"50K Russian Soldiers Confirmed Killed" Topic

I have been writing for a long time, this war must end with the unconditional surrender of one of the parties. The situation has gone so far that no other outcome will suit either side.

I would like similar, of course I'm an American Warmonger. Regardless, who do you think should surrender unconditionally ?

I can't see the Ukraine surrendering any of their territory that the Russians occupy. So, to say yes, the killing should stop, but at what price ? If the Russians just hold the Donbas, land bridge to Crimea, and Crimea[that Russia has occupied since 2014] that will just be jump off points for the Russians to attack again in 10-20 years.

US intel says the Russian Military will need at least 18 years or more to build up their forces to be able to go on the offensive again. Based Russia's and Putin's predilections nothing guarantees they won't try again in 18 years, + or -. Putin will be gone, by then[I hope sooner!], but again based on current events, etc. nothing says his replacement will not be the same or worse. Would anyone with common sense and study of history want to take that risk ?

So, it may only push the situation further down the road. To be someone else's problem. That is not how I was trained and experienced to "fix" a problem. In this case Putin's & Russia's imperialism. I.e. invasion of a sovereign nation for no real provocation. And yes, I being a former Cold War Warrior,[that is what is said we are called] I can say with very little reservation I don't trust the Russian Leadership… And I am not the only Vet I know that believes that way … "We are legion." …

By invitation of the former Warpact nations. After invasion and oppression by the Russians they don't want it to happen again.

Yes Dn is correct, as I have said many of the former WP nations couldn't wait to join NATO. They didn't like being puppets/salves of the Russian "occupiers".

To add to that with Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Two new members joined NATO. Finland and Sweden, they know of Russia's record of "not being a very good neighbor. Why would they risk it ?

The four students killed and nine wounded at Kent State are comparable to the 137 Czechs killed and 500+ wounded plus the 3,000 killed, 17,000 wounded and 2,000 Hungarians executed in 1956 by the Soviets.

Not to mention the National Guard troops who shot protestors at Kent State were prosecuted. How many Soviets were prosecuted in Czechoslovakia or Hungary?

Bingo !

As I have said many times before … there is NO way to spin this … Other than Russian aggression and imperialism … period …

Caprum2 "By the way, you greatly overestimate the role of Lend-Lease for the USSR."

The USSR was the recipient of the second most lend lease behind only Great Britain.

"$11.3 billion to the Soviet Union"

"Similarly, the Soviet Union repaid $722 USD million in 1971, with the remainder of the debt written off."

"Khrushchev claimed that Stalin told him that Lend-Lease enabled the Soviet Union to defeat Germany."

"At a dinner toast with Allied leaders during the Tehran Conference in December 1943, Stalin added: "The United States … is a country of machines. Without the use of those machines through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war."

Nikita Khrushchev, who led the Soviet Union from 1953 to 1964, agreed with Stalin's assessment. In his memoirs, Khrushchev described how Stalin stressed the value of Lend-Lease aid: "He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war.""

"Lend-Lease contributed to the Allied victory. Even after the United States forces in Europe and the Pacific began to attain full strength during 1943–1944, Lend-Lease continued. Most remaining Allies were largely self-sufficient in frontline equipment (such as tanks and fighter aircraft) by this time but Lend-Lease provided a useful supplement in this category and Lend-Lease logistical supplies (including motor vehicles and railroad equipment) were of enormous assistance.[36] Much of the meaning of Lend-Lease aid can be better understood when considering the innovative nature of World War II, as well as the economic distortions caused by the war. One of the greatest differences with prior wars was the enormous increase in the mobility of armies. This was the first big war in which whole formations were routinely motorized; soldiers were supported with large numbers of all kinds of vehicles.[37] Most belligerent powers severely decreased production of non-essentials, concentrating on producing weapons. This inevitably produced shortages of related products that are required for industrial or logistical uses, particularly unarmored vehicles. On the Allied side, there was almost total reliance upon American industrial production, weaponry and especially unarmored vehicles purpose-built for military use, vital for the modern army's logistics and support.[37] The USSR was very dependent on rail transport and starting during the latter half of the 1920s[38] but accelerating during the 1930s (the Great Depression), hundreds of foreign industrial giants such as Ford were commissioned to construct modern dual-purpose factories in the USSR, 16 alone within a week of May 31, 1929.[39] With the outbreak of war these plants switched from civilian to military production and locomotive production ended virtually overnight. Just 446 locomotives were produced during the war,[40] with only 92 of those being built between 1942 and 1945.[41] In total, 92.7% of the wartime production of railroad equipment by the USSR was supplied by Lend-Lease.[36] including 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars[42]

