Comments by "UzuMaki NaRuto" (@UzumakiNaruto_) on "The destruction of Army Group Centre | Operation Bagration" video.

There's no question that the Soviets contributed greatly to allied victory, but lets not pretend that the western allies didn't do the bulk of the work, not always on the frontlines, but in logistics, intelligence and other support.
20
Like it or not the US was the economic and production engine behind the whole allied war effort including the USSR. Without the Americans supplied and fighting in WWII, the western allies are defeated and the USSR would lose large parts of its territory and probably be pushed well back from Moscow and be forced to retreat to central and eastern Russia.
5
@Marcelo's DBZ Music If we're being realistic, the western allies DID do much of the work in defeating the Axis forces. Japan and Italy were destroyed by western allies and Germany was a shared victory where the Soviets and the western allies contributed in different ways to destroy the German forces.
4
@IanCross-xj2gj The Red Army smashed 30 German divisions in less than 6 weeks. Took the pressure off the D Day landings and Normandy battle. The Soviets smashed a bunch of understrength German divisions who while being good soldiers were vastly outnumbered in men and equipment and could never hope to hold back the waves of Soviet troops forever.
3
Except that they weren't?
2
@eugenekrabs869 Keep telling yourself this lie, 80% of german forces fought on the eastern front. 80%, you think taking down the kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe, and Italy mattered, sure it did, not a majority of the war, if the Wehrmacht succeeded nothing else would matter, so the soviets won the war, the allies contributed heavily but without the soviets there would be no hope of victory without britain or america it would be a bloodier longer war, but one germany still could not win. Disagree. Its actually the opposite. Without the western allies, the Soviets would not completely lose the war, but they also would not win either. The USSR is so huge in landmass that the Germans obviously could never conquer the entirety of the USSR, but they would've likely kicked the Soviets out of most if not all of Eastern Europe and perhaps up to losing Moscow if not more. The Soviets would retreat eastwards into the interior and eastern Asia Russia and from there it would remain to be seen if they could fight back and regain their lost territory. The western allies on the otherhand would have to fight a much longer and more costly war, but they could've won it without the Soviets. Why? Because of America's MASSIVE and technologically advanced industrial base and with US and their allies' combined manpower. I think people who argue that the Soviets did 'the bulk of the work' always look at the number of troops at the front and how many were killed without remembering all the huge logistical, technical and other support systems that are required to keep millions of soldiers in the field functioning and fighting. A major reason why the Germans lost was because they didn't have the industrial base and proper logistical systems in place to support their huge armies. If the German forces had the same industrial resources as the US did, they would've beaten the Soviets out of Eastern Europe if not more instead of losing the entire war.
1
@saucy743 they did do the bulk of the work in the skies, intelligence and logistics, but the Soviets did the bulk of the work on the ground and in the destruction of the Wehrmacht You're naming the most important components to having a great army that can fight effectively while being able to not take huge casualties. Those are things that the Soviets lacked in WWII which is why their fight against the Germans was so hard and so bloody. If you put the western allied armies on the Eastern Front and had them fight against the bulk of the German army, there's ZERO CHANCE that they would sustain 9 MILLION soldier deaths like the Soviets did. Absolutely no chance at all. Maybe they lose a million or two killed or maybe more, but 9 million killed? No chance in hell. Why? Because western allied armies as you stated had better logistics, better intelligence and a massively better airforce. All those things combined with better training, leadership and organization allowed them to lower their casualties compared to the Soviets. Look at the parallels to the Soviet army in WWII to the present day Russian army and they STILL suffer from poor training, poor logistics and a weak airforce which is why they're unable to beat the Ukrainians in their current war with them. History repeats itself yet again.
1
@saucy743 they did do the bulk of the work in the skies, intelligence and logistics, but the Soviets did the bulk of the work on the ground and in the destruction of the Wehrmacht. No one is questioning that the Soviets did the bulk of the work on the ground defeating the Wehrmacht, however it would've been a much harder job or even near impossible if it wasn't for the western allies greatly helping the USSR. Logistics is EVERYTHING on the modern battlefield and the western allies were constantly hitting German industry and reducing their ability to produce weapons and supplies for their armies. Without that constant disruption the Germans could've greatly increased their output which would've all went to the east and made the Soviets job of defeating the Germans near impossible. I think without western allied help, the best the Soviets could hope for would be a stalemate where neither side could claim a decisive victory. The problem with the Soviets is that they didn't care about losses or doing anything in an efficient manner which is why they suffered so many casualties even fighting against a declining Wehrmacht with vastly larger forces. I 100% guarantee you that if it were western allies fighting on the east against the bulk of the German army that they would NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS suffer 9 million dead soldiers. Why? Because they actually CARE about their soldiers and not wasting them and they had better tactics and strategy and overall support for their armies that all led to suffering much fewer casualties. The Soviets NEVER had that kind of ability to organize and plan the way the western allies did, which is why they suffered such insane casualties.
