Robert Evans has said several times in recent episodes of BtB that the mentality of “good at war means good at killing” is demonstrably false. The US and USSR won WWII not by being better killers but by taking and holding territory (and while awful being less awful than the Nazis.) The US has arguably lost all its conflicts since then because they fell in love with the idea that you can bomb or brutalize your way to victory.
It depends on the objective of the war. Nation building is basically impossible. Killing the crap out of an enemy until they surrender is pretty effective historically. Killing the crap out of select targets while avoiding excessive civilian casualties is generally ineffective. WWII was a total war scenario, the US and USSR absolutely killed entire areas of German and Japanese towns.
but by taking and holding territory (and while awful being less awful than the Nazis.)
It wasn’t just a matter of territory or PR. The soviets placed a huge emphasis on logistics, both their own and the enemy’s. A typical soviet operation was to attack with a first wave to find a breach, then send a fresh second wave into the breach to cause as much damage as possible to the enemy support crew. At that point, the second wave would evaluate whether they could hold against enemy reinforcements, and if not, retreat before they even arrived, satisfied with the damage they caused.
The key difference in their approaches to war was that to the soviets, every worker who manufactures goods or drives a supply truck or fixes a tank was just as important to the war effort as the person on the front charging the front line. The Nazis placed all the emphasis on “warrior spirit” or whatever nonsense, the people on the front line were the only ones who mattered, and so to retreat from a position, especially without a fight, would be seen as cowardly (with potentially severe repercussions) even if it was the correct decision.
The differences are also apparent in military technology. German tanks were very powerful, in line with Nazi power fantasies, but they were expensive to build and difficult to maintain or repair. Soviet tanks were much cheaper and mass produced, allowing them to field more of them, and of course the AK-47 is famous for it’s simplistic design, if something goes wrong, it can easily be repaired in the field. As the war went on, German tanks and aircraft became increasingly convoluted and overengineered, ignoring that the actual weakness was logistics.
USSR being less awful than the Nazis is uhh arguable, if you look at the Eastern Europe. They had more people to throw into the grinder, that much is true.
The invasion that started WW2 in Europe was conducted by the Germans in Poland… and by the Soviets in Poland! They also invaded and occupied Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia. They invaded Finland. The list of countries invaded by the Soviet Union is long and shameful. Not a good look for an anti-imperialist ideology, IMHO.
Uh, they were directly responsible for the start of WWII when they jointly invaded Poland with the Nazis. They were one of the principal causes of the war before Hitler turned on them. They get absolutely zero fucking pass for WWII and only survived at all because the US provided them the logistics and equipment under Lend-Lease to hold off the Nazis on the Eastern Front long enough for the rest of the allies to take the Western Front.
The Holodomor in Ukraine.
Like 7 wars in Afghanistan between 1925 and 1990 including the Soviet-Afghan War.
Several wars with China over territory like Georgia.
Two decades of guerilla wars suppressing rebellion and uprisings within captured territories.
Actually this is utter nonsense. The Soviets killed around 80% of the Nazi soldiers and the West only 20%. The Allies did not do much killing because they did not do much in general. Besides trying to claim all the credit.
If you want to look it at from a statistical perspective, the soviets did a lot more dying than killing. They lost more soldiers than the nazis for crying out loud
To be fair, they had to defend their homeland from a ground invasion. In winter. While Leningrad was being sieged and blockaded. Many Soviet soldiers starved because of that.
They did not have Christmas parties with the Nazis unlike the Allies. Wonder why.
Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Also the Soviets literally invaded Poland opposite of Germany in '39.
Back to my question about actual battlefield behavior, though: did the Soviet commanders shoot their own troops and send them into fights without enough guns and ammo?
Yes, as did every other country during the war. Some more than others, but there wasn’t a single country in WWII where officers did not shoot their own soldiers for insubordination.
and send them into fights without enough guns and ammo?
No, this is common propaganda pushed by COD and Enemy at the Gates, based on a single officer’s report from the Battle of Stalingrad that they did not have enough guns to equip his troops. Conveniently, the second half of the officers report is usually left out, where he states that he is diverting his troop ship to a supply depot to rearm before heading into combat.
I see you know nothing about history except spouting propaganda so no need to discuss further. You prefer surrender to the Nazis and joining them like Europe did of course.