Much of the logistical assistance of the Soviet military was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks and by 1945, nearly a third of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3⁄4-ton and Studebaker 2+1⁄2-ton were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations and clothing were also critical.[43] Lend-Lease also supplied significant amounts of weapons and ammunition. The Soviet air force received 18,200 aircraft, which amounted to about 30 percent of Soviet wartime fighter and bomber production (mid 1941–45).[36] Most tank units were Soviet-built models but about 7,000 Lend-Lease tanks (plus more than 5,000 British tanks) were used by the Red Army, eight percent of war-time production.

A particular critical aspect of Lend-Lease was the supply of food. The invasion had cost the USSR a huge amount of its agricultural base; during the initial Axis offensive of 1941–42, the total sown area of the USSR fell by 41.9% and the number of collective and state farms by 40%. The Soviets lost a substantial number of draft and farm animals as they were not able to relocate all the animals in an area before it was captured and of those areas in which the Axis forces would occupy, the Soviets had lost 7 million of out of 11.6 million horses, 17 million out of 31 million cows, 20 million of 23.6 million pigs and 27 million out of 43 million sheep and goats. Tens of thousands of agricultural machines, such as tractors and threshers, were destroyed or captured. Agriculture also suffered a loss of labour; between 1941 and 1945, 19.5 million working-age men had to leave their farms to work in the military and industry. Agricultural issues were also compounded when the Soviets were on the offensive, as areas liberated from the Axis had been devastated and contained millions of people who needed to be fed. Lend-Lease thus provided a massive quantity of foodstuffs and agricultural products.[44]

According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Lend-Lease had a crucial role in winning the war:
On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR's emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany's might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.[36]
Nikita Khrushchev, having served as a military commissar and intermediary between Stalin and his generals during the war, addressed directly the significance of Lend-lease aid in his memoirs:
I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so.[45]
In a confidential interview with the wartime correspondent Konstantin Simonov, the Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov is quoted as saying:
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.[46]
David Glantz, an American military historian known for his books on the Eastern front, offers a similar view:
Although Soviet accounts have routinely belittled the significance of Lend-Lease in the sustainment of the Soviet war effort, the overall importance of the assistance cannot be understated. Lend-Lease aid did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make the difference between defeat and victory in 1941–1942; that achievement must be attributed solely to the Soviet people and to the iron nerve of Stalin, Zhukov, Shaposhnikov, Vasilevsky, and their subordinates. As the war continued, however, the United States and Great Britain provided many of the implements of war and strategic raw materials necessary for Soviet victory. Without Lend-Lease food, clothing, and raw materials (especially metals), the Soviet economy would have been even more heavily burdened by the war effort. Perhaps most directly, without Lend-Lease trucks, rail engines, and railroad cars, every Soviet offensive would have stalled at an earlier stage, outrunning its logistical tail in a matter of days. In turn, this would have allowed the German commanders to escape at least some encirclements, while forcing the Red Army to prepare and conduct many more deliberate penetration attacks in order to advance the same distance. Left to their own devices, Stalin and his commanders might have taken twelve to eighteen months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht; the ultimate result would probably have been the same, except that Soviet soldiers could have waded at France's Atlantic beaches.[47]"

I would say you underestimate it.

