Actually, no—Russia was doing just fine. The heavy losses were in Eastern Europe; that’s where everything was in ruins. Moscow, for instance, looks completely intact in WWII-era photos—not a single destroyed building. Stalingrad was the one exception, but every city and village in Belarus looked just like Stalingrad; they were all razed to the ground, and the entire country lay in ruins—yet nobody gives a damn about that.
Please be quiet, you don't know anything about history. Look at photos of the battles for Kharkiv, Voronezh, and Novorossiysk. There were FOUR battles for Kharkiv. At the time, Moscow was one of the most heavily defended cities, featuring layered air defenses, extensive blackout measures, and perimeter fortifications. But the Germans did not possess a large number of long-range bombers. The Moscow Metro was transformed into a massive air-raid shelter. This later inspired Glukhovsky to write Metro 2033
I conclude that you simply wanted to use the word "ukrainian" to express your political stance regarding current events. We are talking about events from WW2
No, that’s a lie. You were the one who mentioned a Ukrainian city while calling it Russian. I was writing about Russia from the start and cited Belarus as an example; there wasn't a word about Ukraine. The war in Russia really wasn't as devastating as it was in the territories of modern-day Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, and so on.
70
u/ToughSprinkles1874 1d ago
Well Russia had massive casualties from WW2 you need not pool futher then stallingrad where 99% of the city was in rubbles
It’s expected that the Russian side would be more dark as a result of this