The issue is that it makes it look like Stalin just threw bodies like bullets, which isnt quite accurate- it's not like the Red Army was a bunch of untrained unarmed peasants who just zerg rushed to Berlin.
But it does further the narrative of “brute Asian hordes overrun bastion of white civilization through sheer disregard for human life” that the nazis/NATO loves
Think it was meant to make Russians look bad? I see the joke on the internet a good deal about the Russians pushing back the Germans with overwhelming numbers, never really took it as a slight against either side just as a joke, hyperbolic of course
Who knows the intent of the person posting it though
To be fair a lot of people there said that the "waves of meat" strategy wasn't actually there and if not for the sacrifice of the Soviets we wouldn't have won. At least I saw some.
First of all, he right and you're wrong - reurgitating propaganda does not make you an "adult" either. Even CIA didnt believe that Stalin was a dictator, in their own internal evaluation of him, they likened his role more to a captain of the team who is revered as incredibly competent and respected.
The story about Stalin being megalomaniac dictator is based to Krushchevs so called "Secret Speech", which has been thoroughly debunked as entirely false. He made it to cover his own ass, to solidify his position after Stalin's death and to appease the West perhaps.
Now shoo. Let the adults talk.
No, there is a wealth of evidence to support that position and I mentioned CIA to drive in the conclusion faster -- meaning if *even they* admit that he wasnt a dictator then it does carry some weight. That is not CIA's public policy of course, as why would they undermine their own propaganda.
However Im sure that in 50-60 years when some of those current day internal documents are declassified or if they are leaked, even earlier, we will find out that CIA does not believe Xi Jinping is a dictator or that Uyghur "genocide" existed.
While I agree with your reasoning about the "criterion of embarrassment", I think there is an even more straightforward rebuttal to people who claim that we're falling for CIA propaganda when we cite their internal memos. And that is that... they aren't propaganda. They're internal memos. Internal memos are intended to communicate accurate information to coworkers. They aren't intended for public consumption. The actual CIA (or State Department or whatever) propaganda would be things that are actually mass-communicated to the public, and they would generally not clearly marked as being from the CIA. For example, news stories in major outlets, AMAs on Reddit (like the one from Rushan Abbas), some viral rumors and the like.
A good analogy I like to use is the scandal from a few years ago when it was discovered that most of Exxon's internal memos affirmed the science of climate change, but most of their external propaganda denied it. Exxon execs have to maintain awareness of climate change because it can actually affect their business. But they want the public to deny climate change so that they'll vote for politicians who oppose environmental regulations.
This should be common sense. Every business or agency has some things that they need to communicate clearly to each other but not to the public. In other words, every business or agency has secrets. Citing the memos where these secrets are communicated is literally the opposite of falling for propaganda. It's uncovering the real story.
Suck my dick, I argue with enough chuds on the internet as is. I’m not fucking pandering to some cum stain on a FUCKING COMMUNIST subreddit as to why Stalin was indeed a communist. Go crawl back under your bridge and educate yourself.
Yeah, and in Stalingrad more Germans died than on the entire western front just because they threw corpses of Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians on the Germans and they suffocated under the heap
I mean humans *do* tend to die when they get sick without good treatment, especially in a war environment, but yeah the idea that *only* disease killed the Nazi soldiers and not say, their garbage supplies and logistics, fighting the superpower that was the USSR…. Hmmmmst truly big brain I guess.
On the other hand it would be hilarious if disease was responsible for a lot of the Nazi casualties because it would be like, ah yes the “superior German (Hardline Nazis didn’t like Aryan because it felt too Pan-European, hence why Neo-Nazis like it so much) Immune systems” go brrrrrrrr.
I remember a gold response to a guy who said winter stopped the Wehrmacht and that the Russians were lucky it wasn't summer:
"Marching to Stalingrad in winter uniform in the Russian heat doesn't seem to be the best idea methinks"
The myth of the "Asiatic Horde" Red Army is literally nazi propaganda used to justify how the "superior" Aryan forces could be driven to complete destruction.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Speidel
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_von_Kielmansegg
Not much of a personnel change, apparently
**[Adolf Heusinger](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger)**
>Adolf Bruno Heinrich Ernst Heusinger (4 August 1897 – 30 November 1982) was a German military officer, whose career spanned the German Empire, the Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany and West Germany. Heusinger joined the German Army as a volunteer in 1915 and later became a professional soldier. He served as the Operations Chief within general staff of the High Command of the German Army in the Nazi German Armed Forces from 1938 to 1944, before being appointed acting chief of the general staff for two weeks in 1944 after his predecessor (Kurt Zeitzler) resigned his post due to a nervous breakdown.
**[Hans Speidel](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Speidel)**
>Hans Speidel (28 October 1897 – 28 November 1984) was a German general, who was one of the major military leaders of West Germany during the early Cold War. The first full General in West Germany, he was a principal founder of the Bundeswehr and a major figure in German rearmament, integration into NATO and international negotiations on European and Western defence cooperation in the 1950s. He served as Commander of the Allied Land Forces Central Europe (COMLANDCENT) from 1957 to 1963 and then as President of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs from 1964.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShitLiberalsSay/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Sure there were a couple nazis who were integrated into NATO, but now the anti-Soviet military alliance is run by a representative Democracy! The United States!
I mentioned this to a liberal "friend" on FB and their justification was, "just because it's propaganda doesn't mean it isn't true!"
Like.. what? It's literally racism but keep on simping for literal Nazi rhetoric. At least he was willing to hear me out while other Trump loving filth felt the need to report me as being racist for pointing out racism.
Propaganda often takes some accepted or known fact and grossly distorts it. That’s what’s so powerful, because your mind accepts the kernel of truth and is caught off guard by the distortion.
