Thank you for sharing. It's anecdotal evidence, but important nonetheless

@@TheImperatorKnight I remembered other stories related to soviet economy. My grandmother, her sisters and many mre women were voluntarily making (by hand) tobacco pouches for soldiers at front. Those pouches would be collected by the authorities and then distributed in the army. Also my grandmother started working at state farm when she was 11 old (she was born at 1931). One of our relatives was traveling to distant villages (in North Kazakhstan) bringing them some pelts so that he could collect winter jackets made by the locals (also for soldiers at front) when he visited them again few months later. By the way, that was the only adult male in our family that was not sent to the front (he had polio as a child).

It is easy to underestimate toughness of Russian people. Even now west is still doing it.

Gathered by machines or hand? The potato harvesters in the US would leave the under sized potatoes, which would have probably been sufficient. Perhaps this was deliberate because supermarkets want the larger ones.

@@joechang8696 By hand. So if you you use a shovel to dig out potatoes, you sometimes slice the potato that still is in the soil with a shovel. Big slices are collected right away, but sometimes there are small slices (which I called trims in my previous comment), that are hard to find and pick. So my grandmoter was looking for those ones. Also one has to remember that usually it was a very severe penalty (Gulag) for taking food from the farm field (all of which was the state property).

We have not forgotten the Civil War.

@@nickdanger3802 fair point. But a lot of Americans think the Civil War mainly impacted the soldiers and forget what happened to the Shenandoah Valley and Georgia unless somebody points it out. Lots of cities were burned - not just Atlanta. Large parts of Pennsylvania, Kansas, Missouri, Mississippi, and South Carolina were devastated. Some of the worst atrocities of the war were committed by Jubal Early in Chambersburg PA, and by Quantrill's Raiders in Kansas. Sherman and Sheridan were unleashed in part to take revenge on the South. Not many people today know the backstory.

@@GeographyCzar According to National Pornographic Atlanta was burned to destroy it as a hub of Confederate infrastructure, only slightly different from the RAF dropping incendiary's on any city in Germany and vice versa. www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/nov15/burning-atlanta/

@@nickdanger3802 "National Pornographic" LMAO

Nope, we never really did it at all.

In Soviet Russia, road forks you (ref: Family Guy)

@@TheImperatorKnight in Soviet russia, video releases another TIK

hahaha. Comments don't often make me laugh but that one did!

@@TheImperatorKnight In Soviet Russia, television watches you!

@Caliban777 The US Red Army will come to throw out the Russian Bandits and Plutocracy, bleeding the Russian workers. The USSA is coming soon for all the America's!

Everyone forgets the great Famine of 1943 in India... guess nobody wants to blame the British Empire.

@@KnightofAges It was Bengal famine not Indian famine. That would be quite bigger problem for whole war effort. It would probably delayed whole D day and western front, maybe for another year. Soviet and Indian situation weren’t really comparable. Out of 170 million people in Soviet union around 30-35 million served in military. Plus another bunch who were pushed to military industry. Number of people in agriculture went from 50 million in 1940 to 25 million in 1942. British India that had combined population of 380 million had to lose productivity of “just” 2,5 million people who served in war effort. Agricultural base was largely intact. Outside of course Burma and Bengal region that were on front line. India wasn’t going to collapse.

@@KnightofAges Bengal was a frontline province in WW2 and the Japanese were employing scorched earth tactics in the region...

@@stafer3 Bengal in 1943 was 100% part of India (the British Raj), so I said there was a famine in India. And nobody in this thread is talking about a 'collapse', just remembering that other peoples starved more in WW2 than the Russians.

@@adamdesouza6153 Sorry to spoil it, but the famine took place in 1943, while the Japanese Army only set foot in the area in late 1944...

No one talks about how many people starved in western Europe even after the Nazi's had been defeated. Suffice to say the moment Hitler started that war probably ten million people were going to be dead from starvation in just a few years time.

@@pietersteenkamp5241 from what my dad says there was no outright starvation in London. I think his parents were worried more about dietary issues and not enough protein. He also describes the neighborhood kids building slingshots and eating pigeon. Yes, City pigeons.

@@1jimmarch The hunger was somewhat exported to the colonies if at all but people in the cities did whatever they could to augment their food intake with the poor of course being most at risk of not having family in he countryside. :)

@@pietersteenkamp5241 correct. At least a million people starved in India to make sure London didn't.

Jim March Simpson Incorrect. A million died in India because of drought and failure of crops.

Nobody loves food more than us Yanks lol.

Thin may be in, but.....FAT is where it's AT!!!!!

Mate 1942 ,100%Oganic food in ,2019 no more organic ,forget about calories

@@750suzuki7 Not in your head, though, bro.

@Belagerungsmörser the Sheep I didnt say we ate good food, just a lot. Were morbidly obese.

yeah i love black bread and rye as well, white bread is boring. Probably TIK is thinking of SAWDUST bread which did in fact exist that's what near famine and outright famine do. Nice belt. You gonna eat that?

