What do you think of Communism

[Hispida]

Crippled for around a year~ before the Soviets started kicking Nazi ass.

Crippled for around a year - before the west started sending them shitloads of equipment that they couldn't produce themselves.

well this is just wrong

in 1942, the USSR produced over 12,000 T-34 tanks. in the same year, germany produced around 3,000 panzer 3s. hell, the USSR was outproducing germany in 1941 by a factor of nearly 1.5x. in airplane production specifically, the only year germany produced more planes than the USSR was 1940 --- by about 300. in 1941, the USSR produced over 15,000 planes compared to germany's 12,000. american lend-lease to the USSR didn't really kick off until 1942, and reached its apex in 1944 --- in 1944, the united states provided the USSR with approximately 35% of its total lend-lease given to the USSR, which was given after decisive soviet victories in operation uranus (1942), kursk (1943), and moscow (1941). by 1942, the USSR fielded over triple the amount of german soldiers in the eastern front. the USSR was provided with 6,000 tanks and 11,000 planes over the entire war by the US, which was outproduced by the USSR in 1942 by double the amount of tanks and planes. the USSR was never supplied with rifles, and produced about 30 million by the end of the war.

the idea that the USSR only survived beacuse of american and british lend-lease programs, and that the USSR struggled with production and would've been outnumbered by germany without lend-lease, is a historical falsehood at best and deliberate american and british propaganda at worst.

[American Legionaries]

Crippled for around a year - before the west started sending them shitloads of equipment that they couldn't produce themselves.

well this is just wrong

in 1942, the USSR produced over 12,000 T-34 tanks. in the same year, germany produced around 3,000 panzer 3s. hell, the USSR was outproducing germany in 1941 by a factor of nearly 1.5x. in airplane production specifically, the only year germany produced more planes than the USSR was 1940 --- by about 300. in 1941, the USSR produced over 15,000 planes compared to germany's 12,000. american lend-lease to the USSR didn't really kick off until 1942, and reached its apex in 1944 --- in 1944, the united states provided the USSR with approximately 35% of its total lend-lease given to the USSR, which was given after decisive soviet victories in operation uranus (1942), kursk (1943), and moscow (1941). by 1942, the USSR fielded over triple the amount of german soldiers in the eastern front. the USSR was provided with 6,000 tanks and 11,000 planes over the entire war by the US, which was outproduced by the USSR in 1942 by double the amount of tanks and planes.

the idea that the USSR only survived beacuse of american and british lend-lease programs is a historical falsehood at best and deliberate american and british propaganda at worst.

We also provided things which weren't tanks and aircraft, though.

[Hispida]

well this is just wrong

in 1942, the USSR produced over 12,000 T-34 tanks. in the same year, germany produced around 3,000 panzer 3s. hell, the USSR was outproducing germany in 1941 by a factor of nearly 1.5x. in airplane production specifically, the only year germany produced more planes than the USSR was 1940 --- by about 300. in 1941, the USSR produced over 15,000 planes compared to germany's 12,000. american lend-lease to the USSR didn't really kick off until 1942, and reached its apex in 1944 --- in 1944, the united states provided the USSR with approximately 35% of its total lend-lease given to the USSR, which was given after decisive soviet victories in operation uranus (1942), kursk (1943), and moscow (1941). by 1942, the USSR fielded over triple the amount of german soldiers in the eastern front. the USSR was provided with 6,000 tanks and 11,000 planes over the entire war by the US, which was outproduced by the USSR in 1942 by double the amount of tanks and planes.

the idea that the USSR only survived beacuse of american and british lend-lease programs is a historical falsehood at best and deliberate american and british propaganda at worst.

We also provided things which weren't tanks and aircraft, though.

such as army boots that were too tight and oil that was already being produced in tens of millions of tons in the caucasus (compared to the ~3 million tons of oil given by the US), yes.

[American Legionaries]

We also provided things which weren't tanks and aircraft, though.

such as army boots that were too tight and oil that was already being produced in tens of millions of tons in the caucasus (compared to the ~3 million tons of oil given by the US), yes.