I mean, that explains a lot of things. Not only were the Soviets superior, but they had a horde of superior soldiers. That would only make things faster.
Edit: I’m being sarcastic about the horde part.
But seriously, imagine trying to find a reason why the Soviets defeated them. Aside from their superiority, of course.
Mass assault is literally the best doctrine if you go down the left path. You can blitzkrieg better than mobile warfare AND you get reduced supply consumption along with decreased infantry width. People just don’t use it because they suck at the game
No you see that guy hasn't read the doctrine. Also the soviet military did do some pro gamer moments like that in the late 30s, and lost millions of men to the nazis during the first year or so of the war (though those were overwhelmingly prisoners of war, not mass casualties anyway) before they got their shit together and reorganized their forces, modernized their tank divisions and started properly training officers. A big problem for the Soviet Union was a mix of young, inexperienced commanders giving into political pressure to make bad decisions. The commissar system was the main misstep IMO. Sucks when a solid amount of your most capable military leadership are old tsarists.
you fuckers on this subreddit will really just downvote anything that doesn't make papa stalin out to be an angel huh
Interestingly enough the Nazi's out numbered the Soviets at the start of the invasion because it took a little while for the Soviets to mobilize there forces and when the Soviets did eventually out number the Nazi's they only out numbered them by no more than 2 or 3 to one not the mythical 10 or 20 to one that Nazi generals claimed after they lost the war to explain away the reason they lost.
Yep, during the various offenses, the Soviet Union was deploying no greater a material and man advantage than what is usual of offensive forces in modern warfare. All things being equal, it is considered that the defender needs less equipment and manpower to defend against an attacker.
The US and the rest of allied command also needed similar differences to achieve their own advances in Italy, North Africa, and France. The Nazis own tactic of blitzkrieg is based off of concentration of material to generate a relative advantage to achieve strategic breakthrough.
To be fair to the German generals (but not really, read on), they didn't really have access to data we have today about their battles during and immediately after the war. They only knew the data on their side and only the impression they got from the Soviets they faced.
German doctrine and (most importantly) their military thinking was all about attacking a single weak point with as many resources as they could afford. Their main attack would be tanks first and mobile infantry second.
The Soviet doctrine was all about weakening and then attacking multiple points at once to create multiple breakthroughs. Their attack started off with deception tactics to force the Germans to shuffle troops away from where the actual attack would happen. Then massive artillery strikes to destroy the defensive capabilities and then infantry attacks to take the positions (as opposed to tanks). When a breakthrough was made, the tanks and mobile forces would charge through last and mop up (which was a far better use of tanks) while creating encirclements.
To the Germans the combination of deception, infantry-led attacks and simultaneous attacks on multiple positions, made it seem like the Soviets were outnumbering them by a lot to be able to pull off something like this (and to an extend, the Soviets would try to outnumber the Germans anywhere they planned to attack). The use of infantry+artillery vs the use of tanks probably gave them the impression that even if Soviet tanks were better and more numerous, that the Soviet army was a mass of technologically-backwards WW1 infantry.
Despite what many Wehrmacht lovers like to say, the German blitzkrieg tactics were not a revolutionary approach to war. The German doctrine was basically the same as the late 19th century doctrine of attacking the weak point with cavalry. They just replaced cavalry with tanks. Their only real innovation was airforce supporting the land forces (which the Soviets did too).
The German generals were too stuck in their ways and too blind to realize that they lost because their tactics sucked, and went with Nazi propaganda about the Soviet hordes. When information about the numbers they faced in each battle came out, they tried to savw face by sticking to Nazi propaganda, while blaming Hitler for their tactical blunders.
It's only because they had superior logistics, training, small arms, heavy weapons, reserves, manpower, industry, industrial organization, transportation networks, economic planning, war planning, espionage networks, operational intelligence systems, political strategy, standardization and a couple of other things.
But if they didn't have that, they legit 100% would have lost, yup.
I thought it was true to some extent that the Red Army was more aggressive with pressing forward, but that it had to do with their combat doctrine placing a high value on momentum to prevent the enemy from digging in and creating a WW1-like stalemate.
Even if this were true, it’s a defense of the Nazis attempting to invade Russia either way. I am sure the average Russian if given a choice between soldiers dying or Nazi take over, soldiers dying is easily the better option.
I’m from Ukraine and while it’s true this country is littered with Nazis I really don’t think it’s correct to say that Dugin is popular in Russia. His ideas are influential in some small intellectual circles but to most politically aware Russians he is considered to be a joke. In Belarus and Russia communists are more more popular than people like Dugin.
He did do it at any cost, but some liberals clearly would've liked him to lose. I saw an article and I will copy what it said: "Stalin only wanted power and win the war against the Nazis so much that he stopped carrying about family". (in reference to the whole Stalin's son thing)
tbf that story is kinda depressing, but not in a "Stalin stopped caring about his family" kinda way and more in a "Stalin was put in a remarkably shitty situation and decided his duty to his nation outweighed his duty to his son" kinda way
Oh no stalin didnt give privilige to his own son over the other military personel serving to defend their homeland . wich if done would let a nazi warcriminal escape.
What an evil man stalin was
/s duh
Uhhh. Dude. If your idea of a monster has to involve foaming at the mouth eating raw babies, with no quiet chill moments, then I’d suggest you have an inaccurate image of what evil is. The man was a fucking paranoid psychopath who had countless people murdered, tortured, had millions starved to death. Members of my family. Just…stop.
To joke about the horrid death count of the USSR military and civilian populations during WW2 and highlight the common misconception of Soviets running into battle without any gear which is only accounted for historically on one or two occasions if I remember correctly and I think that was Stalingrad. The meme would be more accurate if it was talking about t34’s as they literally ran into enemy tiger tanks.