You prefer surrender to the Nazis and joining them like Europe did of course.
My family left behind died in the resistance. Surrender isn’t an option against fascism, imo.
Europe as a whole resisted the spread of Nazis in WW2, and didn’t join them like you’re implying. Many died fighting the Axis powers that took over part of Europe. The Axis powers that were also in Europe were defeated.
And the soviets, they did this all on their own? With their own local built equipment, arms and ammunition? All of their own intelligence? Very impressive if true.
After that NATO integrated many top Nazi leaders directly into leadership roles and put a Nazi official at the top of NATO not long after WW2 was over.
The post you’re replying doesn’t claim the Allies killed more, less or whatever than the USSR. It’s about the importance of holding territory vs. killing. Did you just jump into this because you wanted to point out the outsized effort the USSR made in defeating the Nazis?
And that only happened because the US provided basically everything to the Soviets under Lend-Lease.
Without American equipment, the Soviets were getting absolutely slaughtered.
Their infrastructure was collapsed, they were out of equipment and couldn’t produce more. The US provided tanks, guns, bullets, clothes, food, and even railway to them to keep them afloat and hold off the Nazis while they fought the Western Front.
Without Lend-Lease, the Soviets stood exactly zero chance.
Robert Evans has said several times in recent episodes of BtB that the mentality of “good at war means good at killing” is demonstrably false. The US and USSR won WWII not by being better killers but by taking and holding territory (and while awful being less awful than the Nazis.) The US has arguably lost all its conflicts since then because they fell in love with the idea that you can bomb or brutalize your way to victory.
It depends on the objective of the war. Nation building is basically impossible. Killing the crap out of an enemy until they surrender is pretty effective historically. Killing the crap out of select targets while avoiding excessive civilian casualties is generally ineffective. WWII was a total war scenario, the US and USSR absolutely killed entire areas of German and Japanese towns.
It wasn’t just a matter of territory or PR. The soviets placed a huge emphasis on logistics, both their own and the enemy’s. A typical soviet operation was to attack with a first wave to find a breach, then send a fresh second wave into the breach to cause as much damage as possible to the enemy support crew. At that point, the second wave would evaluate whether they could hold against enemy reinforcements, and if not, retreat before they even arrived, satisfied with the damage they caused.
The key difference in their approaches to war was that to the soviets, every worker who manufactures goods or drives a supply truck or fixes a tank was just as important to the war effort as the person on the front charging the front line. The Nazis placed all the emphasis on “warrior spirit” or whatever nonsense, the people on the front line were the only ones who mattered, and so to retreat from a position, especially without a fight, would be seen as cowardly (with potentially severe repercussions) even if it was the correct decision.
The differences are also apparent in military technology. German tanks were very powerful, in line with Nazi power fantasies, but they were expensive to build and difficult to maintain or repair. Soviet tanks were much cheaper and mass produced, allowing them to field more of them, and of course the AK-47 is famous for it’s simplistic design, if something goes wrong, it can easily be repaired in the field. As the war went on, German tanks and aircraft became increasingly convoluted and overengineered, ignoring that the actual weakness was logistics.
USSR being less awful than the Nazis is uhh arguable, if you look at the Eastern Europe. They had more people to throw into the grinder, that much is true.
How many world wars did the USSR start compared to how long they existed?
The Nazis caused more war and in less time. And would have cause even more if they existed as long as the USSR did.
Doesn’t mean the USSR wasn’t awful. It just didn’t commit genocide like a conveyor belt.
It did, though. This isn’t a competition. Both Soviets and Nazis were committing genocide. Sometimes they even collaborated on it.
The invasion that started WW2 in Europe was conducted by the Germans in Poland… and by the Soviets in Poland! They also invaded and occupied Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia. They invaded Finland. The list of countries invaded by the Soviet Union is long and shameful. Not a good look for an anti-imperialist ideology, IMHO.
Uh, they were directly responsible for the start of WWII when they jointly invaded Poland with the Nazis. They were one of the principal causes of the war before Hitler turned on them. They get absolutely zero fucking pass for WWII and only survived at all because the US provided them the logistics and equipment under Lend-Lease to hold off the Nazis on the Eastern Front long enough for the rest of the allies to take the Western Front.
The Holodomor in Ukraine.
Like 7 wars in Afghanistan between 1925 and 1990 including the Soviet-Afghan War.