Pine needles are also completely edible and a very high source of vitamin C

@@MatoroTBS but as a Finnish communist you are already a traitor so I would molchat

Jouni Osmala - In the wartime Soviet Union - or at least Leningrad during the seige - "bread" often contained substantial quantities of sawdust to make the portions a little more substantial than would have been possible if unadulterated bread were used. I remember that clearly from an episode of The World At War.

The Leningrad siege featured literal cannibalism; people eating belts and shoes; people eating rats; and people literally sifting through shit looking for anything edible in it. This is not a myth, it's all well documented facts.

They wouldn't have been able to feed the troops, therefore they can't fight.

@@andrewpestotnik5495 Napoleon's ghost nods.

That depends on the type of collapse. If we are talking about "just" extreme food shortages across all of USSR to the same tune as in Leningrad or during Holodomor, there would not have been an outright collapse. Leningrad had not collapsed either, after all. Soldiers and the administration in Leningrad were not subject to starvation. Non-essentials were. Army, bureaucracy and most important workers would still be fed to survive and fight on. And don't let the averages mentioned in the video fool you. 2400 calories seem not that bad. But one can not work 12-hour shifts on physically demanding work with such ration. And the army was marching on foot - 40+ kilometers per day. You need ~2500 calorie *surplus* to make that distance (assuming light gear). You have to provide active combat troops and industry workers with enough food - intense physical work can not be done on a force of will alone (not for long anyway). So any further shortages would not have affected army and such right away. Instead there would have been "peripheral degradation". More and more less important civilians would receive less and less food. Basically, everyone, not directly involved in the war effort would receive rations at or below starvation level. And, since the system is far from perfect, some would receive even less. And people would start to die. In Leningrad, peak starvation deaths were at 100,000 per month. For the whole of USSR it would have been a couple of millions per month. Propaganda would limit the morale effect from this. So, the war efforts could continue for quite some time. But between deaths from starvation, rampant diseases, deterioration of workforce - the front would receive less and less resources and breakdowns of the supply chain would happen more and more often. This would lead first to inability to attack on strategic level, than to inability to react to enemy's actions. It would have been a total collapse and defeat, if not for the germans being also at the end of their supply leash. But it would all take time to severely affect RKKA capabilities. Even with germans holding Astrakhan-Voronezh line in 1942, the food situation for USSR would not had been significantly different up until the second half of 1943. More immediate effect would have had the oil situation. And there is too many 'what ifs'.

@@KidoKoin well thanks for the detailed reply

We saw it happen on the German side. I remember an anecdote from a German soldier’s book. He said the last order they received was “every man for himself”. The soldiers discussed it for a time, looked at their compasses, and either went west or went home

nothing wrong with rye bread as far as I'm concerned

The eestern Soviet Union, ie Ukraine and the Kuban, suffered terrible famines, some deliberately inflicted, since the 1920s. The last was in 1947.

as a Dane i can tell you we eat rye bread with cold cut meat ,pates, smoked fish, boiled eggs, and luke warm meatballs on ,, we call it the cold table , and its done even on holy days like easter ,,, rye bread is very good and healty

Rye bread is a yum tasty.

Maybe rye bread is not as tasty for everyone. Matter of taste really. Wouldn't be my first choice but I would still eat it if I don't have anything else.

i agree but I am biased regarding ww2 content 😁

@@jessnellaf2401 I hear you. However, TIK is the best history channel regardless of historic period covered. This level of dedication and research and, at the same time, absence of any bias is astonishing. A true gem.

@@airpaprika i agree... i said my bias however, the best part for me is... this is were i got this... this is where i got that... these three good authors disagree.. first let me tell you what they said, then ill give you my opinion. Thats some priceless commentary for a buff like me. Usually there is some ego BS

The only other channel (or group of channels) that's in the same league is TheGreatWar/WW2 channel The week by week format covers more, but at the same time, it's less "dense" I guess ?

@@airpaprika He's extremely biased towards the soviet union and the allies and he's acknowledged his bias, I like his videos but he's still probably the most biased historian in youtube-

I agree to an extent. Yes, the Soviets were very bad off, but I suspect that Stalin held enough internal power to paper it over for another year or two in order to repel the Germans, even if it meant just letting everyone he considered useless to the war effort starve. After all, the Germans did want to kill and/or enslave them whether they surrendered or not, and the Soviets knew it, so what was the alternative? However, after that, there probably would have been a total collapse of the Soviet economy and government. The losses would have been too great to salvage.

@@bluemarlin8138 Exactly. The germans lost the war because of their blind chauvinism.

@@bluemarlin8138 They started getting food stuffs and vehicles from The USA and UK in 43. I'd think 42 would have been pretty bad.

Sad:(

@@flying0possum : there is a whole series of dark jokes about Latvians starving during the war, and potatoes by the way.

LolCats are bastards.

They were emancipated from human rights and decency.