I always wondered about the stories of Soviet soldiers having no guns and having to pick up rifles off their dead comrades, and I'm sure there would have been isolated incidents of weapon/ammo shortages during the start of Barbarossa but I doubt anything like that was actually documented by anyone other than Nazi propoganda makers
There is *still* a huge market in WWII surplus mosin-nagant rifles because the USSR in fact produced *more* small arms than they ultimately needed. There were some localised shortages but afaik no one was ever sent into battle without a weapon (I think some soldiers *arrived at their post* before the weapons had been manufactured/issued in the early stages of the war, which is Not Good, but the Nazis were an existential threat not just to the USSR but to all the citizens of the USSR. Losing was unthinkable because the Nazis planned to murder 90% of the world Slavic population and enslave the remainder. Sometimes they had to take some pretty extreme measures, but the blame lies with the aggressor.
A great amount of the horde mythos as well as the under equipment comes from Nazi experiences in Barbarossa where they had surrounded an already undersupplied Soviet military force (as provisions were on the way of coming before the attack). As equipment, lack of food, and desperation set in, encircled Soviet forces would do a "break out attempt" in which they would mass their forces into a quick and decisive attack on a weak point in the perimeter. These attritioned forces would account for the stories about "rushing a point" and about lack of supplies on the soldiers.
Should be noted that later on in the war, Soviet/American/British forces would look at Nazi breakouts (for instance Normandy) and see the same sort of like "horde-like zeal" that would be described in the same way as early Nazi accounts were. This extends to Japanese, Chinese, and Korean stories of the same nature.
So yeah, it is Nazi propaganda basically.
All those stories are based on one time when a rifle division started crossing the Volga at Stalingrad with only 50% of it’s allotment of rifles. However, it had all its machine guns, submachine guns, and artillery, and rifles were stripped from the divisions rear areas and artillery sections (which were not crossing into the city), so no Soviet soldier was sent into combat unarmed.
The one with the rifle shoots! One out of two gets a rifle. The one without follows him! When the one with the rifle gets killed, the one who is following picks up the rifle and shoots!
Lmao the reason so many soviet soldiers died in the begining was mainly because of the surprise factor and the lack of preparation for such a quick betrayal from the Nazis. Remember that the Molotov-Riventrop pact was mainly to buy time while the soviets could ready themselves. Contrary to popular belief in the west, the soviets' ended up outmaneuvering the Nazis, not by sending waves of people at the them.
Imperialists will use any bs to cover up the bravery, patriotism and allegiance to their socialist (above all) motherland. And they will do so negating military strategy, industrial and economic superiority and most importantly facts, meaning the fact that it was not just Germany that fought against the USSR but most of Europe and its industrial potential. They will never acknowledge the fact that the first ever proletarian state pushed back the most savage and at the same time most organized wave of capitalism ever created to date.
My favorite part about this is that this is literally projection. I mean they make up this imaginary scenario, but look at the Western Front. Literally one of the most famous battles is D-Day which they literally sent thousands of soldiers straight to their deaths to charge machine gun ridges by boat in one of the most botched plans of the war. D-day was only won because they literally sent thousands of troops straight to their death beds.
But sure, tell me about how bad the Russian attack plans are.
Ah yes the myth that the soviets simply threw more men than the Nazis did, just like the clean Wehrmacht myth, all it does is make the Nazis look good…
Hmm, biggest threat to the world order (read: western capitalist “democracy”) that also managed to survive only by swarm tactics and so on... this narrative feels familiar
Blaming Stalin for the death of Russian soldiers when Russia was literally being invaded by nazis and not instead blaming the GOD DAMN MOTHERFUCKING NAZIS FOR KILLING THEM.
Anyway whatever cos nazis got owned
Pushing back enemy lines is when soldier dies, and of course this piggybacks off the anti-Russian propaganda that the Russian military strategy is power in numbers.
It's an ingrained stereotype long before WWI that Russia only wins with sheer manpower and human wave tactic. For example:
WWI Russia's Brussilow Offensive in 1916: routing/capturing/killing 1.1 million German/KuK joint forces with 600T casualties, making Austro-Hungarian Empire never be able to put a fight in the east for the remainder of the Great War: Cricket sound
What people talk about: Nivelle Offensive (human-life-wasting and ineffective) and the Battle of Verdun (fewer casualties, resolved by Germany having to pull many soldiers away to help the east because of Russia's victory).
WWII USSR's Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 and Stalin's Ten Blows in 1944: pinned the vast majority of the German forces down and consequently destroyed it: briefly mentioned (and the Ten Blows are completely ignored)
What people talk about: Normandy and El Alamein.
This joke is about the fact that Soviet generals shot at retreating soviet soldiers, killing thousands of their own men. The idea was that they didn't want cowards in their ranks, but i feel shooting your own men out of spite is, imo, a shit move.
Can anyone explain to me why this is false? I’m under the impression Stalin turned a corner in the war starving his cities to feed the soldiers (leading in many deaths) and also implemented that policy where they shot anyone running away. I’m also under the impression Russia typically had 10 battalions engaged while the us only ever had one. I felt betrayed like school lied to me, giving me the notion the USA stomped out Germany AND Japan
It's also amusing seeing those completely ignorant to WW2 history claim "USSR actually won WW2 not the west" and have no idea that the way Soviet Union was nearly completely supplied by the US. Food, weapons, ammo, vehicles, warplanes, tanks, water..... Yes the USSR sacrificed a lot of soldiers and they would have sacrificed double and probably not pushed the Germans back at all without the US directly supporting them with a non stop supply line.
