Score one for the French!!

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 26, 2003, 12:18 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/09 ... index.html

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » September 26, 2003, 12:35 pm

Meyssan is the author of a one-time French best seller, "9-11: The Big Lie," claiming that no plane ever crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, and that the attacks were plotted by a faction within the U.S. military.

Fucking French moron. There went any shred of credibility he may have ever had.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 26, 2003, 12:57 pm

...he actually had a shred of credibilty?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 26, 2003, 1:23 pm

"Designated President of the United States by friends of his father at the Supreme Court before the vote count showed that he lost the elections."

hahahahah

these are more of a parody of newmax's deck of fools or whatever it was called.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » September 26, 2003, 1:55 pm

The whole Deck of Cards thing was not something new to Iraq. The US Military has for years used playing card decks to put into the hands of soldiers things they want them to better recognize. When I was in an Air Defense artillery (Stinger) unit, we had playing cards with sillouttes of aircraft (domestic and foreign) to act as a training aid for aircraft recognition. I know they have them for armored units (tanks/APCs) as well. It does help reinforce training when you see them regularly.

I don't believe that folks in the DOD said "Let's show the world that we think capturing Iraqi officials is a game to us", I think they were wrestling with how to best allow military personel to recognize them and decided to go with a proven tactic. I do, however, dislike how they have played on this in thier communication with the press (always showing presentations with the captured official ringed by the outline of a playing card).

I actually cringe when I hear the media announce things like "Today the Five of Clubs was captured in a raid near Tikrit." or "Just now we are hearing that the Jack of Spades is turning himself in to coalition forces after negotiating terms... etc".

No comment really on the French deck, people are certainly entitled to poke fun at people in public office.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » September 26, 2003, 2:01 pm

waiting for the "pussiest french leaders" deck

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 26, 2003, 2:02 pm

Sionistic wrote:waiting for the "pussiest french leaders" deck

You would need a set of 2 decks to cover that!!

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » September 26, 2003, 2:03 pm

uno already put out a patent for it

Post by **Sylvus** » September 26, 2003, 2:10 pm

I bet you can't even name 5 of the "pussiest" French leaders.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » September 26, 2003, 2:15 pm

no, i cant, but hey, raging on the french is all the rage

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 26, 2003, 2:26 pm

Sylvus wrote:I bet you can't even name 5 of the "pussiest" French leaders.

let me go home, and break out my WWI & WWII history books, and I'll rattle em off & reasons why they are pussies!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » September 26, 2003, 2:43 pm

tell me something, which countries in Europe did resist German invasion?

UK: because it is an island
Russia: because of the winter and they were willing to fight an incredible war of attrition.

so yeah while it is fun to make fun of the french for taht, it is curious the Belgians, Poles, Czechs, Austrians, etc have managed to escape the same critique.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 26, 2003, 2:47 pm

Meyssan is the author of a one-time French best seller, "9-11: The Big Lie," claiming that no plane ever crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, and that the attacks were plotted by a faction within the U.S. military.

Maybe the U.S. beating the damn Nazis out of France was all a lie too. My theory is that the French were in bed with the Nazis and allowed them to take France to increase their oppurtunities to launch offensives. I should write my own damn book to make even more shit up in.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 26, 2003, 2:56 pm

The Austrian's didn't resist they welcomed the Nazis with open arms but pretty much everyone but them did. Haven't you see the video of the Royal Polish Mounted division trying to defend Warsaw against Panzers? it's very sad but they fought and died to protect what they had.

Many of the states closer to Russia didn't fight cause Stalin had been murdering people for the past 10 years. They saw the Nazis as saviours... until they started murdering everyone like Stalin did. Difference was they the Nazis actually believe the "slovs" were inferior... Stalin... well who knows WTF he believed besides parinoia.

Marb

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 26, 2003, 2:56 pm

Voronwë wrote:tell me something, which countries in Europe did resist German invasion?

UK: because it is an island
Russia: because of the winter and they were willing to fight an incredible war of attrition.

so yeah while it is fun to make fun of the french for taht, it is curious the Belgians, Poles, Czechs, Austrians, etc have managed to escape the same critique.

The above countries you mention had no chance against the Germans. They were outnumbers, out gunned, outclassed in every way. In fact, the Poles & Belgians fought very well against the Germans.

The French? They had a large army, MORE tanks (and on a large part, they were better than the german tanks at that time!), and just as many planes, albiet outclassed. And they went down in 6 weeks.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 26, 2003, 3:02 pm

That's nothing but stupid revisionism. The french were absolutely crushed by the nazi war machine. They had no defense against the german blitzkrieg and the only alternative to surrendering was to watch Paris get levelled by german bombers.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 26, 2003, 3:09 pm

kyoukan wrote:That's nothing but stupid revisionism. The french were absolutely crushed by the nazi war machine. They had no defense against the german blitzkrieg and the only alternative to surrendering was to watch Paris get levelled by german bombers.

