Rokossovsky was the real hero. Zhukov could only throw men to the meat grinder.

Bc he always had numerical advantages in men and equipment. He beat a army of 250,000 Germans with 12000 tanks and 1.200,000 men. Well yeah no shit. I could do that too lol. The soviets steamroller the Germans once their manufacturing kicked into gear. All the tactics and good equipment won't stop the juggernaut of the soviet army.

>>15629375
pretty much this

>>15629350
The more you read about stuff like the Korsun Pocket and the shitty first day of the Berlin assault the more you lean towards regarding Konev as the better marshal at both inflicting and avoiding casualties. He also had a direct hand in hushing up the gigantic casualties from outside rzhev and Moscow.

>>15629350
Western allies have to come up with every single kind of a cope towards soviet performance in ww2 to compensate for the fact that ussr fought 4 out of 5 germans in ww2. The rest was largely in support roles, so they have to undermine what soviets did which is deatroying the most capable army the world has seen at the time

>>15629557
With Americans and Brits carrying them through the war with lend lease

>>15629557
>be Soviet Union
>ally with Germany because why not
>attack Poland with your faithfull ally
>carve out spheres of influence with Germany over Eastern Europe
>supply your faithfull ally with the war materiels he needs to win against France
>think it will take years to beat France, time you can use to militerize further, even though you have been spending the majority of your budget on armaments for the last 20 years
>Germany beats France much easier than everyone expected
>oh shit.jpg
>You probably realize you are next
>Even though you have been building only weapons for 20 years, you are somehow still unprepared for what is coming xD
>Try to not provoke Germany in any way so they don't attack you
>Ignore all of the warnings of Britain that an invasion is imminent
>Germany invades you
>Lose the majority of your army and 1/3 of your population and industry in the first months due to incompetence
>Keep throwing man and machines at Germans to slow them down
>Your infrastructure is shit because you spent your entire budget on weapons, which along with the weather slows them down further
>Keep "counterattacking" with pointless offensives that barely achieve anything
>Who cares, you have been building weapons for 20 years, so you have lots to spare xD
>Allies keep supplying you so that your soldiers don't starve to death
>This goes on for 4 years
>Somehow barely win with the Allies helping you by reducing Germany to rubble achieving much more with a fraction of the human cost
>Meanwhile in the year of our lord 2023 retards online keep using your massive losses as an argument "Soviet Union did more, because they lost more men xD"

>>15629350
>Why do people call Zhukov overrated?

Because a good apple among rotten apples does not make the apple perfect. Zhukov and Timoshenko was what they had in the beginning, the rest were incompetent.
The best general the Soviets had was Tukhachevsky, far better than Zhukov. He was shot during the purges because his tacics and doctrines (a perfection of blitzkreig) was deemed anti-patriotic.

Zhukov was good, but greatest?
Stars began to rise quickly, like Vasilevsky and Rokossovsky.
Rokossovsky literally came straight out of the Gulag when world war 2 began, and is considered far better than the more warmed up experienced Zhukov.
Zhukovs best contribution was to reorganize the Red Army when it had been virtually destroyed and no one believed in victory. He halted both Army Group North and Army Group Center. He gave Stalin assurance that victory was possible. Most importantly, he was the general who could tell Stalin to his face that Stalins orders were not practical, this in itself was probably the greatest contribution to a final Soviet victory against the wehrmacht.

>>15629662
>Parroting ww2 myths: The post.

>>15629668
>no arguments: the counterpost

>>15629669
>>15629662


Alright, lets break it down.

>think it will take years to beat France, time you can use to militerize further, even though you have been spending the majority of your budget on armaments for the last 20 years

It was just more budget on remilitarization, it was a complete overhaul of the military structure to retrain men, reeducate officers, reform divisions, restructure command, virtually self-correcting all communist thinking and restore the imperial army, with great prudency since it was hard to admit that the fault was ultimately with Stalin. The Soviets expected these reforms to last until 1944 which is why they were biting their time with Germany (and 1944 is roughly the point IRL where the Red Army begins to outperform the Wehrmacht).

>Even though you have been building only weapons for 20 years, you are somehow still unprepared for what is coming xD

Again, the unpreparedness has nothing to do with weapons, the Germans caught the Soviets right in the middle of their reforms and reorgnization which added to the chaos, plus that the Molotov Line was under construction.