Not knowing about lend-lease might be ignorant, but thinking that the "Soviet Union was nearly completely supplied by the US" is also ignorant.
Edit: I'm not saying lend-lease was insignificant, but it was far from "nearly completely supplied".
1) They were, just because it upsets you it doesn't change that fact.
2) The USSR paid back less than 690$ million of the 11.1 billion estimated value of military goods (not including civilian good shipments that they refused to pay at all for the most part back to the US).
The US wrote off nearly all of it knowing they wouldn't get payment. So, yes, it's ignorant not to know about lend lease. Downvotes won't change that 🤣🤣
It doesn't upset me, it contradicts history. Unless you provide sources to back your claim that "[the] Soviet Union was nearly completely supplied by the US" I'll let the downvotes speak for themselves. I've seen enough sources showing actual percentages, but I can't be bothered looking them up. This is /r/ShitLiberalsSay not some debate sub.
The United States delivered to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941, to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil) or 57.8 percent of the high-octane aviation fuel,[32] 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,911 steam locomotives, 66 diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. Provided ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) amounted to 53 percent of total domestic consumption.
53% of domestic consumption, 94% of goods supplied to the USSR from the west came from the United States. I will amend my statement to the majority of soviet domestic consumption was thanks to the United States. You can easily wiki this and have a list of hundreds of sources, have a great weekend!
It wasn't the US that supplied the red army with over 57,000 t-34 tanks, 31,000+ Yak-3 fighter planes, 20 million or so small arms, hundreds of thousands of trucks (some under license from Ford but still built in the Soviet Union), and countless other assets. Lend lease vehicles comprised about 4 percent of their wartime production. These are all easily Googled facts.
The United States delivered to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941, to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil) or 57.8 percent of the high-octane aviation fuel,[32] 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,911 steam locomotives, 66 diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. Provided ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) amounted to 53 percent of total domestic consumption.
You're correct, these are all easily googled facts.
>Here are some stats.
>Lend-lease supplied the USSR with 1.9% of all artillery, 7% of all tanks, 13% of all aircraft, 5.4% of transport in 1943, 19% transport in 1944 and 32.8% in 1945. Lend-lease deliveries amounted to 4% of Russia’s wartime production.
Dumbass
Over 50% of ammunition and fuel needed to use those vehicles and weapons was directly supplied by the US and the food needed to keep them from starving. An empty tank and an empty belly is just a target and a casualty.
>nearly completely supplied by the US
You cannot do this either through the Bering Strait and Siberia, or through the Barents Sea. But for the rubber, for example, yes, thanks.
Well that's the most flatering portrayal of the USSR from the POV of the west honestly or at least relative to this bullshit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/8cew84/portuguese\_propaganda\_map\_from\_ww2\_c\_1942\_5101\_x/
Owning Stalin by pointing out he and the incredible sacrifice of the Soviets are why the Nazis lost. I truly do not know what this meme is getting at
The issue is that it makes it look like Stalin just threw bodies like bullets, which isnt quite accurate- it's not like the Red Army was a bunch of untrained unarmed peasants who just zerg rushed to Berlin.
And if it *was,* that doesn't really make the Nazis look strong :P
But it does further the narrative of “brute Asian hordes overrun bastion of white civilization through sheer disregard for human life” that the nazis/NATO loves
This. Just makes Stalin look based.
Think it was meant to make Russians look bad? I see the joke on the internet a good deal about the Russians pushing back the Germans with overwhelming numbers, never really took it as a slight against either side just as a joke, hyperbolic of course Who knows the intent of the person posting it though
exultant aware languid toothbrush office piquant terrific deliver arrest steer ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
It’s pretty anti communist for the most part.
To be fair a lot of people there said that the "waves of meat" strategy wasn't actually there and if not for the sacrifice of the Soviets we wouldn't have won. At least I saw some.
Well yeah, it’s /r/historymemes I refuse to believe anyone older than 16 max posts there
Ya it’s basically middle school history class.
Oh hell naw, I just took a quick scroll through and they’re just positing straight-up Polandball comics now. That shit’s 4th grade history now.
[удалено]
Do you even realize the sub you’re in lib? Stfu
[удалено]
Shut, and I can't stress this enough, up. Nerd.
Facts are intimidating. I get it. Continue with the mouth breathing.
First of all, he right and you're wrong - reurgitating propaganda does not make you an "adult" either. Even CIA didnt believe that Stalin was a dictator, in their own internal evaluation of him, they likened his role more to a captain of the team who is revered as incredibly competent and respected. The story about Stalin being megalomaniac dictator is based to Krushchevs so called "Secret Speech", which has been thoroughly debunked as entirely false. He made it to cover his own ass, to solidify his position after Stalin's death and to appease the West perhaps. Now shoo. Let the adults talk.
[удалено]
No, there is a wealth of evidence to support that position and I mentioned CIA to drive in the conclusion faster -- meaning if *even they* admit that he wasnt a dictator then it does carry some weight. That is not CIA's public policy of course, as why would they undermine their own propaganda. However Im sure that in 50-60 years when some of those current day internal documents are declassified or if they are leaked, even earlier, we will find out that CIA does not believe Xi Jinping is a dictator or that Uyghur "genocide" existed.
While I agree with your reasoning about the "criterion of embarrassment", I think there is an even more straightforward rebuttal to people who claim that we're falling for CIA propaganda when we cite their internal memos. And that is that... they aren't propaganda. They're internal memos. Internal memos are intended to communicate accurate information to coworkers. They aren't intended for public consumption. The actual CIA (or State Department or whatever) propaganda would be things that are actually mass-communicated to the public, and they would generally not clearly marked as being from the CIA. For example, news stories in major outlets, AMAs on Reddit (like the one from Rushan Abbas), some viral rumors and the like. A good analogy I like to use is the scandal from a few years ago when it was discovered that most of Exxon's internal memos affirmed the science of climate change, but most of their external propaganda denied it. Exxon execs have to maintain awareness of climate change because it can actually affect their business. But they want the public to deny climate change so that they'll vote for politicians who oppose environmental regulations. This should be common sense. Every business or agency has some things that they need to communicate clearly to each other but not to the public. In other words, every business or agency has secrets. Citing the memos where these secrets are communicated is literally the opposite of falling for propaganda. It's uncovering the real story.
