Comments by "Григорий Шумилов" (@user-bf7ix7fq3d) on "Why Russia's Offensive Could Be Self-Defeating" video.
-
20
-
@craigmenke7187 1. One might think that any other state wants more combat losses. It just happened historically that the United States could afford such an expensive and numerous air force, while other countries could not.
2. Can you refer to the sources of such information? Because it all looks like nonsense. It is known how Vietnamese peaceful villages were bombed, but for some reason it was forbidden to bomb military facilities under construction. About the dementia of politicians and the military from any side - this is your personal subjective opinion.
3. And here you are treading on dangerous ground. First of all, I do not belittle American aid to the Soviet Union, nor the valor and sacrifice of all Allied soldiers during World War II. But!
The Wehrmacht suffered major defeats in 1941-1942, even before significant arms shipments from the United States. The Battle of Moscow and Stalingrad were defeated by the force of Soviet weapons. You can easily check what, in what quantities and when was sent from outside to the Soviet Union. And you can also discover for yourself that the Union also supplied rare resources to the allies.
Soviet industry before the war (!!!) was prepared for evacuation to the rear. The famous UralVagonZavod is also the old Kharkov Plant. And there were hundreds and thousands of such evacuations. The Soviet industry demanded for itself mainly not equipment, but resources.
You can easily verify by checking how much each major participating country has produced in the second world war. In terms of industrial production for the army and the Air Force, the USSR was inferior only to the United States, and even then not on all counts.
And in general, 80% of the Wehrmacht was destroyed on the Eastern Front. And Germany, despite the fact that it was subjected to monstrous bombardments, lost the growth rate of its industry only when the ground forces occupied significant of its territories and resource bases.
4. I did not say that tanks with airplanes are not needed. I said that they have become less profitable for the economy on the battlefield. The military still needs them.
About incompetence and inadequacy - ok. But the States in Korea and Vietnam were also inept and inadequate, where their modern aviation at that time was opposed by modern air defense and Soviet aviation. The losses on both sides were comparable. Who was not able and incompetent here? The big question.
Do not underestimate your potential opponent. Such arrogance can hide an incorrect assessment of the situation, and behind this lies a bitter reckoning and defeat. This lesson has been for us since time immemorial, and its embodiment is cyclically repeated. Russia in the middle of the XIX century, France and Germany in the XX, etc. The USA also made a similar mistake. And you make the same mistake again, believing that everyone is stupid, and the United States is the best and most advanced of all. This has not been the case for a long time.
8
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@craigmenke7187 Yeah-yeah... Too much words. The distance from Moscow to Berlin is the same as from Berlin to Moscow. Therefore, the Red Army faced the same problems in 1945 as the Germans in 1941. Including different railway track widths.
So your post is full of demagoguery. The Soviet Union, by the way, in 1940 was much more industrially developed than any of the European countries, well, maybe only Germany could compete with it.
And speaking of all these logistical problems, didn't the Germans know about them? Did the Germans, who defeated the rest of Europe alone, not understand about the possible problems?
No, all Germans knew and understood. They were ready for this. They actively used different types of transport, including horses as early as 1941. They were going to defeat the Red Army in the border battles, and then, without meeting strong resistance, go to the Urals.
But they did not take into account one fact. They failed to defeat the Red Army. The Red Army suffered a number of serious defeats, retreats and encirclements, but remained as a force capable of waging a long war. And it was the resistance of the Red Army, the steadfastness of the Soviet soldier and the industry of the Soviet Union that became the key to the Allied victory in World War II.
1
-
@craigmenke7187 Yes, and the anglocentric view of the history of the Second World War, where everything revolves around Great Britain and the United States, is never anyone's propaganda.
The USSR was capable of producing its own cars and trains by the thousands, and if there had been no help from the United States, the Union would have fought longer and suffered more losses. It's just that automobile factories began to make tanks, as the Allies promised trucks.
The United States would never have been able to achieve air superiority over Europe if Germany had not been at war with the Union. All the resources that the Third Reich had were thrown against the Red Army. In addition, nuclear bombs were very expensive and rare. Mass raids with conventional incendiary bombs were much more effective.
Even at war with the Union, despite the Anglo-American bombing, Germany's industry only grew until its industrial centers were occupied by Allied troops.
For some reason, in 1945, no one doubted who played a decisive role in the victory in World War II. But again, why is it that the further we take the year from Victory Day, the more often we hear that the British, Americans, and French won the war, but not the Russians.
But for our people, and all the peoples of the Soviet Union, this war was of an existential nature. It is a real folk epic. In every family in the post-Soviet space, there is or was a veteran soldier. You wouldn't understand that. They did not want to destroy you as a people. Therefore, we are very sensitive to this tragedy, and we will not tolerate the exploits of our great ancestors being forgotten.
I respect the heroism of the American and British soldiers, but their war on the Western front was just a parody of the war that broke out from Moscow to Berlin.
1
-
@craigmenke7187 You've written so much to justify a castrated anglocentric point of view, but facts are facts. 80% of the Wehrmacht was destroyed on the Eastern Front. In the winter of 1941, the Wehrmacht suffered its first major defeat near Moscow, and supplies from the Allies were insignificant at that time.
I laughed when you wrote that Great Britain produced more than the Soviet Union. This is a lie, it is easy to verify, even if you read Wikipedia.
I am too lazy to refute further nonsense, seasoned with grains of truth. You further contradict yourself, then you say that German production did not grow because of the bombing, then you say that it did grow after all
The ratio of losses on the Western Front is also interesting. Both the British and the Americans lost 500,000 people there. The Germans also lost 500 thousand people during the entire war. In one Battle of Stalingrad, the Germans lost more than in the entire war on the Western Front.
And what they did to the civilian population - no European country has experienced this. Everyone is talking about the Holocaust. But for some reason they forget about the genocide of Soviet people, who were killed three times more than Jews.
That is why that war is much more important for the Soviet Union than the war is for the United States, or for Britain. And that is why the people of the Soviet Union made tanks day and night and sharpened shells in the most difficult conditions and in such quantities that only the United States surpassed the military production of the Union.
There are pages in the history of the world in which some countries play the main role. For Great Britain, it was the 19th century. For the United States, it was the end of the twentieth century. For the Soviet Union, it was the Second World War.
1