Haha, yes I heard it too.

I thought I was the only one to hear that slip up. There are many more. But how do you mistake the 2 words. It's not even a malapropism.

@@haroldfiedler6549 They actually were emancipated in the sense that they were released from the camps, in the hope they might be able to feed themselves outside.

@@jamestheotherone742 maybe because they were criminals?

Only killers and robbers worked in mining gulags.

Maybe you got the fish for working for the Nazi's!

The very worst were mines in The Arctic. The ones around Magadan most infamously.

@@lovepeace9727 No, thousands of innocents, including hundreds of Orthodox priests singled out for especially tortuous treatment, worked, starved and died there.

@@MarktheMole jails are full of innocent people. Every single one has his own story ...

TIK knows what he is talking about 90% of the time and he is right here. In Soviet Union there were several regions that were able to export grain (like South Russia, Ukraine, Western Siberia) to other regions. Now, those very regions were under occupation yet Soviet Union needed more industrial workers and more soldiers, as well as horses and tractors, putting even worse strain on peasentry. Yet, Soviet Union didn't collapse like Empire did in 1916-1918, neither did over-strain on peasentry resulted in multi-million dead famine like in 1931-1933. Shortages of food and starvation were present in countryside, but not in the industrial centers nor the army (except in cases when there were severe logistical issues such as Stalingrad and Leningrad). State declared who gets to eat and in poorer areas and special settlments (exiled people, neither free citizens but not Gulag inmates) working or putting on a uniform meant that your children and elderly will get some thin soup and bread every day which is better than nothing.

@@brankodrljaca1313 i Will add that if the nazis weren't nazi, treathing Better the occupied population and make clear that the only enemy was stalin and not the entire soviet population could had lessen the strenght of the soviets and make more probaly revolts in distant regions

@@brankodrljaca1313 Western Siberia was never occupied by German forces

White bread has a lot less calories and is harder to grow.

@Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicolvocanoconiosis Do you find it funny how the english dont know that thou is informal and you are formal?

@Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicolvocanoconiosis No Im refering to how most english think that thou, thy, ... sounds formal, but in fact you, your, ... is the formal one.

Upvoted but also not entirely true. The UK had a low proportion of agricultural workers because prior to the war because much of the countries food supply was imported. This was not true in the USA. In the UK there was plenty of slack in the agricultural system which allowed for the potential of greater production in wartime under Government direction and with higher prices which gave an incentive to higher productivity.

The citizens kept fighting for 2 reasons. If they surrendered they would have been exterminated or put to work as slaves by the Axis. Or if they directly disobeyed to fight, their generals would have them executed. Death on both sides of you makes fighting the only real option. Plus there would be nowhere to run away to on your own or with your family except deeper into russia where there is less food.

Because the N*z* plan was to enslave and kill them all.

I imagine it’s because the Nazis planned to exterminate and/or enslave those soldiers and their families, one way or the other. The Soviet soldiers had also heard about the sub-human treatment of Russian soldiers in WWI (even though the Russians returned the favor), and correctly assumed that the same fate awaited them if they surrendered. (And then of course there were GRU death squads there to shoot them if they retreated or tried to surrender.) If WWII had just been a war to depose Stalin and the communists, or an aggressive war for territory, then I suspect the Soviet soldiers and citizens wouldn’t have tolerated the hardships when things were going badly on the battlefield. That’s one reason Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will fail in the long run.

The Nazi's planned to kill and enslave all the Slav people. That would motivate anyone! Even the Ukrainians who thought Capitalism was like a Doris Day Movie!

@@bluemarlin8138 Germans basically dug their own grave here with their racism.

@Crystal Dreams There is no doubt that the dictatorial reign of Joseph Stalin was oppressive, cruel, and often evil. I certainly do not find much to like about the totalitarianism & form of communism that existed in the U.S.S.R. . However, I will suggest that life under the Czars was pretty awful for virtually all Russians, and I will note that both Russia & Ukraine had been rather under-developed & 'backwards' nations prior to the Russian Revolution.. So, while the environment in the U.S.S.R. was not good at all,, it still represented an improvement over Czarist Russia for a great number of Soviets. Most certainly, the U.S.S.R. made great strides in science, technology, literacy & education in a remarkably short period of time... progress that may not have occurred if the Czars had stayed in power.

The end of the Soviet Union means endless suffering under the psychotic IMF!

@@strikerswheelchair2809 Fascism is Communism in its opposite. Stalin refused to bring Socialism to Europe since he wanted to protect the USSR with his policy of Socialism in one country and no other. He wanted Finlandisation of the countries where the Red Army had forced out Fascism. He was a Socialist Nationalist he represented the insipid Bureaucrasy. Which replaced the Bolshevik Party he murdered. Putins Kleptocrasy, refuses to allow the US IMF . To take over Nationalist Russia. Hence the US's hatred of Russia, China and any country refusing the IMF.

Ussr had Jewish dictatorship. Do not put it all on Uncle Joe.