Several wars with China over territory like Georgia.
Two decades of guerilla wars suppressing rebellion and uprisings within captured territories.
The invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.
You’ve got fascism in your anti-communism again.
Actually this is utter nonsense. The Soviets killed around 80% of the Nazi soldiers and the West only 20%. The Allies did not do much killing because they did not do much in general. Besides trying to claim all the credit.
If you want to look it at from a statistical perspective, the soviets did a lot more dying than killing. They lost more soldiers than the nazis for crying out loud
To be fair, they had to defend their homeland from a ground invasion. In winter. While Leningrad was being sieged and blockaded. Many Soviet soldiers starved because of that.
All while being present on other fronts.
Yes. Because Soviets fought instead of surrendering.
Did they have good leadership? I hear stories about how soldiers had to fight without enough guns or ammo, or they’d be shot by their commanders.
They did not have Christmas parties with the Nazis unlike the Allies. Wonder why.
Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Also the Soviets literally invaded Poland opposite of Germany in '39.
Back to my question about actual battlefield behavior, though: did the Soviet commanders shoot their own troops and send them into fights without enough guns and ammo?
Yes, as did every other country during the war. Some more than others, but there wasn’t a single country in WWII where officers did not shoot their own soldiers for insubordination.
No, this is common propaganda pushed by COD and Enemy at the Gates, based on a single officer’s report from the Battle of Stalingrad that they did not have enough guns to equip his troops. Conveniently, the second half of the officers report is usually left out, where he states that he is diverting his troop ship to a supply depot to rearm before heading into combat.
I see you know nothing about history except spouting propaganda so no need to discuss further. You prefer surrender to the Nazis and joining them like Europe did of course.
My family left behind died in the resistance. Surrender isn’t an option against fascism, imo.
Europe as a whole resisted the spread of Nazis in WW2, and didn’t join them like you’re implying. Many died fighting the Axis powers that took over part of Europe. The Axis powers that were also in Europe were defeated.
Wasn’t that WW1
So did the British? What’s your point?
And the soviets, they did this all on their own? With their own local built equipment, arms and ammunition? All of their own intelligence? Very impressive if true.
Far less impressive if not.
Mostly, yes, the West was only busy trying to steal German oil colonies in Africa instead of actually fighting the Nazis.
Not to liberate the people of course but to colonize the land themselves and steal the oil for themselves.
America only swooped in after the Nazis had already been defeated at Stalingrad, and the Soviets were at the point of taking over all of Europe.
And, let me guess, after that, the trees in Moscow grew rubles and Stalin himself sculpted the sun?
After that NATO integrated many top Nazi leaders directly into leadership roles and put a Nazi official at the top of NATO not long after WW2 was over.
And NATO was created because a bunch of allied countries were bored, with nothing to do and had too much money on their hands?
No to subjegate their colonies and steal their oil. And now deliver weapons to Israel so it can commit genocide.
The post you’re replying doesn’t claim the Allies killed more, less or whatever than the USSR. It’s about the importance of holding territory vs. killing. Did you just jump into this because you wanted to point out the outsized effort the USSR made in defeating the Nazis?
What territory? The Allies were only able to swoop in and capture the West of Europe because the Nazis threw everything at the Soviets and lost.
And that only happened because the US provided basically everything to the Soviets under Lend-Lease.
Without American equipment, the Soviets were getting absolutely slaughtered.
Their infrastructure was collapsed, they were out of equipment and couldn’t produce more. The US provided tanks, guns, bullets, clothes, food, and even railway to them to keep them afloat and hold off the Nazis while they fought the Western Front.
Without Lend-Lease, the Soviets stood exactly zero chance.
Lend Lease supplied 10% of the Soviets supplies tops. This is such gigantic hypercope.
Nobody says it did not help, but you are exaggerating the role of the US into infinity.
Exactly like how the US propaganda tried to rewrite history after the fact.
Stalin and Kruschev both openly stated that without the US lend lease, the Soviets would have lost.
That’s not cope. That’s the Soviets themselves.
To pretend like Lend Lease was the entire war is massive cope. 10% is a lot but nowhere close to 100%.
I mean, just reread the comment.
The allies killed a whole bunch in Tokyo and Dresden, et al., but those are mostly citizens so… 😬
Look everyone, it’s one of the guys from the meme.