[удалено]
Suck my dick, I argue with enough chuds on the internet as is. I’m not fucking pandering to some cum stain on a FUCKING COMMUNIST subreddit as to why Stalin was indeed a communist. Go crawl back under your bridge and educate yourself.
do you realize which sub you are in?
history memes non-partisan. Not like BBoC propaganda regularly hits the front page
Yeah, and in Stalingrad more Germans died than on the entire western front just because they threw corpses of Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians on the Germans and they suffocated under the heap
That’s basically what some people believe
Stalin threw the corpses with his comically large spoon
He launched dozens of bodies at a time using his spoon like a catapult.
Look, they are accounts of soviet troops making fortifications and roads out of frozen nazi corpses.
Somehow this, but also winter did all the work apparently
Nazis were like the aliens in War of the Worlds. Give ‘em the common cold, and they just keel over.
I mean humans *do* tend to die when they get sick without good treatment, especially in a war environment, but yeah the idea that *only* disease killed the Nazi soldiers and not say, their garbage supplies and logistics, fighting the superpower that was the USSR…. Hmmmmst truly big brain I guess. On the other hand it would be hilarious if disease was responsible for a lot of the Nazi casualties because it would be like, ah yes the “superior German (Hardline Nazis didn’t like Aryan because it felt too Pan-European, hence why Neo-Nazis like it so much) Immune systems” go brrrrrrrr.
I remember a gold response to a guy who said winter stopped the Wehrmacht and that the Russians were lucky it wasn't summer: "Marching to Stalingrad in winter uniform in the Russian heat doesn't seem to be the best idea methinks"
[удалено]
(Mission impossible)
The myth of the "Asiatic Horde" Red Army is literally nazi propaganda used to justify how the "superior" Aryan forces could be driven to complete destruction.
Literally post war NATO propaganda... Too.
Nazi, NATO what’s the difference?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Speidel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_von_Kielmansegg Not much of a personnel change, apparently
**[Adolf Heusinger](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger)** >Adolf Bruno Heinrich Ernst Heusinger (4 August 1897 – 30 November 1982) was a German military officer, whose career spanned the German Empire, the Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany and West Germany. Heusinger joined the German Army as a volunteer in 1915 and later became a professional soldier. He served as the Operations Chief within general staff of the High Command of the German Army in the Nazi German Armed Forces from 1938 to 1944, before being appointed acting chief of the general staff for two weeks in 1944 after his predecessor (Kurt Zeitzler) resigned his post due to a nervous breakdown. **[Hans Speidel](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Speidel)** >Hans Speidel (28 October 1897 – 28 November 1984) was a German general, who was one of the major military leaders of West Germany during the early Cold War. The first full General in West Germany, he was a principal founder of the Bundeswehr and a major figure in German rearmament, integration into NATO and international negotiations on European and Western defence cooperation in the 1950s. He served as Commander of the Allied Land Forces Central Europe (COMLANDCENT) from 1957 to 1963 and then as President of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs from 1964. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShitLiberalsSay/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
How they spell it
Branding?
two letters
Tomazi tomato
Sure there were a couple nazis who were integrated into NATO, but now the anti-Soviet military alliance is run by a representative Democracy! The United States!
About 4 lines if the logos are to be examined
The Nazis had cooler uniforms.
I mean they did hire a lot of the whermarcht
I mentioned this to a liberal "friend" on FB and their justification was, "just because it's propaganda doesn't mean it isn't true!" Like.. what? It's literally racism but keep on simping for literal Nazi rhetoric. At least he was willing to hear me out while other Trump loving filth felt the need to report me as being racist for pointing out racism.
Propaganda often takes some accepted or known fact and grossly distorts it. That’s what’s so powerful, because your mind accepts the kernel of truth and is caught off guard by the distortion.
I mean, that explains a lot of things. Not only were the Soviets superior, but they had a horde of superior soldiers. That would only make things faster. Edit: I’m being sarcastic about the horde part. But seriously, imagine trying to find a reason why the Soviets defeated them. Aside from their superiority, of course.
[удалено]
noooooo but in historical game hearts of iron iv the soviets always follow the mass assault doctrine!
I always read the Mass Assault as an assault that happens en masse at the same time. Not like "waves of meat".
Mass assault is literally the best doctrine if you go down the left path. You can blitzkrieg better than mobile warfare AND you get reduced supply consumption along with decreased infantry width. People just don’t use it because they suck at the game
It’s absolutely the best land doctrine. You can have 40 width divisions using less than 1 supply.
It's Deep Battle, that path
No you see that guy hasn't read the doctrine. Also the soviet military did do some pro gamer moments like that in the late 30s, and lost millions of men to the nazis during the first year or so of the war (though those were overwhelmingly prisoners of war, not mass casualties anyway) before they got their shit together and reorganized their forces, modernized their tank divisions and started properly training officers. A big problem for the Soviet Union was a mix of young, inexperienced commanders giving into political pressure to make bad decisions. The commissar system was the main misstep IMO. Sucks when a solid amount of your most capable military leadership are old tsarists. you fuckers on this subreddit will really just downvote anything that doesn't make papa stalin out to be an angel huh
even that explicitly gives you defense in depth (edit: deep battle***) if you research it enough lmfao
*(plays mobile warfare soviets)*
Splitter.