Ever thought about WHY they had no defense against it?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 26, 2003, 3:24 pm

Skogen wrote:
kyoukan wrote:That's nothing but stupid revisionism. The french were absolutely crushed by the nazi war machine. They had no defense against the german blitzkrieg and the only alternative to surrendering was to watch Paris get levelled by german bombers.
Ever thought about WHY they had no defense against it?

Because they were producing all the equipment they could for Hitler! They were secretly producing equipment for the Nazi war machine. Their army was busy erecting the concentration camps. The attacks by the Germans on the French cities was just a show so no one would suspect what was really going on.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 26, 2003, 3:26 pm

why don't you just tell me. this ought to be funny to hear why one country out of the entire league of nations is at fault for not being prepared for the tactics and overall might of the third reich while all the rest are exonerated.

please continue.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » September 26, 2003, 3:43 pm

umm wow.

French had defenses and fucking tons of them. Ever hear of the Maginot line? The reason they were defeated is because the Nazis went around it and came through Belgium. France left that border ungaurded because they were friends with Belguim, who were neutral to the war even though they still fought for their land. So if anything you can call France a stupid nation.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 26, 2003, 3:56 pm

kyoukan wrote:why don't you just tell me. this ought to be funny to hear why one country out of the entire league of nations is at fault for not being prepared for the tactics and overall might of the third reich while all the rest are exonerated.

please continue.

Ok then, I will.

WWI. Germany attacks France through via the Low Countries & the Ardennes Forest.
in the interim years between WWI & WII, Fance builds the Maginot line, spreading it's defenses all across it's frontier.

WWII breaks out with the invasion of Poland. The new Blitzkrieg tatics are seen for the first time, and Commanders all over the world are in awe of there creativity & effectiveness. At the same time, England & France declare war on Germany. After the Poland is defeated, a full year goes by with no activity, known as the "Sitzkrieg". Despite what they have seen from what Germany did in Poland, they make ABSOLUTELY no preparations in case that same is done to them. Then, Gemany, just like in WWI, attacks France through the Low Countries & the Ardennes Forest. So much for the maginot line & learning from Historical precident. France, with it's armies spread helplessly across the entire fucking frontier, can't mobilize fast enough, and is outflanked by the same tactics there opponent used in Poland. No secret to anyone. The whole world watched what they did. France ignored the threat. And got there asses handed to them.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 26, 2003, 4:05 pm

Yes thank you I know what fucking happened in WW2. You did nothing to explain why France of all the countries that were invaded by the nazis are somehow inferior to every other country that was beaten by them. You are trying to make it sound like the french were somehow perfectly capable of defeating germany but because they were stupid and lazy and unorganized and didn't move their defensive line fast enough they were beaten.

The british were beaten back just as badly by the germans and were forced to retreat back to the islands.

It took the combined might of every industrialized (and some non industrialized) nation on the planet to defeat Germany. And even then the only reason they won was pure attrition.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » September 26, 2003, 4:55 pm

Skogen you explained yourself quite well. Don't waste anymore time on irrational_board_troll_02.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 26, 2003, 4:59 pm

kyoukan wrote:Yes thank you I know what fucking happened in WW2. You did nothing to explain why France of all the countries that were invaded by the nazis are somehow inferior to every other country that was beaten by them. You are trying to make it sound like the french were somehow perfectly capable of defeating germany but because they were stupid and lazy and unorganized and didn't move their defensive line fast enough they were beaten.

The british were beaten back just as badly by the germans and were forced to retreat back to the islands.

It took the combined might of every industrialized (and some non industrialized) nation on the planet to defeat Germany. And even then the only reason they won was pure attrition.

Other countries resisted until the Axis ground them into dust. The fucking French gave it up faster than a virgin on prom night. The Brits would have been much more effective had the Germans been occupied occupying France rather than just rolling in and looting it.

Attrition? Fucking bullshit.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 26, 2003, 5:17 pm

kyoukan wrote:Yes thank you I know what fucking happened in WW2. You did nothing to explain why France of all the countries that were invaded by the nazis are somehow inferior to every other country that was beaten by them. You are trying to make it sound like the french were somehow perfectly capable of defeating germany but because they were stupid and lazy and unorganized and didn't move their defensive line fast enough they were beaten.

