overview for @nitrrogen__
back to main page
There are 2 users who have had this username!
For now, only the most recent user is shown until the admin gets their shit together and builds in support for this.
show/hide bio history
-
Aug 22 2024 11:49:45 PM - Sep 9 2024 2:36:26 AM
-
Aug 10 2024 4:13:24 AM - Aug 22 2024 10:53:10 PM
-
Aug 9 2024 5:16:42 AM - Aug 9 2024 5:06:10 PM
-
Explaining Russian brutality in the Caucasus and Central Asia
Jul 30 2024 6:44:13 PM - Jul 30 2024 11:45:08 PM -
#DontFAFOwithNAFO #GiveNukesToISIS #NAFO Freaky 👅
- Scary BNWO Azov in RuZZia
Jul 27 2024 10:56:50 AM - Jul 27 2024 11:08:52 AM -
Explaining Russian 🇷🇺 brutality in the Caucasus and Central Asia
- Wagner PMC deployment in Syria
Jul 13 2024 8:29:53 PM - Jul 27 2024 9:40:45 AM -
Jul 6 2024 12:30:30 AM - Aug 9 2024 3:40:38 AM
-
Jun 14 2024 5:26:15 AM - Jun 20 2024 10:24:50 PM
-
Jun 13 2024 8:38:42 PM - Jun 14 2024 5:29:33 AM
registered Jul 5 2024 4:21:07 PM
255 following 472 followers
known alts: (list may be incomplete, lmk if you know any others!)- n1trrog3n
- nitrrogen88
- punished_nitrro
- nitrr0_ (aka nitrrogen__)
- nitrrogen__
- CvnnyDestroyer (aka n1trrogen88)
- RapeFoids2Death
- GenocideAfrica
- PETR0GRAD
Tweets (3376)
Mentioned (982)
3376 tweets from Jul 5 2024 to Sep 8 2024
@okok647 pic.x.com/nuticudvsf
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 1
RT @nitrrogen__: Thank you for reading! pic.x.com/qa4vvksq0k
- 0
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
@ir2eoji3jn5hbk1 This is the most pseudohistorical redditised statement that I've read in a while. Good job on being an illiterate cretin.
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
Thank you for reading! pic.x.com/qa4vvksq0k
- 0
- 1
- 0
- 2
- 0
- 25
Without it, the Soviets would be forced to divert many of the resources that historically went to war materiel, to producing key lend-lease goods domestically.
Will offensives be smaller in scale and costlier? Yes.
Will the USSR lose? Statistically impossible.
Will offensives be smaller in scale and costlier? Yes.
Will the USSR lose? Statistically impossible.
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
There's more or these kinds of arguments, but to sum it up.
No matter what, Germany didn't have the resources to continue this war. Lend-lease or not, the USSR would've won in the East.
Lend-lease allowed the USSR to focus on producing tanks & planes & planning offensives.
No matter what, Germany didn't have the resources to continue this war. Lend-lease or not, the USSR would've won in the East.
Lend-lease allowed the USSR to focus on producing tanks & planes & planning offensives.
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
The USSR produced around 134,000 trucks during the war. The Lend-Lease program provided about 375,000 trucks, that's because there was no need to domestically increase it, Soviets could have increased their own production or adapted their logistics to manage with fewer trucks.
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 4
Even though Lend-Lease provided 80% of their copper needs, the USSR’s domestic production could have been ramped up to fill some of the gap.
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
The Soviet Union had significant copper resources and mining capabilities. For instance, in 1940, before the war, the USSR was the world's fourth-largest producer of copper, producing over 400,000 tons annually.
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
The lend lease sent was very welcome - but surely it was not so important that the USSR would fall without it.
"Oh but Trucks! Copper! Radios!"
Etc.
"Oh but Trucks! Copper! Radios!"
Etc.
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
The most IMPORTANT year for Soviet defense in 1941 saw a total of 2.1% of lend leased goods recieved. The next most important year (1942) where the German offensive was halted saw 14% of total lend lease arrive.
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
The Soviet Union spent 190 billion dollars on the war effort while TOTAL (1941-1945) American lend lease consisted of 10 billion. This is 5% of Soviet Spending covered by lend lease - which isn't insignificant. But the most important thing we have to realize is distribution.