>Keep throwing man and machines at Germans to slow them down
Again a myth. The Soviets didnt just "throw men" into the Germans. All defensive lines were completely reasonble in their geographical location and strategic importance, I dont know what you wanted them to do instead, just let the Germans capture the best part of the USSR without resisting? Yes the Germans overwhelmed these defences because they couldnt be organized or prepared in time, but that isnt to "throw men into the guns". You seem to believe the Soviets thought they had infinite manpower, they actually had a critical shortage of both manpower and equiptment.

>Keep "counterattacking" with pointless offensives that barely achieve anything
What do you mean by "keep counterattacking", what pointless counterattacks are made in 1941 after Brody?

>>15629718
cont.

>Who cares, you have been building weapons for 20 years, so you have lots to spare xD
It never was about weapons. And after the intitial month of the invasion they had a lack of material and quality equptment. The civilian sector was pillaged for radios and lubricants etc.

>Allies keep supplying you so that your soldiers don't starve to death
The amount of food sent to the USSR wasnt preventing starvation. Again you have no idea what you're talking about. Lend Lease made up roughly 1% of Soviet domestic produced food. Yes the food was of high quality, but that doesnt mean starvation if left without.

>This goes on for 4 years
Yes im sure 1941 when the Red Army was nearly destroyed is just the same as 1944 when the Red Army has basically surpassed the Wehrmacht in strategic and operational capability. The Germans never came close to maskirovka and Deep Operations was a more sophisticated doctrine than 'Blitzkreig'

>Somehow barely win with the Allies helping you by reducing Germany to rubble achieving much more with a fraction of the human cost
Allies played a minor part in some of the Soviets greatest victories: Moscow, Grozny and Stalingrad. Again you dont seem to know when Lend Lease protocolls were issues and in what size by what year. By the climax of the Battle of Moscow, less than 2% of Lend-Lease had just begun to reach Russian ports. Again you're just parroting old myths that the Soviets threw men into gunfire and somehow won. The Soviet military casualties were roughly 2:1 to the Germans, and the vast majority of those casualties came in 1941 during the chaotic invasion.
You also say the allies "somehow" managed to achieve with less human cost, ignoring that 70-80% of the German army was in the east, and the allies were fighting a war of munition (which is equally important in the defeat of Germany) rather than manpower, and that the allies were completely mechanized / motorized, while the Germans had nearly zero operational strength left

>>15629718
>It was just more budget on remilitarization, it was a complete overhaul of the military structure to retrain men, reeducate officers, reform divisions, restructure command, virtually self-correcting all communist thinking and restore the imperial army, with great prudency since it was hard to admit that the fault was ultimately with Stalin. The Soviets expected these reforms to last until 1944 which is why they were biting their time with Germany (and 1944 is roughly the point IRL where the Red Army begins to outperform the Wehrmacht).

Why are they purging and making massive reforms if there is a pending invasion? This just further proves the stupidity of the Soviet regime, that cared more about ideology than anything else.

>Again, the unpreparedness has nothing to do with weapons, the Germans caught the Soviets right in the middle of their reforms and reorgnization which added to the chaos, plus that the Molotov Line was under construction.

Again, why were they unprepared if Stalin himself knew this invasion was coming 20 years in advance, which was why he industrialized so rapidly in the first place.

>Again a myth. The Soviets didnt just "throw men" into the Germans. All defensive lines were completely reasonble in their geographical location and strategic importance, I dont know what you wanted them to do instead, just let the Germans capture the best part of the USSR without resisting? Yes the Germans overwhelmed these defences because they couldnt be organized or prepared in time, but that isnt to "throw men into the guns". You seem to believe the Soviets thought they had infinite manpower, they actually had a critical shortage of both manpower and equiptment.

A competent army would have been prepared and stopped the Germans if not at the border then around Kiev at most. They outnumbered Germany in everything, had a technological advantage in some areas and were on the defensive. Yet they lost 5 million men in 6 months to an army of 3 million.

>>15629720
>The amount of food sent to the USSR wasnt preventing starvation. Again you have no idea what you're talking about. Lend Lease made up roughly 1% of Soviet domestic produced food. Yes the food was of high quality, but that doesnt mean starvation if left without.

This is clearly false on so many levels. Even Soviets themselves (those that lived through this period, not 21st century commie wannabes) admit that without lend lease they would have lost the war. What you are doing is clearly revisionism.

