resources are on land. Especially in Europe.
1
@appropriate-channelname3049 Wrong. Soviet Union actually wanted to fight Germany until 1938 (and did so in Spain). Then Britain, France and Poland agreed to occupation of Czechoslovakia , and Poland even got part of its territory. Only after that USSR started seeking rapprochement with Germany. Guilt for war is primarily on Britain and Poland, to a lesser extent on France.
1
@appropriate-channelname3049 Well, wrong. In 1938 no country was fully ready for the war. But Britain and France considered they could appease Hitler with Czechoslovakia, and contain Soviets at the same time. Poland wanted a slice of Czech land and possibly alliance with Germany against USSR. Thus, they (and especially Poles) created situation which harmed them next year. Poles have already taken land east of Curzon line which was ethnically not theirs, so they hoped they could contain USSR and did not worry so much about Germany. Finns were in similar position (used weakness of USSR in 120s during civil war) . Overall blame lies primarily on Britain and Poland, lesser extent on France.
1