The british were beaten back just as badly by the germans and were forced to retreat back to the islands.

It took the combined might of every industrialized (and some non industrialized) nation on the planet to defeat Germany. And even then the only reason they won was pure attrition.

I was about to type up a long-ass reply on how wrong you are, and how you need to read beyond what they teach you in High School about WWII.
Then I thought "fuck it" , it would be a waste of time, for she would just disagree, no matter what!

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 26, 2003, 5:48 pm

Other countries resisted until the Axis ground them into dust. The fucking French gave it up faster than a virgin on prom night. The Brits would have been much more effective had the Germans been occupied occupying France rather than just rolling in and looting it.

Please show me what countries. Do you even understand at what level of complete unpreparedness Europe was at the time? Hell within a week of the attack on Norway the Norwegian government went after England for laying mines in Norwegien fjords! When the Germans attacked Norway people in Oslo thought the planes were Norwegian planes practicing! They had no clue what happened until German ships came into the Oslo Fjord as far in as Drøbak (an hour from Oslo at most) and they got damn lucky and sunk the Blucher with their WWI guns and torpedo batteries.

Please, it is damn easy to ridicule Europe for how easy they went down, but you HAVE TO try to realize their mindset and state of preparation. That part is sad, and something I have fought hard for years to prevent from happening (yes I was very involved in politics back home before I moved).

Oh.. and the British got their asses handed to them and could barely hang on during the Battle of Britain. RAF was down for the count and hanging on by their fingernails, their factories got the shit bombed out of them etc.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 26, 2003, 6:06 pm

[quote="Kelshara"]Oh.. and the British got their asses handed to them and could barely hang on during the Battle of Britain. RAF was down for the count and hanging on by their fingernails, their factories got the shit bombed out of them etc.[/quote

You know, I have a good reading recommendation that explains why the Battle of Britain was not the close-run thing that it was. This book (which is WELL referenced) puts forth that Luftwaffe was doomed from the start. Pretty interesting stuff.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » September 26, 2003, 6:38 pm

Does this book have a name?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 26, 2003, 6:40 pm

Yeah please name it, I love reading WWII history

From what I have read previously the Germans basicly fucked themself again. They had the Brits going down, but got caught up in the terror bombing of cities instead of keeping the factories and airfields down. This was doomed to fail due to their lack of heavy bombers etc, while they had done a very good job of basicly keeping the RAF at a minimum.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 26, 2003, 6:48 pm

Skogen wrote:[I was about to type up a long-ass reply on how wrong you are, and how you need to read beyond what they teach you in High School about WWII.
Then I thought "fuck it" , it would be a waste of time, for she would just disagree, no matter what!

jesus fucking god I wipe my ass with what you know about WW2. try coming up with something other than 'lol france surrendered becuz theyre a bunch of cowards who defended the wrong place' and we'll move on from there. not a single nation independently stood up to germany and won anything but a minor skirmish.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 26, 2003, 6:55 pm

masteen wrote:Other countries resisted until the Axis ground them into dust.

who?

The fucking French gave it up faster than a virgin on prom night.

The french fought for 40 days and only signed an armistice with Germany when the nazis were already occupying Paris. I'm not sure what kind of military expert you may be, but you generally start talking armistice with an invading country when they have completely scattered your army and are sitting in your capital city drinking your wine and eating your cheese.

[quote[The Brits would have been much more effective had the Germans been occupied occupying France rather than just rolling in and looting it.[/quote]

I don't even know what that has to do with anything or even what it means. Are you saying that britain would have not gotten their asses beat if the french fought to the last man? So it's france's fault that great britain was forced off the continent because the french are so cowardly? are you trolling this thread or are you this dumb?

Attrition? Fucking bullshit.

If the axis had even half the manpower and industry of the allies (even without the united states) most of the world would be speaking german at the moment. how else would you define attrition?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 26, 2003, 7:00 pm

Brotha wrote:Skogen you explained yourself quite well. Don't waste anymore time on irrational_board_troll_02.

yes someone brings up how cowardly and stupid the french were in WW2 in an unrelated thread about france and WERE THE TROLLS.

no wonder you fucking buy anything you read in those stupid neocon rags. you're a fucking moron.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » September 26, 2003, 7:15 pm

not a single nation independently stood up to germany and won anything but a minor skirmish.

Russia.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 26, 2003, 7:16 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Skogen wrote:[I was about to type up a long-ass reply on how wrong you are, and how you need to read beyond what they teach you in High School about WWII.
Then I thought "fuck it" , it would be a waste of time, for she would just disagree, no matter what!
jesus fucking god I wipe my ass with what you know about WW2. try coming up with something other than 'lol france surrendered becuz theyre a bunch of cowards who defended the wrong place' and we'll move on from there. not a single nation independently stood up to germany and won anything but a minor skirmish.