A century is 100 years

You joke, but that's how socialism works. Take from those who have and give to those who don't. So if some people are hungry, some other people must die, and their food can be redistributed to the others. This is the problem of socialist economics: the economy is fixed, they can't grow it, so the only way for some to have more than others must because they've stolen ('exploited') more resources off the others. Therefore they justify the killing of those who have more. Utter stupidity.

@@TheImperatorKnight socialism isn't just one thing though. North Korean Communism isn't the same as Scandinavian socialism.

@@TheImperatorKnight "This is the problem of socialist economics: the economy is fixed, they can't grow it." There was no economic growth in the Soviet Union? Where are you getting this information?

I didn't say there was no economic growth. I said that socialist economics doesn't factor that in, since in their ideology, economics is a zero-sum game.

@@xkiroxX In North Korea, those in favor with the powers-that-be get to eat. When they fall, the next group in favor with the powers-that-be pick up the food and get to eat. In Scandinavia, everybody gets to eat. Weirdos.

Russian history can be summed up as " Then it got worse". Incompetent tsar, civil war bought by lenin's revolution, stalin and the german invasion, Mr K almost ending the world, brezhnev's stability or stagnation(take your pick), weak leader gorbachev, dissolution of the USSR by the traitor Yeltsin and his disastrous reign and now putin who is forcing russia into a confrontation with the west. Russia lost the cold war and should just accept it instead of trying to build the new soviet empire.

@@KillerofWestoids The Cold War is not over. Polling by the Levada Center suggest Stalin's popularity has grown since 2015, with 46% of Russians expressing a favourable view of him in 2017 and 51% in 2019.[925] The Center, in 2019, reports that around 70% of Russians believe that Stalin played a positive role in their homeland[926] and in May 2021, a survey finds that Stalin is the most important personality in Russian public opinion, followed by Vladimir Lenin and Alexander Pushkin.[927] \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// General Assembly Seventy-fifth session 46th plenary meeting Wednesday, 16 December 2020, 10 a.m. New York document address page 10 KZfaq does not skip the link. Draft resolution I is entitled “Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Ukraine, United States of America Abstaining: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tonga, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland See you on the battlefield.

@@KillerofWestoids "Putin, who is forcing Russia into a confrontation with the west." I think you've got it twisted; the West is forcing Russia into a confrontation, despite Putin's best efforts to avoid it.

Could you name the source, please?

from even more generals..... it did not even matter if the supplies were useful (I am thinking we was talking about the Cromwell tanks in 41 and the p39's) The fact we were not in it alone... that some where ppl were helping was more important to moral than anything!

Did the Americans provide military weapons as well? Or did the Soviet Union purely rely on their own manufacturing?

@@korneliusparker536 deliveries represented about 20 percent of the total number of armored vehicles produced by Russia during the war.Specifically, this was 16 per cent of Russian main battle tanks, 12 per cent of Russian self-propelled gun carriages and tank destroyers, and 100 per cent of Russian infantry fighting vehicles. The USA alone supplied the Russians with 501,660 tactical wheeled and tracked vehicles, including 77,972 Jeeps, 151,053 1.5 t trucks and 200,622 2.5 t trucks. those 151k 1.5 ton trucks far out weighed their numbers as they were 6 wheel drive in a land with few roads.. In addition, 15,631 guns and 131,633 sub machine guns were supplied to Russia by the Allies. Russian aircraft production 1942-1944 was 42,427 fighters and 11,797 bombers (additional 30,506 ground attack planes), which results that approximately 20 per cent of the fighters and 30 per cent of the bombers of the Red Air Force were American-built and approx. 10 per cent of the fighters were British-built. The timing is important in any conversation about the impact these suplies had such as British having a very small contribution in total... but the squadrons of hawkers hurricanes and over 450 Matilda 2 delivered in 41 had much more impact than much larger supplies of better equipment later on in the war. The 152k 1,5 ton six wheel drive trucks where more important than the 200k 2.5 ton trucks by an order of magnitude. So this topic can be a rabbit hole of death.. never ending and complex... From all that ive researched you can say the following and be reasonably correct if not 100% accurate. 1. the USA, Canada and Briton supplied @20% of all war materials to the soviets in world war2.... about 1.2% to 2% more was sent but lost at sea or interdicted in various ways. 2. the most important supplies far exceeding all others was a subset of 152k trucks, 2000 locomotives, 11000 rail cars and all the food. 3. the cold war following so close to the closing of ww2 was muddled the questions of effectiveness of these lend lease supplies however, virtual all soviet generals agree that these massive quantities of materials had more impact on the moral and mental ability to "hang on. we have help coming" than their actual tactical significance. That is to say... no matter how much the supplies helped we probably would have collapsed in hopelessness if not for the moral given by lend lease. A better perspective in valuating the significance of lend lease is that of the placebo effect,. there was enough material delivered to give hope. That hope effected the war much more than the actual medicine (supplies) could ever achieve. TIK and I have a disagreement about man power... he said the numbers do not lie... my argument is the supplies (specifically food and transport) gave the Soviets the will and hope that far and away exceeded the man power numbers used.