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
(Especially with the crippling oil shortage).
Now that this is established. What did lend lease do at this crucial stage in the war?
Well, very little.
Now that this is established. What did lend lease do at this crucial stage in the war?
Well, very little.
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
So; unless Germany knocks the USSR all the way to the Urals in 1942 - the Germans could slowly be grinded to a halt. And after the regrouping and mobilization efforts in 1941, every single metric shows Germany could not realistically accomplish this.
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
The Soviets also fought a war of liberation in mainly friendy areas - while Germany fought a war of aggression in a hostile environment, every time Germany captured land, that's more land to occupy and administrate - for the USSR it was more people to use for the war.
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
The evacuation of Industry and agriculture past the urals was also more effective than anyone could imagine, and after 1941 the production was pretty much stabilized.
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
And while the USSR lost 40% of the food supply, the USSR also lost 40% of the population - meaning the food situation isn't as drastic as it looks at first glance. (Although still bad).
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
Despite controlling most of Europe, Germany STILL could not outproduce the USSR!
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
German industry at the start of the war was not working at full speed. While larger on paper, it was already being outproduced by the Soviets in practically every field. German output was better in quality, but quantity has a quality of it's own. And this is a war of attrition.
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
But the Soviet Union could better use their nation by giving every man a sub-par but working gun, than giving every man a masterpiece.
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
And if we consider that the Soviet union was already waging total war from the beginning - we see that the USSR already has the edge in this conflict. Soviet industry was also geared for mass-production, yes Soviet tanks were worse, soviet weapons and aircraft were also worse.
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
So total balance of population, it's maybe 100m:120m, which still shows the USSR outnumbering Germany.
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
German allies like Italy & Bulgaria never invested heavily into the Eastern front. and the occupations took more men from Germany in terms of occupation and administration and defense in case of western attack - than it did in terms of manpower to use.
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
(Germany 80m, occupied ~100m, allied ~110m.)
While this number far exceeded the USSR on paper, it's also very inaccurate and dishonest to take this at the way it's presented.
While this number far exceeded the USSR on paper, it's also very inaccurate and dishonest to take this at the way it's presented.
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
In comparison, the German population was 80 million and 40 million were in the workforce already.
And even with a lot of the Soviet population under German occupation the USSR still outnumbered Germany.
Now, if we count allies and occupations Germany reaches a total 290m.
And even with a lot of the Soviet population under German occupation the USSR still outnumbered Germany.
Now, if we count allies and occupations Germany reaches a total 290m.
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
Industry & Evacuation:
12 million people were transported east in the Soviet evacuation of the Urals, industry was reorganized and put under tight industrial control. Men and women were mobilized in the industry - making the soviet workforce 60 million.
12 million people were transported east in the Soviet evacuation of the Urals, industry was reorganized and put under tight industrial control. Men and women were mobilized in the industry - making the soviet workforce 60 million.
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
Now, we also have to remember just what was the USSR fighting for?
The Soviets KNEW that this was a war of extermination, that if the USSR were to lose, then not only Soviet Government and communist ideology would fall - but Slavic people as a whole.
Let's see more stats.
The Soviets KNEW that this was a war of extermination, that if the USSR were to lose, then not only Soviet Government and communist ideology would fall - but Slavic people as a whole.
Let's see more stats.
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
And combined with the longer training, and conscription issues, the Germans were still at a massive long-term disadvantage.
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
Furthermore,
Soviet soldiers could go into combat relatively quickly after retraining, while Germans would need months of training.
The German Reich already had a 1:3 population difference with the Soviet Union (70m:195m).
Soviet soldiers could go into combat relatively quickly after retraining, while Germans would need months of training.
The German Reich already had a 1:3 population difference with the Soviet Union (70m:195m).
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
The Soviet army as we know it, continued to grow over the course of WW2. And stabilized at 6.5m despite a lot of losses. The amount of reservists the USSR had would help significantly.