>Yes im sure 1941 when the Red Army was nearly destroyed is just the same as 1944 when the Red Army has basically surpassed the Wehrmacht in strategic and operational capability. The Germans never came close to maskirovka and Deep Operations was a more sophisticated doctrine than 'Blitzkreig'

Blitzkrieg isn't a military doctrine, nor did they Germans try to be "sophisticated". They knew on the attack everything is fluid and decided by the hour, so they favored initiative and daring. Soviets had an entirely different way of doing war which was more centralized, I don't know why you are comparing both.

>>15629720
>Allies played a minor part in some of the Soviets greatest victories: Moscow, Grozny and Stalingrad. Again you dont seem to know when Lend Lease protocolls were issues and in what size by what year. By the climax of the Battle of Moscow, less than 2% of Lend-Lease had just begun to reach Russian ports.

I don't know why you are only talking 1941. And yes I know lend-lease too a while to kick in. This doesn't change the fatc that without it the Soviets would have collapsed most likely by 1943-44. They way they were waging the war and the territory they lost in the first year was unsustainable in the long run. As you said they started to have manpower problems by 1944. Without lend lease, things would been costlier and slower to achieve and who know how much more punishment the Soviets could take.

>The Soviet military casualties were roughly 2:1 to the Germans, and the vast majority of those casualties came in 1941 during the chaotic invasion.
I was not talking about "muh K:D", nor did the Soviets care about it. But this isn't an argument that whoever lost more men, did the most work. Americans and Brits used machines to achieve the same if not more than the Soviets did, while also supplying them at the same time, while also fighting Japan without Soviet help btw. I am not American, but trying to argue that Soviets did more than USA, because they almost lost their country to incompetence is retarded.

>>15629749

>This is clearly false on so many levels. Even Soviets themselves (those that lived through this period, not 21st century commie wannabes) admit that without lend lease they would have lost the war. What you are doing is clearly revisionism.

Then how much food was sent through Lend-Lease in proportion to Soviet domestic production if it wasnt 1%?

I think you're getting lost in your own argument. Lend-Lease did help the USSR win the war, but not in the way you present it. The Soviets recieved almost a majority of their aluminium and copper through Lend-Lease, and high quality equiptment such as scopes and radios. The majority of the protocolls came in 1944-1945, trucks, locomotives. Without Lend-Lease, no Don crossing, no Bagration, possibly no Uranus at its given date. That doesnt mean The Soviet union automatically lose the war, it just means they wont win it since they have no offenensive capabilities, but the Germans were running out of offensive capabilities as well.
And the Soviets themselves said it >at the time<, this is a very importan detail cause there are many things people say at the time which proved to be incorrect when you analyze history with all facts and statistics. The Axis at the time believed they could win the war, even the allies did, that doesnt make it true.

>>15629749

>Blitzkrieg isn't a military doctrine, nor did they Germans try to be "sophisticated". They knew on the attack everything is fluid and decided by the hour, so they favored initiative and daring. Soviets had an entirely different way of doing war which was more centralized, I don't know why you are comparing both.

I wrote Blitzkreig within a ' ' because yes it was a buzzword for actual doctrine of bewegungskrieg and Auftragstaktik.
Yes the Germans tried to have a sophisticated doctrtine, and they did, modern militaries has copied the German mission command, one of the core reasons why the wehrmacht was tactically superior in ww2, so yes it was sophisticated, I dont know why you would say it wasnt.
And again, you have completely misunderstood the concept of Deep operations, and you ignore that Soviet military doctrines adapted during their 4 years of war with the wehrmacht, the Soviets ultimately raised their own mechanized divisions, they resotred rank to their individual soldiers, they gave their officers freedom of initiative, greater communcation among tank commanders. This is the complete opposite of the centralized structure which defined the Red Army in 1941, and its a myth you're parroting that the Red Army somehow didnt learn from their mistakes nor learning from their enemies despite being at them non stop for 4 years. Deep Operations was a perfection of 'Blitzkreig' and Soviet command surpassed German command in operational execution.

>>15629668
not even, everyone knew the soviets won the war pretty much singlehandedly in the 40ties and 50ties. More like parroting cold war US propaganda

>>15629735
>Why are they purging and making massive reforms if there is a pending invasion? This just further proves the stupidity of the Soviet regime, that cared more about ideology than anything else.

They werent purging. The purges came before the war. They were making massive reforms because they had to. The war against Finland proved that they had to. They couldnt just ignore their poor performance.
And the invasion wasnt certain, not in the early winter months of 1940 when program for reforms were advised and approved.

