2 ms·
We're only a year into the conflict - a year into WW2, the Soviet Union was losing large swathes of territory and million-man armies to German encirclement. Eve
by primitivesuave 4y ago
We're only a year into the conflict - a year into WW2, the Soviet Union was losing large swathes of territory and million-man armies to German encirclement. Even when they had the numeric advantage (e.g. Finland) they suffered disproportionate losses for the same reason they do today. I presently anticipate that what happens in the upcoming months/years will mirror what happened back then - they optimize wartime production, conscript a large number of their population, and think of new technology to kill people.
Keep in mind that this is all coming from an armchair historian. It's easy to have a selection bias when comparing such things.
- genmud 4y agoThe huge difference was the red army had the US and Canadian industries providing significant backstops in the form of resources. Something like 30-40% of all jeeps and infantry transports were provided by the US. Similar numbers for their airplanes and food. Had they not had the logistical and material support from the US in the first few years of the war, it’s quite possible the whole course of the war could have been changed.
- klausjensen 4y agoThat fact is conveniently never mentioned in the story of how USSR beat the nazis. The "Great patriotic war", as WW2 is usually referred to in Russia, also conveniently starts in 41 - not in 39. The reason being, that USSR were allied with nazi-germany 39-41 (which is also conveniently never mentioned).
- lisasays 4y agoYou're forgetting the most important distinction: this time, they're the side that's attempting to encircle and subjugate another country. A country a third of its size (in population), that -- very much like the Soviet Union itself in WW2 -- is resolutely determined not to be subjugated.