Those would be some of those things, yes. Along with food, ammunition, and the trucks to haul those things in. Two thirds of new trucks during the war were American made. Obviously the Soviets produced their own war material when they could, but they very much leaned on lend-lease to keep their military running on the scale it did.

[El Lazaro]

~Snip~

And the resources, transportation, fuel, logistics, and manufacturing capacity that made this possible were provided by America. Maybe that’s why famous British propagandists like Stalin said the war wouldn’t have been won without it.

[Hispida]

such as army boots that were too tight and oil that was already being produced in tens of millions of tons in the caucasus (compared to the ~3 million tons of oil given by the US), yes.

Those would be some of those things, yes. Along with food, ammunition, and the trucks to haul those things in. Two thirds of new trucks during the war were American made. Obviously the Soviets produced their own war material when they could, but they very much leaned on lend-lease to keep their military running on the scale it did.

i couldn't find a source for how much ammunition the USSR was given by the wallies, but they produced over 10 million tons of ammo which is nothing to sneeze at for nearly 30 million rifles. as for food, during the second world war the USSR had an approximated farming population of 20 million and an average increase of winter grain production by 18%. in 1942, the estimated grain yield was 37 million tons (making up ~270 kg per capita). 4.5 million tons of food were given to the USSR during the war, so i'd say the USSR was good on that front.

as for trucks, the USSR barely used more domestic trucks than american trucks (around 370,000 domestic trucks compared to 300,000 lend-lease trucks) --- although soviet trucks generally had lower sustainability, but they were trucks used in logistics alongside horses and mules. the lend-lease program provided the USSR with approximately 5.4% of transport in 1943, 19% in '44, and 32.8% in '45.

~Snip~

And the resources, transportation infrastructure, fuel, logistics, and manufacturing capacity that made this possible were provided by America. Maybe that’s why famous British propagandists like Stalin said the war wouldn’t have been won without it.

the resources given to the USSR were primarily copper and other metals, something the USSR did have a lack of. but transportation infrastructure? fuel? logistics? capacity?

did you miss the five year plans, or...

[American Legionaries]

Those would be some of those things, yes. Along with food, ammunition, and the trucks to haul those things in. Two thirds of new trucks during the war were American made. Obviously the Soviets produced their own war material when they could, but they very much leaned on lend-lease to keep their military running on the scale it did.

i couldn't find a source for how much ammunition the USSR was given by the wallies, but they produced over 10 million tons of ammo which is nothing to sneeze at for nearly 30 million rifles. as for food, during the second world war the USSR had an approximated farming population of 20 million and an average increase of winter grain production by 18%. in 1942, the estimated grain yield was 37 million tons (making up ~270 kg per capita). 4.5 million tons of food were given to the USSR during the war, so i'd say the USSR was good on that front.

as for trucks, the USSR barely used more domestic trucks than american trucks (around 370,000 domestic trucks compared to 300,000 lend-lease trucks) --- although soviet trucks generally had lower sustainability, but they were trucks used in logistics alongside horses and mules. the lend-lease program provided the USSR with approximately 5.4% of transport in 1943, 19% in '44, and 32.8% in '45.

And the resources, transportation infrastructure, fuel, logistics, and manufacturing capacity that made this possible were provided by America. Maybe that’s why famous British propagandists like Stalin said the war wouldn’t have been won without it.

the resources given to the USSR were primarily copper and other metals, something the USSR did have a lack of. but transportation infrastructure? fuel? logistics? capacity?

did you miss the five year plans, or...

I'm still struggling to understand how any of this really functions as a counter-argument to what was said. If the Soviets were "good on that front" in reference to food production, why did they request and receive four and a half million tons of food from the United States?

If their domestic production of trucks was sufficient to meet their needs, why did we give them two for every one they made?

Same question for everything from artillery shells to boot laces?

Nobody claims that Nikolai down at the Soviet auto plant sat on his ass and drank vodka, they claimed that "the west started sending them shitloads of equipment that they couldn't produce themselves." Which is verifiably true.