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
The USSR also had an extensive mobilization system. Germany invaded the Soviets with 3.5 million soldiers, and 3 million Soviet soldiers would already be lost by the end of 1941, however by 1942 the USSR already had 5.3 million men in the army while Germany had 3.7m.
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
The Soviet system already had a lot of aspects of "warlike economy" even BEFORE the invasion!
Food control;
The Government would collect all food and redistribute it later - which would allow the USSR to prioritize feeding the army and industries over the civilian populace.
Food control;
The Government would collect all food and redistribute it later - which would allow the USSR to prioritize feeding the army and industries over the civilian populace.
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
The land the Germans captured had 40% of population and grain and around 60% of industrial materials. It was a disaster for the USSR. However, the Soviet Union in general was geared for war. That is how Stalin built it up due to the ideological isolation of the USSR.
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
My thoughts are - the war would be longer, but the Germans could not win.
With this in mind, let's begin in a June 1941, Germany just launched Operation Barbarossa and it seems like a stunning success, the Red Army is entirely unprepared. And the economy is in shambles.
With this in mind, let's begin in a June 1941, Germany just launched Operation Barbarossa and it seems like a stunning success, the Red Army is entirely unprepared. And the economy is in shambles.
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
[HIGH EFFORT THREAD]
Once and for all disproving the lend-lease meme.
PREFACE
The Soviets would NOT be able to win the same way as in our timeline (i.e the war would be slower and take longer and more deadly), and I'm not saying that it wasn't very impactful. pic.x.com/5olwksrolo x.com/ir2eoji3jn5hbk… (⊹)
Once and for all disproving the lend-lease meme.
PREFACE
The Soviets would NOT be able to win the same way as in our timeline (i.e the war would be slower and take longer and more deadly), and I'm not saying that it wasn't very impactful. pic.x.com/5olwksrolo x.com/ir2eoji3jn5hbk… (⊹)
- 5
- 6
- 4
- 39
- 17
- 1301
@TheEternalKraut If one attempts to establish a framework for empirically measuring 'utility', the issue of certain philosophies disagreeing on what is utility and what is more important still persists.
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
@TheEternalKraut >"What's good for humanity is case by case."
Yeah, exactly.
Naturally, our views on what's good for humanity and what isn't are fundamentally different.
Yeah, exactly.
Naturally, our views on what's good for humanity and what isn't are fundamentally different.
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
@TheEternalKraut Although at the end of the day this is just semantics for the sake of semantics tbh.
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
@TheEternalKraut Doing 'good' for humanity is also subjective. Some people believe that certain values, ideas, theories, and their realization - are universally and necessarily 'good' for humanity. These ideas vary from person to person and from philosophy to philosophy.
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
@EternalLuso He's a larper and a contrarian for contrarianisms sake.
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
@TheEternalKraut "Good" & "bad" aren't objective & universal terms unless you're a moralist.
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
@TheEternalKraut I'm not going to argue against this. It won't be a productive conversation.
Either way, we've deviated from the original point, my tweet isn't contradictory to your reply. Don't know why we're even having this argument.
Either way, we've deviated from the original point, my tweet isn't contradictory to your reply. Don't know why we're even having this argument.
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
@meyerchive This is true
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
Stauffenberg wasn't some "far-right intellectual" who wanted to get rid of Hitler because of NSDAP interference in German military strategy. No, he was a mоrаlfаg who believed that the extermination of Jews was an unforgiveable crime. That's it. You're a larper and a contrarian. x.com/VolkDemocrat/s… (⊹)
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
@TheEternalKraut Being an aggressive state isn't necessarily bad. Germany was an aggressive state, and you support it.
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
@TheEternalKraut Define "bad".
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
@TheEternalKraut Did Germany start the war? Yes.
Did Germany start mass-bombings for strategic/political reasons in it's war effort against the allied powers? Also yes.
How anyone interprets these historical truths is irrelevant to my tweet above.
Did Germany start mass-bombings for strategic/political reasons in it's war effort against the allied powers? Also yes.
How anyone interprets these historical truths is irrelevant to my tweet above.
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
@TheEternalKraut Nothing that you stated is contradictory to my tweet. I wasn't making a pro/anti-German argument; I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the person who wrote the twee I quoted.
- 1
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 7