>Again, why were they unprepared if Stalin himself knew this invasion was coming 20 years in advance, which was why he industrialized so rapidly in the first place.

Stalin didnt know ww2 would happen 20 years in advance. Soviet militarization in 1920 is equal to North Korean militarization today. North Korea spends nearly half of its GDP on defence while their people are almost starving, it doesnt mean North Korea expects ww3 and neither did Stalin expect ww2.
Its simply a thinking, its a mentality of a nation that consider itself under siege from all sides of the world. The Soviets felt the need to invest in a huge army because when the communist republic was proclaimed over the Tsarist regime, the entire world regarded it with hostility.

>A competent army would have been prepared and stopped the Germans if not at the border then around Kiev at most.

You just dont get it. The red army was competent in 1944, they werent competent in 1941. The divisions along the German-Soviet border was a consequence of Soviet military thinking that in the event of war, the soviet armed forces would conduct a large counter-attack and take the fight to the enemys soil. Tukhachevsky was the one who suggest a defensive line far behind the border, and to make a strategic retreat in an invasion to better absorb the attack and enrcicle the enemy. He was shot because of this cause his doctrine of Deep Operations was regarded as treasonous.

>>15629784
>not even, everyone knew the soviets won the war pretty much singlehandedly in the 40ties and 50ties. More like parroting cold war US propaganda

Which is also a ww2 myth cause the Soviets didnt win the war singlehandedly.

I dont understand why its so hard for people to understand that it was a combined effort, why must always the radical explaination prevail on either side of the debate?

What I'm arguing is that the Soviets defeated the Wehrmacht invasion largely on their own accord, and likely could have fought them to a stalemate. They were going up against 70-80% of the german army, this is true.
That does not mean anything.
The Soviets fought the German manpower, but the allies fought German munitions. Nearly 70% of German munition production was dedicated to fighting the western allies (50% of German munition was dedicated to single engine fighters, the overwhelming majority deployed over German airspace, 10% dedicated to flak, and another 10% dedicated to navy, plus an obious surpluss of muntions dedicated to the African/Italian campaign). German munition for AFV (panzers) were sometimes less than 5%, and those were primarily on the eastern front.
Many historians will argue that the battle of Tunis was on almost equal catastrophe as Stalingrad: 300.000 Axis soldiers captured, 4000 aircrafts lost. The first ever detachment of real tiger tanks were lost here.
Allied strastegic bombing and naval blockade reduced German production capability nearly by half, the allies destroyed munitions before they even left the factory.

So no, you're both parroting old myth propaganda because one is insinuating that the Soviets won singlehandedly, while the other think the allies won singlehandedly.

>>15629774
>>15629778
>>15629786
I don't even know what you are arguing at this point. My argument was simple, although I guess you lost me along the way. All I was trying to say was that just because the Soviets fucked up so badly in 1941 and it took them monumental effort to come back in this war, doesn't mean they did things better or did more than the Allies did. They were incompetent in 1941 and they payed the price for it in blood. If they actually had a decent army they would have stopped the Germans at the border since they outnumbered them in everything.
This was my whole point, that just becuase you fuck up badly but manage to come back, doesn't mean that the guy that didn't fuck up as badly but still came to the same end result did less work.

>>15629811

The problem is that you have completely changed your argument now, if you are the same anon who posted >>15629662

Because it insinuates that the Soviets fought on the same level in 1941 as they did in 1944. Nothing changed, just more weapons and more bodies.
That is to parrot old ww2 myths because its a recognition that one doesnt understand soviet operational development and successful restructure of their command down to the very individual level, which was critical (but not exclusive) to turn the fight on the Wehrmacht in 1942 and even outperforming them in 1943.

>>15629825
I never argued that they didn't change and also that was a meme post and was supposed to be a joke. I know they change and fixed their shit up by 1944, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. The point was why did it take them 3 years and 20 million people to do that?

>>15629830
>The point was why did it take them 3 years and 20 million people to do that?

