There was one black division. If you include non-combat roles then I would guess their presence was far more significant than the true number of Soviet women, but in either case it amounts to the same thing. Insignificant, irrelevant, only suited to a couple premium squads. But unlike the female squads I have a feeling Gaijin doesn’t want to draw attention to the fact that they portray segregation relatively accurately.
One of the premium figther squad in normandy have a black pilot, only for completition add 1 event or premium squad composed with black soldier who fought actively dont kill anyone, whe have 2 girl squad in stalingrad and the planet is not exploded so…
Bit of a contradictory statement there, isn’t it?
But no, I would wager that without the 11,000,000 tons of food, 1,500,000 blankets, 15,000,000 boots, 1,911 locomotives, 11,225 rail cars, 11,000 planes, 6,000 tanks and TDs, 300,000 trucks, and almost all the aerial fuel used by the Soviet Union would have prevented them from mounting a successful sweeping counter attack.
I could extend this and say no lend lease to Britain might make them not so eager to drag out a war that they have no hope of winning without outside assistance.
Whos to say for certain how much of an impact it had after almost 80 years of propaganda and counter propaganda? For what it’s worth I think the claim how soviet army was armed by soviet weapons but how their industry and logistics were propped by lend-lease when it was needed the most is a fair one. For both sides considered.
Which was a joke as he self-answered it with because it would be too “silly”.
Both same quote
“I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.
I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."
Written May 12, 1919”
and all in all he says its “better” to use tear gas aka lachrymatory gas against those uncivilized tribes" compared to conventional weapons to lower casualties, even stating that using deadly gas is not “necessary”.
Which is still quite delusional and pro-chemical to be fair.
And at the end all are still alive and fancy except Shtern. And Stalin?
Not always. The Western Allies won WW1 but never wanted to wage a large-scale war again as they also lost millions of young men, money and stability in their colonies which is overall the reason why the Austrian painter was able to troll them and why they did next to nothing at the outbreak of the war beyond the Saarland until the Germans invaded Denmark and Norway. The Soviets “won” the Winter War but at such a great cost that they were not really happy about it.
Yes, so in the words of Boris Sokolov, “In order to really assess the significance of Lend-Lease for the Soviet victory, you only have to imagine how the Soviet Union would have had to fight if there had been no Lend-Lease aid”
1 Like
He’s talking about military grade gas such as that deployed en masse in the “M Device”. What you might think of tear gas in today’s definition doesn’t make a man cough out chunks of his lungs or bleed profusely from the eyes.
Yeah, no kidding.
I would argue how Poland broke the proverbial camels back rather then Denmark. But I do agree with that assessment. Both the UK and France were spent despite being victorious in the great war, and I would suggest that said painter was allowed to run amok for as long as he did without any reaction was partly due to him being both ideologically and strategically placed against against the Soviet Union in a possible future war.
Bear in mind that only the US massively helped rebuild, further industrialize and traded with the Soviets post WW1 while the UK and especially France tried their best to contain them in preparation for the next war. Pomorice scheme, the small entante, propping up Poland and Finland. Even jockeying for new satellite republics in the Caucasus region. The amount of lend-lease and even it being sent in the first place is probably directly related to the US having already established channels to use.
Hypocrisy of the whole purge debacle I suppose?
Or supposedly the one from Georgy Zhukov:
“Today [1963] some say the Allies didn’t really help us … But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.”
I would say that it’s equally hypocritical and disrespectful to dismiss either the US or the USSR massive contributions towards the eventual German defeat. And additionally idiotic to relate any cold war era or contemporary politics to that time.
When did I say it wasn’t about the numbers? lol
My point exactly in plain English is that after the French surrendered and the British sailed back to good ole’ England, 90% of German focus was on the Eastern Front until 1944 (by wich time German forces also were rekt there).
And all the North Africas (40k axis) and Anzios (20k axis) happened daily on Soviet soil, they just aren’t hyped as much.
Is there a typo here? I love reading up on early Soviet history but couldn’t find anything with this search.
If any Poles find it written wrong I apologize, but I believe the original term is “Międzymorze”. Idea that’s similar but not necessarily equal to the “Cordon sanitaire” and related to the “Little Entente”.
I also suggest reading up on Prometheanism/ Prometeizm. Both in it’s early interwar period, it’s nazi adoption and it’s cold war era iteration.
the question is who would use them? i certainly would not. if anything put them in “possible to buy”
