| sethnintendo said:
I'm just curious what myths you are talking about? I might have made a few assumptions in my USSR vs USA posts in this thread and my WW2 thread but I don't think they were completely out of line with actual events. What WW2 information do you think I am wrong in stating/believing? |
Not completely out of line, some are simply misconceptions, some aren't even yours, some have been explained already. Commenting on Easter front only of which I most aware of understandably:
- However, it was the Soviet campaign that later showed Germany was beatable (Stalingrad and all the later battles to come).
>> Moscow Offensive is apparently ignored, though it's debatable depending on the propagandistic effect you're expecting.
- Operation Barbarossa went off pretty well for the Germans at first. The first winter hindered their progress (with other winters to follow that were even worse) but it wasn't till about the time of Stalingrad and closing near Moscow did the Germans start to falter.
>> Barbarossa plan considered the Arkhangelsk-Volga-Astrakahn line reachable within 3 months tops, thus Babarossa was a failed operation by the end of September, 1941 if not earlier, winter has nothing to do with it.
- If it were not for America supporting Russia and Britian through lend lease, and their eventual involvment in the European theater, neither Russia nor Britian would of been able to win.
>> Lend-lease never was big for Soviet Union until very late of 1943, partly due to Germans disrupting transit routes, partly due to modest size of the help, which grow bigger with the success of Red Army, namely third protocol deliveries. Not to argue lend-lease importance, but strategic initative was on the side of the Soviets since early 1943, so no, it seems like Soviet Union would have won without lend-lease. Britain was more dependant on it, receiving about 2/3 of lend-lease.
- You had Germany and the marvels they made turning the war...STG-44 being one of my favorite, which changed the face of small arms for the next century... I was actually trying to find an original weapon made by the Russians and I came up with the AK-47. After looking at the Wiki page on the AK-47 it can be pulled from there that they really were just copying the assault rifle idea mainly from Germany with their StG44.
>> StG 44 and AK-47 have little in common aside from the fact both of them are assault rifles, better explained by mrstickball.
- "The origins of the T-34 stretched back to early 1930s, when Red Army planners supported a prototype tank designed by the American J. Walter Christie, its innovative suspension siring a series of Soviet BTs, or "Fast Tanks." Industrial legend has it that Christie's designs embodied most of the advances that later made the T-34 such a superior machine, but Soviet engineers vastly improved everything." - Soul of the Sword. Just thought to throw the last paragraph out there. While the T-34 can't be entirely credited to J. Walter Christie he did show them in the right direction.
>> Spring suspension was quickly abandoned after small pre-serial production run, all T-34 starting 1941 have used torsion bar suspension as well as all Soviet tanks and majority MBTs in the world since then.
- That is the key. The initial stages totally destroyed Russian defenses. Unfortunately, Hitler made the huge tactical blunder of supressing the Ukranians that had suffered immensely under the Soviets. Rather than use their help against the Russians, he treated them like the Jews and Gypsies, which meant that man and materiel was diverted to supress them instead of getting them to help fight the Russians.
>> Kriegsgerichtsbarkeitserlass (hope I spell it right) included entire territory where Operation Barbarossa was in effect, so pretty much all have been treated the same, no surprises. No sure what exactly Soviets did to Ukrainians though, UkSSR has always been the its favourite child for Soviet Union.
- Another interesting group were the Russian Cossacks during WW2. I did a little reading up on them and while most fought with Germany there were a few that remained loyal to Russia/Soviet Union (although it states they weren't really 100% Cossack units).
>> Not even looking at numbers, seems very unlikely, though debatable depending on the definition of cossack.
- Interesting fact is that Stalin killed more people than Hitler.
>> Regardless of alleged crimes, that's simply not true.