Because the programs for reforms were not even suggested until it became evident how defect the Red Army was during the war in Finland.
The war in Finland was possibly the best thing that could ever happen to the Soviets cause it revealed that the Red Army was no longer an effective military force, it was limb ineffective political party branch and it needed reforms, likewise did the German victory in France prove that the reforms needed to be even greater to copy the doctrines, tactics and divisons of the Wehrmacht. Basically, they came to the horrible realization that everything Tukhachevsky had told them was correct. It was a hard pill for Stalin to swallow, and even harder for the Soviet command to tell Stalin, so reforms began with great prudency, and reforms werent ramped up until it became evident that a war with Germany was ever more likely in early/mid 1941. They all knew the Red Army at the state it was in Finland stood no chance against the Wehrmacht. They knew it needed to be reformed and rearmed, they didnt just sit passively and ignored the fact that a small agricultural nation in Northern Europe with barely no weapons managed to score several defeats on the Red Army, and then pretend like it didnt happen.

The reforms were expected to take time. But by June 1942 the Soviets were fighting a tactical withdraw against the advancing Army Goup A. This is in stark contrast to during Operation Barbarossa, Soviet commanders were simply told to hold their ground, get encircled, and die, and that belief in communism will save them. This time, officers were given the freedom to take the intiative instead of waiting for orders. Russians are not stupid, they learn from their enemy, why wouldnt they?
By November 1942 the Soviets were able to execute their own encirclement, by 1943 the Soviet maskirovka was more effective and sophisticated than Germany.

>>15629662
>ally with Germany because why not
Stopped reading your fanfic here because in the real world the USSR never joined the Axis.

>>15629666
>He was shot during the purges because his tacics and doctrines (a perfection of blitzkreig) was deemed anti-patriotic.
It unironically was because Stalin was still seething with butthurt at him over the Battle of Warsaw in 1920. Tukhachevsky called Stalin an illiterate dumbass who fucked up the Polish campaign back then and Stalin didn't forget that insult.

>>15629638
you're so retarded

>>15629866

One thing that's interesting about the Winter War, that most people miss even at the time, is that it was not an invading army of demoralized soldiers who didn't want to fight. There were very few soviets surrenders through the entire war and most Red Army units often fought to the bitter end. This should have come as a warning to those who were planning Barbarossa.

>>15629662
>Poland
>faithful ally
Get better bait.

>>15629385
Lol, USSR was heavily dependent on Lend Lease for the entire war. Soviet leadership admitted they would have lost without USA gibs.

>>15629889
>German–Soviet Axis talks occurred in October and November 1940 concerning the Soviet Union's potential entry as a fourth Axis power during World War II. The negotiations, which occurred during the era of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, included a two-day conference in Berlin between Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov and Adolf Hitler and German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. The talks were followed by both countries trading written proposed agreements.

>After two days of negotiations from 12 to 14 November 1940, Germany presented the Soviets with a draft written Axis pact agreement that defined the world spheres of influence of the four proposed Axis powers (Germany, Italy, Japan and the Soviet Union).[1] Hitler, Ribbentrop and Molotov tried to set German and Soviet spheres of influence. Hitler encouraged Molotov to look south to Iran and eventually India, to preserve German access to Finland's resources and to remove Soviet influence in the Balkans.[2]

It wasn't for lack of trying.

>>15630642
>Lol, USSR was heavily dependent on Lend Lease for the entire war.

And how significant was Lend Lease when the Red Army routed the Wehrmacht in December 1941? Do tell us.

>Soviet leadership admitted they would have lost without USA gibs.
And German leadership still believed they could win the war in 1944.
Just becuase the people at the time say something doesnt make it true. It's better to make a correct analysis using a summarized overview of all facts and statistic to make an objective conclusion, rather than trusting everything Jefferson Davis said during his presidency as facts that doesnt need any further evaluation.

>>15630676
>Just becuase the people at the time say something doesnt make it true. It's better to make a correct analysis using a summarized overview of all facts and statistic to make an objective conclusion, rather than trusting everything Jefferson Davis said during his presidency as facts that doesnt need any further evaluation.

Pseudointllectualism at it's finest. Please share what "correct analysis using a summarized overview of all facts and statistic to make an objective conclusion" did you make to come to your unbiased opinion, totally unrelated to your real world politics, feeling and views. And also tell us how people that lived through all of WW2 and had every reason to lie about lend lease, still praised it and say they would have been doomed without it.

>>15629735
>Why are they purging and making massive reforms if there is a pending invasion?
Stalin legitimately believed that Hitler of all people would be bound by something as flimsy as his word and treaty despite repeatedly showing he could not

>>15629735
>hurr incompetent Red Army durrrrr
How embarrassing it must be for Prussian nobility then that this highly professional and elite force was raped by an incompetent horde

>>15630776
>Nazis
>"Prussian Nobility"
At least complain about the correct Germany.