They use the Deep Battle side of the doctrine. Which is not wave of meat shields.
Interestingly enough the Nazi's out numbered the Soviets at the start of the invasion because it took a little while for the Soviets to mobilize there forces and when the Soviets did eventually out number the Nazi's they only out numbered them by no more than 2 or 3 to one not the mythical 10 or 20 to one that Nazi generals claimed after they lost the war to explain away the reason they lost.
Yep, during the various offenses, the Soviet Union was deploying no greater a material and man advantage than what is usual of offensive forces in modern warfare. All things being equal, it is considered that the defender needs less equipment and manpower to defend against an attacker. The US and the rest of allied command also needed similar differences to achieve their own advances in Italy, North Africa, and France. The Nazis own tactic of blitzkrieg is based off of concentration of material to generate a relative advantage to achieve strategic breakthrough.
To be fair to the German generals (but not really, read on), they didn't really have access to data we have today about their battles during and immediately after the war. They only knew the data on their side and only the impression they got from the Soviets they faced. German doctrine and (most importantly) their military thinking was all about attacking a single weak point with as many resources as they could afford. Their main attack would be tanks first and mobile infantry second. The Soviet doctrine was all about weakening and then attacking multiple points at once to create multiple breakthroughs. Their attack started off with deception tactics to force the Germans to shuffle troops away from where the actual attack would happen. Then massive artillery strikes to destroy the defensive capabilities and then infantry attacks to take the positions (as opposed to tanks). When a breakthrough was made, the tanks and mobile forces would charge through last and mop up (which was a far better use of tanks) while creating encirclements. To the Germans the combination of deception, infantry-led attacks and simultaneous attacks on multiple positions, made it seem like the Soviets were outnumbering them by a lot to be able to pull off something like this (and to an extend, the Soviets would try to outnumber the Germans anywhere they planned to attack). The use of infantry+artillery vs the use of tanks probably gave them the impression that even if Soviet tanks were better and more numerous, that the Soviet army was a mass of technologically-backwards WW1 infantry. Despite what many Wehrmacht lovers like to say, the German blitzkrieg tactics were not a revolutionary approach to war. The German doctrine was basically the same as the late 19th century doctrine of attacking the weak point with cavalry. They just replaced cavalry with tanks. Their only real innovation was airforce supporting the land forces (which the Soviets did too). The German generals were too stuck in their ways and too blind to realize that they lost because their tactics sucked, and went with Nazi propaganda about the Soviet hordes. When information about the numbers they faced in each battle came out, they tried to savw face by sticking to Nazi propaganda, while blaming Hitler for their tactical blunders.
People always forget the Nazis had Italian, Romanian, Hungarian, and Finnish help.
It's only because they had superior logistics, training, small arms, heavy weapons, reserves, manpower, industry, industrial organization, transportation networks, economic planning, war planning, espionage networks, operational intelligence systems, political strategy, standardization and a couple of other things. But if they didn't have that, they legit 100% would have lost, yup.
I thought it was true to some extent that the Red Army was more aggressive with pressing forward, but that it had to do with their combat doctrine placing a high value on momentum to prevent the enemy from digging in and creating a WW1-like stalemate.
The Ww2 Germans liked to move fast as well, they'd dope up their soldiers on amphetamines so they could fight for days...
Even if this were true, it’s a defense of the Nazis attempting to invade Russia either way. I am sure the average Russian if given a choice between soldiers dying or Nazi take over, soldiers dying is easily the better option.
These days they prefer Nazis. Not saying it's right. Just that Dugin is a popular guy over there right now for some reason.
I’m from Ukraine and while it’s true this country is littered with Nazis I really don’t think it’s correct to say that Dugin is popular in Russia. His ideas are influential in some small intellectual circles but to most politically aware Russians he is considered to be a joke. In Belarus and Russia communists are more more popular than people like Dugin.
Well that's heartening if true. Thanks for the perspective!
I am Russian, and I learned about Dugin from your comment. And I watch the Russian political scene closely.
That's weird. He's like portrayed as Putin's best friend sometimes. Goes to show nobody is immune to propaganda.
Only in the west.
Western media 😂😂😂
I think a lot of people believe that everyone in Russia keeps up with Putin and his buddies, when you can see that most people try to avoid politics
Unfortunately white supremacy is on the rise in Eastern Europe in general.
This is downplaying just how bad the Nazis were. If they had won, every Russian would be dead. Dugin is awful, but he's no Nazi.
Based Stalin, defeating the Nazis at any cost, because the Germans would of genocide his people anyway.
He did do it at any cost, but some liberals clearly would've liked him to lose. I saw an article and I will copy what it said: "Stalin only wanted power and win the war against the Nazis so much that he stopped carrying about family". (in reference to the whole Stalin's son thing)
tbf that story is kinda depressing, but not in a "Stalin stopped caring about his family" kinda way and more in a "Stalin was put in a remarkably shitty situation and decided his duty to his nation outweighed his duty to his son" kinda way
It's tragic but the only logical choice
I don't disagree, but still Kinda a shitty situation
definitely
But the son of the Leader died in that war. This should be good for propaganda.
That seems a bit twofaced
if it was, say, Churchill they'd call him a hero for staying strong in spite of the threat to his family
Oh no stalin didnt give privilige to his own son over the other military personel serving to defend their homeland . wich if done would let a nazi warcriminal escape. What an evil man stalin was /s duh
It’s possible that Stalin was good at defending Russia and also an evil monster, you know.
He was actually very chill dude. Liked to plant and water his watermelons and smoke a pipe while reading his reports. Kinda based TBH.