@@user-lu8vb1pm9p just google lend lease... there is very little dispute over numbers however, like i said the significance of these numbers is augured over insistently. If you have a specific thing that you cant find ill be happy to help

Thought it was only me who did this lol

The weapons were probably the least valuable Lend Lease shipments, behind spam, trucks and communications equipment.

and zillions of cans of orange juice.

@@MarktheMole - Sorry, are you referring literally to cans of orange juice shipped to the Soviets in WW2? I had not come across that fact.

Rebel Scum well when Russian women still outnumber the men 10-1. You can thank the Germans for that :)

@@Live4This Well I'm an American, so it's not something I can take advantage off. Though I have a feeling that they wouldn't see it as a positive and would probably reply with something akin to "When the Muslims outnumber the Germans" Perhaps you mean well but I'm sure most Russians would take offense to your statement.

@@robertalaverdov8147 Im American as well :P idk they might be happy lol.

Neon Noir Please provide your sources. Without that your comment comes across as a trolling rant.

Neon Noir Your statement is interesting to say the least. I don’t think “the west” used them as a sacrificial lamb. We did help support the soviets before we were even in the war with resource, tanks etc. The Germans were fighting a losing war since 1942 and they did a pretty damn good job with tactical retreats. Although the siege of Budapest was the same outcome as Stalingrad which to my surprise they didn’t learn. Regardless the soviets fought their own battles and took massive casualties.

So, a new treaty of Brest-Litovsk, just like in 1918?

Major battles which were won without lend-lease: Battle of Moscow, Battle of Stalingrad Battles which were won together with first lend-lease shipments: Battle of Kursk, Battle of Leningrad Soviets practically won the main battles of the war without any LL. LL kicked in when soviets blitzkrieged the Germans back to and in Berlin. The same way as Germans did when they surprise attacked SU in July 1941. Care to elaborate how you came to that conclusion?

@@cccpredarmy Yes. When I say "Americans stepped in", I don't mean only on LL, which was crucial for Soviet survival, I mean on strengthening pressure on the Reich coming from the west. Huge German war effort after 1942 went on the west as well, which wasn't the case in 1941/42. By 1943 German war machine wasn't in full swing. The height of German war production will happened during 1944 (take into account this was the year with the strongest strategic air campaign by the Western allies, and which wasn't possible without US Army Air Force), which was dramatic increase compared with 1941/42. In 1942 the Reich produced about 4 thousand tanks; in 1944 about 11 thousand. Soviets didn't significantly increase its own war production after 1942, saying the disparity (in which Soviets had massive advantage in 1942) will starts decreasing dramatically after the battle of Stalingrad, not other way around. The overall population was on the Axis side. In interwar period the Soviets collected grain for the Red Army. This probably had big effect for surviving 1941/42, but on the long run this would drain out. The battle of Stalingrad was marked as a "turning point", the reason why is because at that time the Axis starts declining on all fronts, because the pressure starts coming from all sides. For example, during the last strategic operation, the Operation Citadel, the Western allies invaded Italy, established control over Atlantic, and British launched air operation over Hamburg which killed over 40 thousand people in a single operation. The counter-offensive in late 1942 wouldn't be a decisive success. For example, during WWI the Brusilov offensive in 1916 had a huge success, but 1,5 year later the Russian empire collapsed. In my opinion, if the West didn't send LL and didn't put a massive pressure on the West, the front on the East would probably stall during 1943/44, but, the Reich, unlike Soviets, didn't suffer major destruction, meaning Soviet production of weapon and grain wasn't sustainable on the long run, to keep war effort rolling. The Reich not just keep its war effort rolling, but they increased production dramatically, with better tanks, better weapon, better planes. No, the Soviets never blitzkrieged the Germans. It was a long, attritional bloodshed. They partly "blitzkrieged" the Germans during the Operation Bagration, which coincide with the landing in France.

@@stef1896 red army blitzkrieged germans constantly after Kursk. If didn't on one front then they did it on the other. Just follow the data of SU land gain after 1943. Until very late preparation of Kursk SU didn't recieve ANYTHING significant from the LL. LL made the soviet blitzkrieg faster and with less losses of manpower, no doubt in that. Why do put so much significance on the Allies regains of a prior lost territories to the germans? I mean the germans already put a handful of their divisions in Africa like e.g. the soviets put their divisions to the far East borders to hold back Japanese. In other words why do we never hear from the americans being thankful to the soviets to hold back another 600000+ japanese soldiers, which, if put on the Pacific Islabds would cause a shitton of problems to the USA battling the Japanese there. The counting of soldiers on secondairy frontlines is useless imo. A country is always surounded by neighbors and has to put soldiers on the borders no matter what. Just for security reasons.