Well… seems the "Lend Lease" arguments are categorically finished now …. (smile)

Armand

Estimated Cuprum 2… are there any people you know that are against this Rusian War?…

Do pacifists exist in Russia?

Armand

Nine pound round, we live in a country at war, and you don't. Comparison is not fair.
And in your country, dissent is punished in the same way, only by other methods – discrediting, dismissal, bullying…

Dn Jackson – The USSR is no more. Russia did not invade anywhere and did not occupy anyone. Or then they are now part of a single bloc with Germany, which occupied half of Europe and built factories to exterminate people.

I agree with some of the personality cult of Putin that they are trying to create in Russia. Alas, this is an old Russian tradition. They try to make a "king" out of any leader here. But it was the same story with Gorbachov and Yeltsin.

Why are you comparing the events in Kent and the events in Hungary and Czechoslovakia (other countries in general)? We talked about anti-war protests in a country at war. In Russia, so far no one has been shot on the streets for protests, as was the case in the United States.

Translation: do what we tell you and close your eyes to what we do)))

Andy ONeill, until 1990, NATO was removed from the vital centers of Russia at a considerable distance. From Moscow to Norway it was 1600 kilometers, to Germany – 1800. After the Baltic states joined NATO, the distance from Moscow to NATO borders was reduced to 600 kilometers. If Ukraine joins NATO, the distance from its borders to the capital of Russia is 400 kilometers. The entire Russian Black Earth Region, the Lower and Middle Volga regions, and the entire North Caucasus will be under NATO "control." In essence, the Russian Federation is being pushed beyond the Volga, to the Urals and further into Siberia, because only there will it be possible to place, relatively safely, important defense facilities. This is the "creeping offensive". If tomorrow Mexico entered into a military alliance with Russia or China, would you regard it as a threat to your security? You don't have to answer – that's obvious.

Legion 4 – you're a military man, you know there are never any guarantees. The outcome is currently unpredictable. Perhaps this conflict will simply become irrelevant, as the question of survival in a post-apocalyptic world will arise… The future is unknown)))

35thOVI, compare the scale of hostilities waged by the USSR and Great Britain. And then look at the distribution of these supplies by year. The USSR received three quarters of aid in 1944-45, when the outcome of the war was already predetermined.

Khrushchev had the goal of discrediting Stalin – therefore his words can be spoken for any purpose known only to him. I prefer to take into account not the retelling of other people's words (which anyone can twist to suit their own goals), but the numbers. These numbers are a very stubborn thing and it's hard to argue with them)))

Boris Sokolov is not a historian. He is a publicist and propagandist, and a pro-Western one, who has been caught many times in lies and distortions. It's absolutely not interesting what he says. If he has documents (in originals), let him demonstrate. In the meantime, you can trust him just like a pickpocket at a fair)))

I highly appreciate the help of the Allies in World War II, it saved many thousands, and perhaps millions of lives. But for some reason in the West they are actively belittling the role of the USSR in the victory in World War II.

Tango01, yes, there are such people. But they are rather dissatisfied with the change in the usual way of life and they fear that this war could escalate into a full-scale nuclear war. But they all also understand perfectly well what will await the country, including them personally, if Russia is defeated. And no one wants similar consequences. We went through quite terrible times during the collapse of the USSR (direct and indirect human and economic losses were comparable to the country's losses in World War II) and we no longer want to go through a similar situation. The losses will be much more terrible than from the current war.

Nonsense, and another logical fallacy, special pleading- I don't need you to tell me about being in a country at war, I lived through the attack on the Pentagon.

And as for your usual whataboutism, it's nonsense: there's no comparison between the Gulag and your claims that employers retaliate (which is illegal and subject to substantial criminal penalties) are more of your typical efforts to obfuscate the reality of what your country is, and how it behaves.

Caprum

"The USSR received three quarters of aid in 1944-45, when the outcome of the war was already predetermined."