1
@alexanderleo8947 The problem with your numbers is that you leave out the most important parts. With the lend lease the US provided the USSR with almost 60% of all its aviation fuel used during WWII and 90% of high-octane fuel that high performance aircraft needed that the Soviets couldn't produce themselves. They literally kept a large portion of the Red Airforce in the air because the Soviets were not able to refine such high quality fuels. Also you don't mention that the Allies sent over 420,000 trucks, 2,000 locomotives and 10,000 rail cars that helped the Soviet Army become mobile and allow it to move men, supplies and equipment around the battlefield more quickly. All those big offensives that you see the Soviets launching in the mid to late war period are much harder to accomplish and they don't nearly move as fast if they don't have those trucks and trains moving their army around. Its the reason why the German Army offensives in the East as successful as they were, are still not as successful as they could've been when much of their army and supplies are moved around the battlefield by horses instead of trucks and rail. Lets look at it another way. Pretend that western nations are allies with Germany instead of the USSR in WWII and they provide all their lend-lease to the German Army instead of the Red Army. Ask yourself how much more successful would the Germans and their allies have been in the East with increased mobility and a stable supply of oil and other important supplies coming from the west? Ask yourself how do the Soviets stop the Germans when their airforce is heavily impacted by the lack of aviation fuel and are forced to move around much slower because of the lack of trucks, locomotives and rail cars? How do you propose the Soviets stop a well supplied and very mobile German Army?
1
@АлександрЕкдитовЯковлев-в1966г It is interesting. And why were you not confused by the fact that it was the Red Army that captured a city called Berlin? The USSR captured Berlin at the cost of 80,000 soldiers killed and many thousands more wounded at the end of WWII when the western allies were trying to minimize their casualties while Stalin threw away so many Soviet soldiers lives needlessly all for Stalin's ego of conquering his enemy's capital.
1
Germany fought against the US and USSR. The two largest industrial powers on the planet with huge populations. They had no chance. If it were only Germany vs the USSR with no western allies, they probably could've at least fought the Soviets to a stalemate if not win to a degree.
1
@PeoplecallmeLucifer you'd be surprised how many people don't even know that soviets were the one who captured Berlin At the cost of 80,000+ Soviet dead just to satisfy Stalin's ego of being the one to capture the German capital. I'm glad the western allies allowed Stalin to have that 'honor' because they actually gave a damn about their soldiers and of minimizing their deaths.
1
@x7Samuraix If we're excluding civilian deaths and only counting military casualties then a big reason why so many Soviet troops died was because of the lack of care for their lives. How many Soviet attacks have we seen where they send masses of men forward and try and overwhelm their enemy rather than sending them forward in a more orderly and measured fashion to try and reduce casualties? The western allied soldiers were generally better trained, better led and had better support and their generals on the whole cared more about their soldiers' lives than the Soviets ever did. Where possible western generals didn't throw their men's lives away needlessly which is why they let Stalin have the 'honor' of taking Berlin which cost 80,000+ Soviet soldiers' deaths to do so. How crazy was that? The war had already been won and it was nearing the end and yet Stalin had no issues with wasting so many Soviet lives to take Berlin instead of perhaps encircling the city and negotiating its surrender or starving the Germans out. That's the kind of avoidable losses that the Soviets could've taken to save lives but didn't because their leaders largely didn't care about their own men.
1
@heavyartillery-qm5hu The Soviets gave so much blood because they never learned to care about their own people and to find ways to save more of their lives. They just cared about getting the job done no matter what the human cost was.
1
Except the Soviets didn't and COULDN'T do it on its own. The western allies and even the US on its own could beat the Germans. The western allies had the largest industrial base to build all the weapons and supplies necessary to support their armies, they had the best intelligence departments, they had far better training for their soldiers and they had by far the most advance technologies and engineering on their side. Why do you think that it was possible for the western allies to fight ALL OVER THE WORLD while the Soviets were struggling to survive in the east? Because their armies were vastly inferior and relied heavily on sheer numbers to stop the Germans along with the weather and their massive land size.
1
The Soviet contribution to WWII is endless amounts of young men that they could send to their deaths and a willingness to endure pain and suffering and to keep fighting forever. The western allies contribution to WWII was skill, technology and organization that allowed them to fight without taking such massive casualties.
1
And to this day in Ukraine, history repeats itself. The Russians never learn which is a good thing for the rest of the world.
1