@@cccpredarmy But you don't understand how warfare functioning: Japanese couldn't supply neither soldiers they have in the Pacific. For example in Philippines' island, the Layte, Japanese soldiers lived on the land, eat roots and raised potato. How they would feed more soldiers? Not to mention Japanese navy was totally outgun from 1943. Second, Eisenhower and Zukhov deeply respected each other, something which is alien for today's keyboard warriors, stuck in their stupid and useless identity politics. During Hungarian revolution, on request from foreign secretary to support Hungarians uprising, Eisenhower respond, "Soviets earn it with their blood." The Reich wouldn't be defeated in 1945, nor in 1946 and probably neither in 1947 if allies, both from the East and the West, didn't combined their effort, unless US starts dropping atomic bombs on German cities, but we can agree that would be an awful solution. And I will give you another stunning figures why Soviets would have problems with Germans without pressure from the West: during 1944 Soviets reach 7:1 ration on the sky at some portions of the front, total air superiority, but in 1944 the Reich produced 25 thousand fighters, more than 1940/41/42/43 combined; Soviets produced about 18 thousand fighters, but still had ratio massively on their side. Where these German fighters ends? Mostly destroyed by Western allies. In 1943/44 the Reich produced about 3 times more steel then the USSR. Where this steel end? Well huge chunk of this steel went on, for example, building submarines. Only with this steel the Reich could build about 30 thousand tanks. All I'm trying to say is, the Axis were arguably stronger than the USSR, and without combined effort, the Reich would stood even in 1947. By that time, I think the USSR would collapse without Western assistants. Thinking that somehow the Red Army become magical force after the Battle of Stalingrad is rather naive.

Thanks Vass, Happy Monday to you too!

TIK Thanks! I don’t think I have any Eastern Front related material to comment on. Trying to get some research done for a review on the Movie Midway.

That wont be true for much longer....

@@dwwolf4636 You are all kinds of massive stupid

Good point.

their*

Noname it sounds Petty but it drives me nuts too

The people that were dying due to lack of food and from diseases that come out of starvation conditions were the Soviet version of "useless eaters". The soldiers and factory workers were relatively well cared for as they were critical for the war effort. The rest of the population, not so much. The troops were also good at foraging and "requisitioning" food supplies and animals from vlllagers and townspeople. Add to that the Lend-Lease supplies that were flowing in and I dont think the Soviet Union was anywhere near the point of collapse. Certainly, the fact that people in the Gulags were dropping dead at a high rate, as well as the increase in deaths among those not critical to the war effort, has virtually no relation to the Soviet warfighting capabilities. At least not in a time horizon of less than five years.

Nobody except the Bourgeois eats well in War. The Military did since they needed the strength to kill their fellow man.

The Soviets allied with the most hardcore fascist state in history in 1939-41. Stalin always put pragmatism over ideology. That's why he won.

any mcdonalds? lol

yep and according to Major Jordan's diaries, we shipped plenty of uranium over to boot!

Probably lots of canned fruit, vegetables, evaporated milk, canned meat, C rations, from the central valley of California. With the decline of popularity of canned stuff, those canneries are now closed. The powdered eggs will probably not be missed.

they was supplying all sides. something which no so called history and truth channel likes covering lol

As much as it pains me, I would suggest that you don't listen to distractions and study at the same time. Best to have 100% deep focus on the topic at hand. You can take breaks though and listen then :) not sure if you've seen my productivity tips video kzfaq.info/get/bejne/atR6aJtj29vDYKM.html

Ken McD I aways made the argument the Germans should have stayed in Germany.

Define “fall”

Being a superpower in 1945/46 had more to do with massive militaries & supporting industries/resources. In that sense, the Soviets deserve the credit for their superpower status....at an incredible cost, but they earned it. In terms of being an economic & political superpower, they were far less imposing.

That's a lot of food and other stuff. I assume it was much needed and greatly appreciated. I'm sure those were tough times having been attacked shortly after multiple social upheavals. I'm not sure throwing resources at someone in need means that you get a slice of the glory. I mean, nobody tries to diminish the involvement of the U.K. They relied on the Lend/Lease program and lost far fewer people than the U.S.S.R. Does France get to claim some glory from the American revolution since they sent resources to the U.S.? It seems like the Soviets defeated the German army alone. There were no other armies in Stalingrad. There were no other armies chasing the Germans out of Eastern Europe. Yeah, they had help but no one else was doing the dieing. While they really did bear the full force of the German army and survive, by themselves. Please don't take this as an apology for Communism. Let's suck on the facts together and give those people a little bit of credit.