>>15630776
Nazism was a Bavarian incel uprising.

>>15630694

Praising it is one thing. Making a unambiguous conclusion is another. It just shows that you have the cognitive capacity of a child and clearly unfit for a historical discussion since you so blatantly will consider an anecdotal as undisputed facts.
Now Stalin could have said it because he wanted more of it. Zhukov could have said it because he, like guderian, only saw the military aspects of the campaign. Many factors to consider, many sources to compare. Why is it such an impossibility for you that they may have been not entirely accurate? Was Hitler entirely accurate in his assumptions and predicaments of germanys capabilities? Should we just take his word for it? No further study required. No one is denying that Lend lease wasn't significant, the Soviets likely would not have won the war against Germany without it, but thst isn't to say they would have lost either. Without that 10% surplus, the war would have been longer and more costly, for the soviets and the allies.

>>15630838
So your only "argument" for your theory is muddying the waters? Or are you actually going to show me in what way did lend lease not contribute enough?

File: main-qimg-1887d78bd777c7a(...).jpg (25 KB, 340x270)

25 KB JPG

>>15629350
I think it might be partially a pushback to Zhukov's reputation in the U.S. which is fairly high because he was pretty liberal and pro-Western in his outlook, and friends with Eisenhower. He favored a more radical approach to de-Stalinization than Khrushchev did, which also put Zhukov at odds with Stalinist die-hards like Molotov and Kaganovich. (He wanted to put them -- and others -- on trial for their part in the purges.)

Khrushchev sensed this was a threat to his position so he sidelined Zhukov with support from some other generals and ex-generals who had a more chauvinistic attitude about relations with the West.

>>15630867

No, my argument is that you should consider everything when researching history, your argument is to look at a single anecdote material and conclude it as fact.


90% of Lend Lease didnt arrive until the second half of 1943, by then the Soviets had won their most siginificant victories. Only less than 2% of Lend Lease arrived in 1941 when the wehrmacht suffered their most ciritical defeat.
Lend lease was important cause of quality. It gave the USSR proper radios instead of confiscated civilian radios, it gave them food in terms of spam and not grain, it gave them quality natural rubber, it gave them aluminium to produce domestic aircrafts.
But lend lease is exaggerated in proportion to Soviet domestic production, and those who cite Lend Lease amount never factor domestic output in their numbers to actually give any level to the numbers, nor do they cite when these supplies actually arrived to the USSR, which year.
It's hard to tell if Lend-Lease was a decisive factor or not, since the overwhelming majority arrived 1943 and onwards, it gave the USSR offensive capability and kept the wehrmacht in the east. It isnt to downplay allied contribution either just because you have a more critical look at how much Lend-Lease actually did. The allied defeated Germany with munitions, not by manpower, and in a modern war munition production and equiptment is everything, not number of men. Germany lost over 75-80% of its munition output against the western allied, more unaccounted munition output from bombing campaign Germany lost as the result of a combined effort and I dont know why its so hard for people to see this poisition, why must it always be one extreme side of the debate against the other.

Source of Lend Lease
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/lendlease.pdf

Accounting for War is the most extensive research on Soviet production and economy in ww2.

>>15631116
Beautiful display
The average retard like
>>15630867
Have no idea that the Russians defeated and halted the German onslaught prior to Lend lease arriving in any significant number. Especially Stalingrad and the soviet victory for the battle of Moscow, foreign aid was miniscule and irrelevant to the conclusion of those battles. And it is those battles which turned the tide of the war.

Lend lease simply accelerated the wars outcome and ensures total german defeat.

>>15629786
Purges happened in '37 and the Winter war began in '39. Enough with your nonsense

>>15630790
>>15630798
Prussian culture was widely noted in the German officer corps and generally flavored the Wehrmacht.

All the round faced addicts and politicians were shitting in troughs in Berlin while discussing the theoretical possibility of Der Grossepoopenshitty and ordering mass production of Das Uberpanzerkampfbootenshooten, while in the field you had stern faced Prussians trading their horses for tanks and playing hussar across Europe, winning daring victories and looking dashing as they did so.

>>15629385
>>15630642
Why does everyone talk like teenage girls now

>>15631116
>in 1941 when the wehrmacht suffered their most ciritical defeat.

Stopped reading there, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.