*cough* russia *cough*

but anyways, your reply is pretty much what I expected *yawn*

carry on....

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » September 26, 2003, 7:31 pm

edit: i sort of have a point, but it's not worth making

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 26, 2003, 7:59 pm

Russia was fighting a Germany that was fightin on two fronts and got equipment from the west.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 26, 2003, 8:19 pm

Kelshara wrote:Russia was fighting a Germany that was fightin on two fronts and got equipment from the west.

Russia was fighting on two fronts only after the summer of '44. Germany was in full retreat on the Eastern front in the summer of '44, and had kicked the Wermacht totally out of Russia, and was rolling through Poland. Due to Hitler's insistance on micromanagement & ignoring his best generals, their fate was sealed Even without D-Day, Russia would have rolled right on in to Germany by themselves, although it would have taken longer.
German troop strength was on the Eastern Front never dropped below 60% there totally strength, and was usally more than this.

As far as Equip. from the west, the lend-lease equipment that was getting through, a good chunk of it was not much use, but it was still very helpful to them, especially ammunition & explosives. Our equip helped save there asses during the early dark days, but less so as the war waged on.

EDIT: As far as North Africa goes, Rommel had only 3-4 divisions.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 26, 2003, 9:08 pm

lol russia. like I said I am wiping my ass.

germany was annihilating russia with a force not even 5% the size of stalin's and he was taking cities faster than lightning. it wasn't until he got leningrad that problems started to arise. russia never would have broken out were it not for foreign assistance and the only reason they did not surrender is because a madman that makes hitler look like president kennedy was in charge of the country, and would have kept sending people to sacrifice themselves to nazi machine guns until he was the last person left in the country.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 26, 2003, 9:08 pm

A modified truth. Germany had resources on the west front before D-Day that, even though not involved in fighting atm, clearly would have made a difference on the East front.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » September 26, 2003, 10:26 pm

germany was beating russia because they pulled thier forces and equipment back in the begining, once they got thier shit together again they started to push the germans back
wasnt it stalingrad? i get them confused

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » September 27, 2003, 2:30 am

They hit trouble in Leningrad. After they went through it they were defeated in Stalingrad.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » September 27, 2003, 5:02 am

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » September 27, 2003, 12:45 pm

Kyoukan:

germany was annihilating russia with a force not even 5% the size of stalin's and he was taking cities faster than lightning.

From John Keegan's "The Second World War" (text not on line as far as I know, typed quotes in).

Regarding German strength prior at the start of Operation Barbarossa.

On 14 June in 'eastern and northern parts of Germany', which meant those parts of Poland and Czechoslovakia captured or annexed between 1938 and 1939, nearly 4 million German troops, organized into 180 divisions, with 3350 tanks and 7200 guns supported by 2000 aircraft, stood ready to march to war. They were to be accompanied by fourteen Romanian divisions and shortly to be joined by the Finnish, Hungarians and puppet Slovak armies, together with a volunteer Spanish (the 'Blue') and several Italian divisions

Regarding russian strength. Date is slightly earlier, spring of 1941. 14 June from quote above is also 1941. Also from Keegan.

By the spring of 1941 its war strength numbered between 230 and 240 rifle divisions (about 110 in the west)- formations 14,000 strong, though largely dependent on horsed transport for supply - as well as 50 tank divisions and 25 mechanized divisions which were fully equipped. The Soviet tank park numbered 24,000 and, if of mixed quality, could draw on an annual output of 2000, of which an increasing number were T-34s; by the end of 1941 tank production targets would stand at between 20,000 and 25,000 while Germany would never succeed in producing more than 18,000 tanks in any year. The Red Air Force drawing on an annual output of 10,000 machines in 1941 stood at a strength of at least 10,000 in 1940; lacking as yet equivalents to the best German aircraft, and wholly subordinate to the army though it was, it was nevertheless the largest air force in the world

The Russian army was certainly larger than the German army at the time, it was not anything close to 20 to 1. Also remember that the Soviet Union also had a second front requiring at least some deployment of troops. The U.S.S.R. extended to the Pacific, and was worried about being attacked by Japan (who had forces on the continent in Manchuria sharing a border with Russia). The Russian army did suffer terrible losses, particularly early on, but ultimately did stop the German drive. Remember Russia was brought up initially to your assertion that "not a single nation independently stood up to germany and won anything but a minor skirmish.". Russia did win major battles against Germany (Stalingrad and Kursk for a couple of the major ones). Some historians think that even without the 2nd front opened up by the allies in Normandy Russia would have finished off Germany anyway, although this is of course speculative.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » September 27, 2003, 1:04 pm

Kyuoken wrote:like I said I am wiping my ass.