@@notsure7939 I wish I could be gracious about your comment, because I'm used to people instantly launching into personal attacks if they read something they don't like. And of course, you were respectful and courteous. Unfortunately, I find your comment absolutely ridiculous. You've made so many false equivalencies and logical fallacies that I hardly know where to begin. Firstly, my point about the food aid was to support TIK's idea that the SU was close to economic collapse, and my claim that Lend Lease prevented it. I have long held that view and I am tired of the very partisan and deliberate characterization of America's aid to the SU as being inconsequential. Which is exactly what you are arguing. The other reason I made the post is to poke a finger in the eye of the biased ideologues who refuse to acknowledge the facts and their implications.Your characterization of US aid as "throwing resources at someone" is fallacious and scornful. Speaking of robbing someone of their glory, right? So the US deserves no credit? Not to mention that is a - deliberate - misrepresentation of what US aid the Russia was about. I think it's clear that you're biased and trying to drag this into personal politics because it is you who don't want to give credit where it's due. The idea that the SU would have been able to continue fighting without the mountain of war material and aid given to the SU is ludicrous in my opinion. I believe I can make a cogent argument for that belief, but I won't be making it with you. I'd be wasting my breath. Oh, and your damned right the French deserve credit. No one who knows anything about the American revolution would dispute that French aid was critical and that without it, the surrender of Cornwallis in Virginia would have been impossible.

@@juliancate7089 you make good points. Perhaps I downplayed the value of the aid. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that, to my knowledge, France isn't interested in making sure everyone knows that they contributed to the revolution because citizens of the U.S. did the fighting and dieing. Think of the amount of wars the U.S. has funded in one way or another. Do they want credit for the various South American wars that they put money and resources toward? It's very likely that without assistance from the U.S., the S.U. and possibly even the U.K. (to a much lesser extent) would not have survived. But none of the aid would have mattered if the S.U. hadn't been able to field millions of soldiers. Therefore I feel they deserve a little credit and just like most laymen in the U.S. they deserve to feel like they defeated their enemy. I mean you no disrespect. Please assume that my beliefs are at least as complicated as your own and I have no desire to insult.

@@notsure7939 You are offering a false choice that if I say American aid made the difference for the SU during the war and especially at specific moments, that therefore I am taking credit away from the Russian soldiers. The answer is that it is both. it was a combination of aid and guts. So, please point to any post I have made on this thread or at anytime on this forum where I have said that Russian soldiers deserve no recognition. You keep trying to move the point onto these false equivalencies and emotional arguments. The real point is economics. No one has suggested that the Russians didn't fight. Again, anyone who knows anything about the war knows that the Russians put up valiant efforts, but to turn a phrase back on you, it doesn't matter how many soldiers you have if they're all starving to death. No insult taken. I never thought you were trying to be deliberately insulting. Hyperbolic and ideological, but not insulting.

@@juliancate7089 in your first post in this thread, you ended your post by saying that the S.U. cannot claim that they defeated the Germans alone. I am arguing that they can. Your argument to that is that the U.S. contributed so much that S.U. would surely have lost without it. I don't disagree with that, but you seem to feel like the U.S. isn't getting enough credit for that aid. My argument is that nobody else does that. Countries fund wars all the time and when history looks at that war the people who actually fought are the ones who get the credit. Sure the sources of funding might get an honorable mention but history will refer to that war as a war between the sides that fought and died. Why is the war involving S.U. and Germany different? Contributing aid doesn't make you part of the war otherwise the American revolution would have involved England, the colonies and France. We all know France didn't fight so we don't consider them involved in the war. They were not combatants. Can you give me examples of non combatant countries that history considers part of a war because they contributed supplies?

It's funny. Rye used to be considered substandard, but now sourdough rye bread is considered a delicacy.

Glad you found it, and I'm glad you're enjoying it

English Wikipedia address en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Repayment The Lend-Lease policy, formally titled An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States During the war the USSR provided an unknown number of shipments of rare minerals to the US Treasury as a form of cashless repayment of Lend-Lease. This was agreed upon before the signing of the first protocol on October 1, 1941, and extension of credit. Some of these shipments were intercepted by the Germans. In May 1942, HMS Edinburgh was sunk while carrying 4.5 tonnes of Soviet gold intended for the U.S. Treasury. This gold was salvaged in 1981 and 1986.[81] In June 1942, SS Port Nicholson was sunk en route from Halifax, Nova Scotia to New York, allegedly with Soviet platinum, gold, and diamonds aboard; the wreck was discovered in 2008.[82] However, none of this cargo has been salvaged, and no documentation of its treasure has been produced.[83]

@@user-qt1cp1be3u I know it wasn't a one way street. IMO the USA/UK would have supplied the USSR regardless! Why do I say that? Because the Western Allies were prepared to fight to the last Russian. 2/3's of all German troops lost were lost on the Eastern front! Imagine the additional US/UK casualties if we had had to kill those Germans! I'm not saying we would have quit but think how the World would be different if the War in Europe had continued into 1946. How different if it had been Berlin that was nuked.

@@ethanperks372 Not 2/3rds (67%), it was closer to 85%.

@@alexwood5425 Thank you! And of course the War in the East had a ferocity not seen in the West.

Even we Brits owe much to the USA, and the empire nations

Think about how during winter a soldier needs over 6000 calories a day to fight.