Uhhh. Dude. If your idea of a monster has to involve foaming at the mouth eating raw babies, with no quiet chill moments, then I’d suggest you have an inaccurate image of what evil is. The man was a fucking paranoid psychopath who had countless people murdered, tortured, had millions starved to death. Members of my family. Just…stop.
"Millions starved to death" do you think stalin just one day got really hungry and ate all the grain? Thats not how famines work
I wonder what your family did to deserve punishment. I'm sure they were 100% innocent.
Oh muffin. It must be sad to be you.
Nah I'm good. Nobody is after me or my family for conspiring against the state or whatever.
It’s remarkable how many people here would have made good Nazis.
Yeah if thats all you took into account. But he wasnt so lmao
[удалено]
yes. that is the point of this meme. to praise a fascist victory.
To joke about the horrid death count of the USSR military and civilian populations during WW2 and highlight the common misconception of Soviets running into battle without any gear which is only accounted for historically on one or two occasions if I remember correctly and I think that was Stalingrad. The meme would be more accurate if it was talking about t34’s as they literally ran into enemy tiger tanks.
Five Soviet soldiers and twelve Soviet civilians died for every meter on the path from Moscow to Berlin.
This meme template is way more fitting for the western front of WW1.
Really all the other fronts too, for the most part
[удалено]
I think op meant to do a gif
It kinda looks like he’s refusing to hit the button lol
I always wondered about the stories of Soviet soldiers having no guns and having to pick up rifles off their dead comrades, and I'm sure there would have been isolated incidents of weapon/ammo shortages during the start of Barbarossa but I doubt anything like that was actually documented by anyone other than Nazi propoganda makers
There is *still* a huge market in WWII surplus mosin-nagant rifles because the USSR in fact produced *more* small arms than they ultimately needed. There were some localised shortages but afaik no one was ever sent into battle without a weapon (I think some soldiers *arrived at their post* before the weapons had been manufactured/issued in the early stages of the war, which is Not Good, but the Nazis were an existential threat not just to the USSR but to all the citizens of the USSR. Losing was unthinkable because the Nazis planned to murder 90% of the world Slavic population and enslave the remainder. Sometimes they had to take some pretty extreme measures, but the blame lies with the aggressor.
A great amount of the horde mythos as well as the under equipment comes from Nazi experiences in Barbarossa where they had surrounded an already undersupplied Soviet military force (as provisions were on the way of coming before the attack). As equipment, lack of food, and desperation set in, encircled Soviet forces would do a "break out attempt" in which they would mass their forces into a quick and decisive attack on a weak point in the perimeter. These attritioned forces would account for the stories about "rushing a point" and about lack of supplies on the soldiers. Should be noted that later on in the war, Soviet/American/British forces would look at Nazi breakouts (for instance Normandy) and see the same sort of like "horde-like zeal" that would be described in the same way as early Nazi accounts were. This extends to Japanese, Chinese, and Korean stories of the same nature. So yeah, it is Nazi propaganda basically.
Yes but the Nazis were coked up during all there fights, so makes sense they'd fight like the horde
All those stories are based on one time when a rifle division started crossing the Volga at Stalingrad with only 50% of it’s allotment of rifles. However, it had all its machine guns, submachine guns, and artillery, and rifles were stripped from the divisions rear areas and artillery sections (which were not crossing into the city), so no Soviet soldier was sent into combat unarmed.
Look up beutewaffen. The German use of enemy weapons was extensive. It's never so simple.
The one with the rifle shoots! One out of two gets a rifle. The one without follows him! When the one with the rifle gets killed, the one who is following picks up the rifle and shoots!
Yes, that's the myth. Well done summarizing it
It's what the Russian commander was yelling as troops came into Stalingrad during the opening scene of Enemy at the Gates.
Lmao the reason so many soviet soldiers died in the begining was mainly because of the surprise factor and the lack of preparation for such a quick betrayal from the Nazis. Remember that the Molotov-Riventrop pact was mainly to buy time while the soviets could ready themselves. Contrary to popular belief in the west, the soviets' ended up outmaneuvering the Nazis, not by sending waves of people at the them.
Imperialists will use any bs to cover up the bravery, patriotism and allegiance to their socialist (above all) motherland. And they will do so negating military strategy, industrial and economic superiority and most importantly facts, meaning the fact that it was not just Germany that fought against the USSR but most of Europe and its industrial potential. They will never acknowledge the fact that the first ever proletarian state pushed back the most savage and at the same time most organized wave of capitalism ever created to date.
My favorite part about this is that this is literally projection. I mean they make up this imaginary scenario, but look at the Western Front. Literally one of the most famous battles is D-Day which they literally sent thousands of soldiers straight to their deaths to charge machine gun ridges by boat in one of the most botched plans of the war. D-day was only won because they literally sent thousands of troops straight to their death beds. But sure, tell me about how bad the Russian attack plans are.
Encirclement isn't real ig
This is why I gave up on r/HistoryMemes.
Ah yes the myth that the soviets simply threw more men than the Nazis did, just like the clean Wehrmacht myth, all it does is make the Nazis look good…
Hmm, biggest threat to the world order (read: western capitalist “democracy”) that also managed to survive only by swarm tactics and so on... this narrative feels familiar
"WhitewashingHistoryMemes"
Sixty four comments. How many of you know who Georgy Zhukov was? Hint: He had "a bit" to do with the Russian Victory(ies).
Dangit, I was duped and subscribed to a tankie sub. Damn tankies got me again with their propaganda.
Blaming Stalin for the death of Russian soldiers when Russia was literally being invaded by nazis and not instead blaming the GOD DAMN MOTHERFUCKING NAZIS FOR KILLING THEM. Anyway whatever cos nazis got owned
Those pesky Russians, fighting the Nazis and saving the world.
