Jack Kennedy. wrote:
Stalin was a genocidal and committed great atrocities like the Holocaust against the Ukrainian people,and continuous purges carried out against the Russian people with the excuse that they were traitors.
The Holocaust against the Ukrainian people? Where did you get this? If you mean the Holodomor and related stories, then you should know that this is nonsense. These stories were invented by Ukrainian politicians to incite the Ukrainian nationalism just before the separation from Russia for something to justify the reasons for this separation. In fact, while in the Soviet Union there was a shortage of food (a lot of reasons, including because of the bad weather, which led to a poor harvest) which has led to major problems in weak segments of the population throughout the Soviet Union. In the future, all Ukrainians say that it was only in Ukraine, and that it was done deliberately in order that-be to kill them - but this is not true, this is a blatant lie.
Pz.Korpz wrote:
No kiddo it's a man on your case this time. If you guys want to support the Red armee as the best in WW2 that is your opinions and not so historical accurate. 1st the Red armee was not fighting 2 fronts and was not low on men and supplies and was not facing the German elements as was the Wehrmacht whom did not have U.S and British support to buy them time to regroup and mount a come back. And for the records..Stalin was a far greater evil than Hitler. he killed more civilians and starved more Russians than SS Germany could even come close to.
The Soviet Union in the war against Germany was a record - the longest land front line. From the shores of the Barents Sea to the Black Sea. And actually it was much more than a two-front (when compared to the war in Europe).
And I add - famine in Russia about which you say it was a completely different time and in no way relates to the theme of war.
GreatbigHippo wrote:
I'd say the most powerful army in WW2, (besides the Swiss) is the American army. They were a good all-around fighting force and provided the necessary support to their allies to win the war.
The US Army was good (not the best, but good). But the whole army sat at home and did nothing to fight with Germany. Their industry during this time has earned a lot of money on the sale of weapons and resources. At the end of their course the army began to operate, but it had a secondary role, while the dirty work done elsewhere.
Ellio_98 wrote:
Im a strong believer that Germany could of won the war if it was not for Hitler's mistakes and ego. He stopped the advance to moscow, which would of defeated USSR and attacked Stalingrad because it had stalin's name in it.
I agree with you. I think that if Germany did not attacking the Soviet Union, Britain has fallen after 180 days.
Sir McSquiggles wrote:
I have to agree. The Russian army was not the best. They were poorly equip but had millions of troops to spare. Russia lost the most troops. Dont forget about the allied(mostly american) aid. At the end of the war they just rushed their millions at Germany. The reasons why US didnt want to mess with them afterwards is because the Russians still kept those millions around Berlin, while the Americans were returning home. Secondly, the british managed to hold off Germany during the battle over Britain because of their radar system, the Polish pilots they had, and the fact that it was on british soil rather than Germany. Most of the German planes could only stay for 20 mins at most before they had to return back.
You are wrong. Russia sent millions to the enemy only at the beginning of the war. That is why the German tactics of "armored blitzkrieg" was a big surprise for the Soviet generals, they did not know how to counter this tactic (nobody in the world knew how to resist it). In addition, Germany had a technique that was better. By the end of the war, we have had experience in dealing with the German tactics, and our industry has created a weapon that exceeded the German. At the end of the war we were fighting by small forces - against the German troops in the German fortresses and won. We used millionth Artillery shells and air bombs, but not people
Second British managed to hold Germany during the Battle of Britain is only thanks to the fact that Germany is not really wanted to capture Britain
Jack Kennedy. wrote:
The Red Army exceeded in number, but was a no prepared and just unarmed army, were peasants, the Red Army was the army that suffered more casualties during the second world war, a total of 29,765,492. While the British Empire endured during 6 hard years continuous bombings and many adversities.
Your figure is wrong. In fact, the loss of the Soviet Union were
26.6 million. However, 15.4 million of them are civilians who were killed by German troops had occupied the territories, and 4.4 million were killed by German troops in the death camps. Losses of soldiers on the battlefield - 6.8 million. Do you have any casualty figures of the German troops and their allies on the Eastern Front? If you start to study this topic more closely will see that the proportion of the losses is not much different.