[Duvniask]

as for food, during the second world war the USSR had an approximated farming population of 20 million and an average increase of winter grain production by 18%. in 1942, the estimated grain yield was 37 million tons (making up ~270 kg per capita). 4.5 million tons of food were given to the USSR during the war, so i'd say the USSR was good on that front.

The thing about presenting figures like this is how severely it allows you to distort the truth. A grain yield of 37 million tonnes is less than half of the 1940 grain yield of ~90 million. And this should make sense if you think about it for more than one second. 1941 saw Ukraine, the agricultural heartland, occupied. 1942 saw the lower Don and Volga area occupied, further depriving the union of much needed agricultural land. The situation of agriculture was severely dire. Grain is also not just food for humans; it is used to feed livestock, so not all of this is available straight from the field to the human stomach. Further, Soviet storage facilities were inadequate and waste remained a problem throughout its entire history.

[Senkaku]

Crippled for around a year~ before the Soviets started kicking Nazi ass.

Crippled for around a year - before the west started sending them shitloads of equipment that they couldn't produce themselves.

Their side is collectively called “the Allies” because it was a fucking team effort lol; FDR or Uncle Joe aren’t going to rise from the grave and give you a medal for doing napkin math to prove one of them had a bigger dick.

[Torrocca]

Crippled for around a year - before the west started sending them shitloads of equipment that they couldn't produce themselves.

Their side is collectively called “the Allies” because it was a fucking team effort lol; FDR or Uncle Joe aren’t going to rise from the grave and give you a medal for doing napkin math to prove one of them had a bigger dick.

Honestly, nowadays, the dick-measuring contest over Allied contribution to WW2 is just annoying.

Yeah, yeah, they started getting cutthroat with each other immediately after 1945, but why can't we simply celebrate that brief moment where they got together and collectively kicked Fascist ass?

I genuinely can't bring myself to care about USA number one or USSR number one for WW2 discussions, especially not over Lend Lease lmfao

[American Legionaries]

but why can't we simply celebrate that brief moment where they got together and collectively kicked Fascist ass?

Well it's more pleasant to imagine a future where Joe and Adolf dragged one another into the shit bucket of history. But alas. We felt it necessary to help the Soviets...

[Ponklybonkowaidaho]

it would turn a lot of problems around

[Informed Consent]

it would turn a lot of problems around

Two billion people not in poverty is a problem?

[Torrocca]

but why can't we simply celebrate that brief moment where they got together and collectively kicked Fascist ass?

Well it's more pleasant to imagine a future where Joe and Adolf dragged one another into the shit bucket of history. But alas. We felt it necessary to help the Soviets...

No. Stop yearning for a nonexistent alternative where even more people died.

Less of that.

More of this.

[Torrocca]

it would turn a lot of problems around

Two billion people not in poverty is a problem?

Six billion others still in it is.

[American Legionaries]

Well it's more pleasant to imagine a future where Joe and Adolf dragged one another into the shit bucket of history. But alas. We felt it necessary to help the Soviets...

No. Stop yearning for a nonexistent alternative where even more people died.

Less of that.

More of this.

Gross...

[Torrocca]

No. Stop yearning for a nonexistent alternative where even more people died.

Less of that.

More of this.

Gross...

Intimate camaraderie is the exact opposite of gross. Yearning for more bloodshed, however, is very much gross.

This brief moment at the Elbe and another points of contact should've blossomed into something far more beautiful and been the catalyst for a truly united humanity. Comrades in arms finally meeting each other across a natural border after defeating what's arguably the greatest regime of evil in human history should've been more than a fleeting moment captured in pictures.

[American Legionaries]

Gross...

Intimate camaraderie is the exact opposite of gross. Yearning for more bloodshed, however, is very much gross.

This brief moment at the Elbe and another points of contact should've blossomed into something far more beautiful and been the catalyst for a truly united humanity. Comrades in arms finally meeting each other across a natural border after defeating what's arguably the greatest regime of evil in human history should've been more than a fleeting moment captured in pictures.

Depends on who's sharing the camaraderie.

[Informed Consent]

Two billion people not in poverty is a problem?

Six billion others still in it is.

Four, actually, and the problem is not a misallocation of resources, but of ideology.