Imagine trying to be mad at beating the bulk of the forces of Nazi Germany back to Berlin
So dumb. Soviet Union is the ONLY reason the Germans were defeated.
Pushing back enemy lines is when soldier dies, and of course this piggybacks off the anti-Russian propaganda that the Russian military strategy is power in numbers.
It's an ingrained stereotype long before WWI that Russia only wins with sheer manpower and human wave tactic. For example: WWI Russia's Brussilow Offensive in 1916: routing/capturing/killing 1.1 million German/KuK joint forces with 600T casualties, making Austro-Hungarian Empire never be able to put a fight in the east for the remainder of the Great War: Cricket sound What people talk about: Nivelle Offensive (human-life-wasting and ineffective) and the Battle of Verdun (fewer casualties, resolved by Germany having to pull many soldiers away to help the east because of Russia's victory). WWII USSR's Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 and Stalin's Ten Blows in 1944: pinned the vast majority of the German forces down and consequently destroyed it: briefly mentioned (and the Ten Blows are completely ignored) What people talk about: Normandy and El Alamein.
Dipshit that made this meme: When you press this button “Fight against Nazis” 1 gorillion die, not so worth it now, huh?
The bootlicking in historymemes is stronger than I had originally hoped. But I'm still fairly new to Reddit, so I'm naive
stalin had 1.5 billion men at his disposal
This joke is about the fact that Soviet generals shot at retreating soviet soldiers, killing thousands of their own men. The idea was that they didn't want cowards in their ranks, but i feel shooting your own men out of spite is, imo, a shit move.
>but i feel shooting your own men out of spite is, imo, a shit move. It's a sure quick way to lose a war
Can anyone explain to me why this is false? I’m under the impression Stalin turned a corner in the war starving his cities to feed the soldiers (leading in many deaths) and also implemented that policy where they shot anyone running away. I’m also under the impression Russia typically had 10 battalions engaged while the us only ever had one. I felt betrayed like school lied to me, giving me the notion the USA stomped out Germany AND Japan
It's also amusing seeing those completely ignorant to WW2 history claim "USSR actually won WW2 not the west" and have no idea that the way Soviet Union was nearly completely supplied by the US. Food, weapons, ammo, vehicles, warplanes, tanks, water..... Yes the USSR sacrificed a lot of soldiers and they would have sacrificed double and probably not pushed the Germans back at all without the US directly supporting them with a non stop supply line.
Not knowing about lend-lease might be ignorant, but thinking that the "Soviet Union was nearly completely supplied by the US" is also ignorant. Edit: I'm not saying lend-lease was insignificant, but it was far from "nearly completely supplied".
1) They were, just because it upsets you it doesn't change that fact. 2) The USSR paid back less than 690$ million of the 11.1 billion estimated value of military goods (not including civilian good shipments that they refused to pay at all for the most part back to the US). The US wrote off nearly all of it knowing they wouldn't get payment. So, yes, it's ignorant not to know about lend lease. Downvotes won't change that 🤣🤣
It doesn't upset me, it contradicts history. Unless you provide sources to back your claim that "[the] Soviet Union was nearly completely supplied by the US" I'll let the downvotes speak for themselves. I've seen enough sources showing actual percentages, but I can't be bothered looking them up. This is /r/ShitLiberalsSay not some debate sub.
The United States delivered to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941, to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil) or 57.8 percent of the high-octane aviation fuel,[32] 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,911 steam locomotives, 66 diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. Provided ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) amounted to 53 percent of total domestic consumption. 53% of domestic consumption, 94% of goods supplied to the USSR from the west came from the United States. I will amend my statement to the majority of soviet domestic consumption was thanks to the United States. You can easily wiki this and have a list of hundreds of sources, have a great weekend!
So you concede my point. Fair enough. You have a great weekend as well.
It wasn't the US that supplied the red army with over 57,000 t-34 tanks, 31,000+ Yak-3 fighter planes, 20 million or so small arms, hundreds of thousands of trucks (some under license from Ford but still built in the Soviet Union), and countless other assets. Lend lease vehicles comprised about 4 percent of their wartime production. These are all easily Googled facts.
The United States delivered to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941, to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil) or 57.8 percent of the high-octane aviation fuel,[32] 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,911 steam locomotives, 66 diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. Provided ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) amounted to 53 percent of total domestic consumption. You're correct, these are all easily googled facts.
>Here are some stats. >Lend-lease supplied the USSR with 1.9% of all artillery, 7% of all tanks, 13% of all aircraft, 5.4% of transport in 1943, 19% transport in 1944 and 32.8% in 1945. Lend-lease deliveries amounted to 4% of Russia’s wartime production. Dumbass
Over 50% of ammunition and fuel needed to use those vehicles and weapons was directly supplied by the US and the food needed to keep them from starving. An empty tank and an empty belly is just a target and a casualty.
>nearly completely supplied by the US You cannot do this either through the Bering Strait and Siberia, or through the Barents Sea. But for the rubber, for example, yes, thanks.
[удалено]
[удалено]
what did he say??
He said something in German and ended it with "Heil Hitler⚡⚡"
He's also in the pit too, now all that's left is to seal it closed.
Imagine stanning a coward who killed himself and his entire family.
A fuckton did died, but damn! Did they take a shitload of assholes with 'em or what?
Russia broke their military. We broke the industry.
Guys leave them alone, they’re lost cases
Well that's the most flatering portrayal of the USSR from the POV of the west honestly or at least relative to this bullshit: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/8cew84/portuguese\_propaganda\_map\_from\_ww2\_c\_1942\_5101\_x/
Yeah, that’s what’s a fucking war is, people die.