"But for some reason in the West they are actively belittling the role of the USSR in the victory in World War II.But for some reason in the West they are actively belittling the role of the USSR in the victory in World War II."

The U.K. were the "countries" we had the most connection to. There is no doubt they would be our top recipient of our aid. They were also our ally against the Imperial Japanese. We combined with China kept the Japanese off your flank. One attempt by them early and you had no more problems with them as they were to occupied elsewhere.

Very few people belittle the USSR's contribution to the war… it seems that many Russians try to belittle the role of the Allied armies and their contributions. The USSR took out much of the German army and Panzer Corps. But the Allies took out most of the German and Italian Navies and the majority of their Air Forces, including most of the best pilots and crews. It was the allied air forces that did the strategic bombing campaign against German industry and infrastructure. US manufacturing dwarfed the others as well as supplying as I pointed out, much. Also as I mentioned above, Japan.

When Russia have even gotten involved in WW2 if Germany had not invaded? That is open to question.

Without the allies, that war was not predetermined. In fact without the US, I think the outcome in both the Pacific and Europe would have been much different. Without the US, the UK would have been pretty much locked up. The Germans would have been free to put almost their full might against the USSR. German industry would have been free to go rampant. U Boats would have had a field day against Soviet ships. Food, transportation, as well as everything else supplied would not have been available. Japan could have thrown their full might against China and their navy and air free to go rampant in the Pacific.

So could the US and allied nations have defeated Germany and Japan by themselves? Probably no. Would the USSR have been able to do it, again I would say no.

Lastly we developed the atomic bomb, but we are all pretty sure Germany was not far behind. You can be sure they would have had no qualms about using them on the Soviets.

Subject: Luftwaffe losses


link

Only a Soviet-style propagandist could turn countries that join NATO because they fear Russian attack into a "creeping offensive." But then, respect for its' neighbors' sovereignty has never been an outstanding characteristic of Russian policy.

35thOVI + 1

Armand

35thOVI, I think that we have moved away greatly from the main topic of the thread and our discussions here will be unnecessary. I suggest closing this topic. But I will still say that the USSR was ready to go to war with Hitler back in 1938, defending the allied Czechoslovakia (when Germany had not yet come close to the power that it acquired later). And perhaps then history would have looked completely different. The USSR made a deal with Germany only after all its efforts to create an anti-Hitler coalition were rejected by its future allies. What else was there left for him do? Join the war alone? The Soviet Union tried to avoid this prospect.

Nine pound round, so how would you feel about Russian or Chinese military bases in Mexico? I hope this prospect does not bother you at all.
Wait… What caused the Cuban Missile Crisis? Well, of course, there's nothing in common here. Isn't that right?)))

Give me a break. This is more of the same nonsense- deliberate dishonesty and obfuscation, all in the service not of getting at the truth, but trying to break the opponent's arguments or shame them into silence. Classic Soviet argumentation- it's not about truth, it's about winning. Getting your opponent to concede he lacks moral standing, and that truth isn't real, is a means to the end of breaking the will to resist. It's what's been done to the Russian population for decades, and it should come as no surprise that they cynically shrug their shoulders and collaborate in their own oppression.

Nine… + 50

Armand

Legion 4 – you're a military man, you know there are never any guarantees. The outcome is currently unpredictable.

Not necessarily, a well-trained, well lead, well supported military can influence things on the battlefield. So generally, there are no guarantees in war. However, again, the better trained, lead and supported units can certainly make the outcome more predictable. E.g. the IDF in the '56, '67, and '73 war. They outfought, out maneuvered, etc. the Arab Forces. They did take some losses, but the Arabs took many, many more and held little ground in the end.

Perhaps this conflict will simply become irrelevant, as the question of survival in a post-apocalyptic world will arise… The future is unknown)))

I love Sci-fi but I think the threat of a nuclear exchange/cataclysm is very small at best. However, when Iran gets deployable Nukes that may change.