Undo the emergent effects of twentieth century capitalism that has yielded considerable middle class prosperity despite socialist pretenders of both the national and international schools blunting it into cronyism, and you usher in a Malthusian's wet dream.

Only one third of the world heats itself with wood and dung.
That will double almost instantly.
Depopulation through starvation, other forms of deprivation, and political violence will prey on humanity on a scale neither seen or dreamed of.
Problems we already have on a more modest scale that have continually troubled us, and are even now being frustrated by ecological and medical fascism pushing the west back into a sociopolitical landscape similar to the World War eras.

This century is going to get real interesting, regardless of what we do now.
Until we stop politicizing math, admit to ourselves that we are not suited as a species to organize and maintain macro-societies, which includes giving up on the perverse idea that the species has to be consolidated under some uniform standard, we will only continue to slowly, and painfully, destroy ourselves pursuing some mad quest for collective salvation, and social utopia.

[Snowv]

If communists like sharing why dont you share your slutt mothr

[Sordhau]

Six billion others still in it is.

Four, actually, and the problem is not a misallocation of resources, but of ideology.

Undo the emergent effects of twentieth century capitalism that has yielded considerable middle class prosperity despite socialist pretenders of both the national and international schools blunting it into cronyism, and you usher in a Malthusian's wet dream.

Only one third of the world heats itself with wood and dung.
That will double almost instantly.
Depopulation through starvation, other forms of deprivation, and political violence will prey on humanity on a scale neither seen or dreamed of.
Problems we already have on a more modest scale that have continually troubled us, and are even now being frustrated by ecological and medical fascism pushing the west back into a sociopolitical landscape similar to the World War eras.

This century is going to get real interesting, regardless of what we do now.
Until we stop politicizing math, admit to ourselves that we are not suited as a species to organize and maintain macro-societies, which includes giving up on the perverse idea that the species has to be consolidated under some uniform standard, we will only continue to slowly, and painfully, destroy ourselves pursuing some mad quest for collective salvation, and social utopia.

I'm not sure if this is Doomerism, Nihilism, Misanthropy, or Anarchism.

[Czervenika]

If communists like sharing why dont you share your slutt mothr

Cool story troll

[Senkaku]

you usher in a Malthusian's wet dream.

Only one third of the world heats itself with wood and dung.
That will double almost instantly.

As long as we have phosphate reserves, coal, and the Haber-Bosch process I’m pretty sure we’re in the clear re: Malthus, regardless of how much we have to heat the atmosphere or smother the rivers and oceans in algae lol— so that’s at least a century or two of runway to keep aiming high and disappointing ourselves, which is better than nothing. If you want to “slowly and painfully destroy ourselves,” I can’t think of a better recipe than preemptively throwing in the towel on the very concept of organizing large-scale societies and resigning ourselves to a few more measly millennia of scrabbling in the dirt and oppressing ourselves till the next Chicxulub swings around.

[Sordhau]

If communists like sharing why dont you share your slutt mothr

Cool story troll

It was kinda funny tho tbh

[Nilokeras]

Sympathy in terms of whether or not a decision made sense within the political framework each country was working within and whether or not that decision panned out. Appeasement is a much more nonsensical proposition in the 1930's than the idea of buying time to prepare for an inevitable invasion.

Considering Stalin refused to believe any and all reports that the Germans were going to invade even when Germans were crossing the border I doubt this line of apologetics.

In fact Stalin can be credited for a lot of early German success in the East by refusing to prepare for it.

Ever since the first Entente invasion of Russia in the depths of the Civil War failed the Soviet leadership anticipated a second invasion by the reactionary world powers to try and topple the Soviet regime. In the 1930's, that could have been either the Nazis or the Allies. The Nazis and Allies were mutually hostile to one another though, so the obvious thing to do was to try and put out feelers and ally with whoever they could to try and forestall the invasion by the other party. We can certainly fault Stalin for not cluing in to what was happening as the preparations for invasion were obvious, but before that and given the ongoing descent into war in the West I don't think it's unreasonable for Stalin to have assumed that they wouldn't try to open a second front.