I'm on Bitchute www.bitchute.com/channel/aqCvYwXmjslI/ but not entirely backed up on there. I do have backups saved of all my videos on external hard drives though so I could upload to Bitchute in case of KZfaq censorship or financial collapse.

i.e. food.

Yeah yeah... The song about how soviet people beated the best army on the planet despite of their incompetent leaders...

the tankers had enough fuel to keep warm and enough Montana caned beef to stay full were happy.... who can say that nowadays?

It's a testament to how ruthless the Soviets were, at the very least, that their people having food to eat was less important to them than being the ones to take Berlin for the sake of political bullshit.

Hmm, did I say something wrong? I was talking about the people and their tenacity and bravery fighting the Axis, not about the oppressive regime they also had to endure.

@@uncleJan1 it is a little easier to continue the heroic charge... when you know there are political officers maning machine guns... just waiting for someone to turn around.that "oppressive regime" and the "bravery fighting" are not as separated as you espouse. 😎

Complete BS

@@konstantinkelekhsaev302 I got that quote from a wiki article about spam en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(food)#History they do list a source, that said I suspect the person translating/ quoting him might have exaggerated his point, surely spam was just one of many food sources, but spam played an interesting role across all theaters of WW2.

For the entire period of the war, the Allies delivered 4.5 million tons of food to USSR. For comparison - the volume of grain harvest in the USSR was: 1941 - 55.9 million tons. 1942 - 29.7 million tons. 1943 - 29.4 million tons. 1944 - 49.1 million tons. 1945 - 47.3 million tons. Total - 211.4 million tons. Thus, a direct percentage of allied assistance is 2.2% of the volume of the soviet harvest.

@@user-bw7ke2us2i Sounds about right to me, a sharp drop off in 42 when significant parts of the USSR were under occupation. Interesting that 44 somehow produced more that 45, I would have thought it would have been a steady upswing, thanks for the info. I'm sure the point was not to say that spam saved the USSR or anything like that, just that some may have starved without the aid.

@@MidKnightblue0013 Lend-Lease spam and other canned meat amounted to 600 thousand tons over a period OF 4 YEARS. Most of it (if not all of it) went to the soldiers on the frontline, and soldiers received the best rations so i doubt Apam saved anyone from starving.

I'd like to see how the angels of USA are going keep their economy strong when their major food producing land is occupied,all of their major industry is either destroyed or under bombardment and a lot of men had to be drafted to the frontline.

Van Tuz it will NEVER happen but if it did, I don’t think Americans today would have the stomach for any of it.

@@elbucho8867 Perhaps we're about to "cut our teeth". In WW2 it was North Africa. I'll let someone else make a remark based on current events. www.pix11.com/news/local-news/nypd-city-hall-deny-police-brass-shake-up-talk

Wrong. The "not a step back" order is not a dire call but a disciplinairy one in the first place. Imagine you're in the leading staff of a state which faces an overwhelming force. You have sleepless nights of constant work of planing and concentrating enough material on crucial areas on the frontline. You planed everything, checked all possibilities and prepared to the best you could. You wake up the next day and see that everything collapsed and the germans just went through. You now, hopelessly try to fogure out what caused it and see clearly that you actually really had enough aces to use against the enemy but soldiers simply ran from the battlefield in fear without using any of them... Imagine you have it multiple times in a row and germans now literally have one leg through the door of your home. I guarantee you you'll crawl to the staff members above begging to initiate an order to get the soldiers to not leave their positions!

@The Colonel Utter BS. Order #270 which you are referring to applied only to families of commanders and political officers who removed their insignia and surrendered or deserted. Big Difference dont you think ??

@The Colonel I would say there is huge difference between losing a Commanding Officer and a Conscript soldier. The reason why it was issued because of instances of commanding officers instead of organizing a defence were surrendering without a fight or abandoning their posts and running off to the rear (With insignia removed to blend in with the crowd). P.S. At least 2 of my great uncles were POWs and my family were not punished in any way that i'm aware of.

@The Colonel If it wasn't necessary it would not come into existence. It was issued for the same reasons Order 227 was, to keep morale and order in the Red Army from disintegrating.

Not too impossible when you're subsidized by the biggest industrial economy on earth

That's a good point. The Russians lost SO much in '41. Yet even by 1942 the Germans never got close to Moscow. Their offensives didn't have the potential to end the war. The Russians just got stronger and stronger and stronger. I'm wondering if the Germans ever had a chance?

@@jimuren2388 Lets not forget that Germany had an oil and food crisis of its own

@@AFGuidesHD to the gulag pro American capitalist. Russia stronk.

@KOBRA It helped, but I doubt that saved them. They crushed Germany after all, and not with western tanks

Russia deserves an apology from the world. What a tragic fate for a country which had so much potential. Imagine if WW1, WW2, Soviet union had never happened. Russia would have probably held on the "republics" and have a population of at least 400 million .