Well, yes. As your primary source of facts on this, or, well any, thread, that comes as no suprise.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » September 27, 2003, 2:42 pm

look at the 1st ace Xyun posted, if that is even 25% true...WTF?

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » September 27, 2003, 3:17 pm

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » September 27, 2003, 3:31 pm

Which part do you have a problem with?

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 27, 2003, 4:49 pm

Someone made the statement that Europe wasn't prepared for the Nazi War machine... while I have no problem with that statement it was in the contex like it wasn't their fault they weren't ready.

True it wasn't the people's fault but it WAS the fault of their leaders. Germany had violated the Treaty ending WW1 by later 20s. The world did nothing. The leaders of all the Contries did nothing but bow away and give Hitler everything he wanted. Appeasement didn't work... like any child he just wanted more. This didn't take a year or two... this took a decade. Think of how much things have changed since 93? what's a DVD? The Internet? WTF is that? They ignored the threat because they were all pacifists. Rather than doing something they just sat around and hoped it wouldn't happen... I take some of that back... France DID do something... they just did the wrong thing. The first mistake they made was letting Germany rebuild. While I feel it was France, Britan and the US's fault he rose anyway because of the unfair treaty we imposed they should have at LEAST try to stop things before he became as powerful as he did...

During this time the other leaders visited Germany often, hell the Olympics were there in 36 with TANK galore. Hitler knew the other leaders had NO BALLS whatsoever so he didn't even worry about hiding his war machine. So they sat aournd and got their asses handed to them on a plate... at least for a while. Britan survived because Hitler, as previously stated, was a greedy child and like most greedy children he didn't listen to those people smarter than he was...

What's funny is I remember watching the history channel last year listening to everyone cower to Hitler and state "we will have to trust him" while he was reading the 18 inch Nazi Dildo for the other leaders of Europe. I filpped channels only to see almost the EXACT same statement made about Saddam by the French Representative to the UN. Made me think... I just wonder what would have happened if the US hadden hidden themselves away during the thrities? While Europe wasn't prepared the US just hid away acting like nothing anyone else did could touch us... which of course we found out we were wrong about on Dec 7th, 1941. I wonder if we had worked with the French and British to take out Hitler before WWII could have started if there would have been a bunch of protest all over the world saying Hitler really wasn't such a bad guy and they REALLY weren't building a new war machine, they really weren't killing all these Jews etc... etc... etc...

Not saying I agree with everything we have done, the US that is, over the past year or how we did it... but looking back at History it just makes me wonder. Would it have been better to have let the stuff continue until he got a missle working and killed a couple hundred thousand French citizens so we could have gotten their support? Who knows... too late now though.

Marb

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 27, 2003, 7:01 pm

Someone made the statement that Europe wasn't prepared for the Nazi War machine... while I have no problem with that statement it was in the contex like it wasn't their fault they weren't ready.

That was me, I also never tried to hide the fact that it was the leaders' fault.. hence my comment why I have been on the side working hard to prevent it happening again. Ever.

The first mistake they made was letting Germany rebuild. While I feel it was France, Britan and the US's fault he rose anyway because of the unfair treaty we imposed they should have at LEAST try to stop things before he became as powerful as he did...

You hit two points here:
1. The treaty made after WWI was too harsh on Germany and it had zero chance of working. That was the fault of the Western leaders.

2. They let Germany rebuild it's military and industry in the wrong way. Every country needs to have a chance of defending itself, but there is a difference between an offensive military and a defensive one. This leads back to point 1 though.

What you do seem to ignore is the impact WWI had on Europe. A lot of Americans have a problem with this because there has been no war fought on American land since the Civil war (I will not count one attack on Pearl Harbour as a war fought on your land). WWI had tremendous effect on the spirit and outlook Europeans had on war etc. This lead to the leaders (and the people in general) turning a blind eye to Germany and hoping that ignoring it would make them go away. It didn't help that newsmedia in general did a horrible job of informing the people of the situation in Germany, both after WWI and during the preparation for WWII.

Obviously, the leaders erred both with the WWI treaty and in the time leading to WWII.

Now the rest of the post.. I will NEVER agree with a comparison between Hitler and Hussein or Germany and Iraq. It simply doesn't work, although I am sure the Bush fanbois will do a good job trying to make it.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 27, 2003, 7:23 pm

Chmee wrote:Kyoukan:
From John Keegan's "The Second World War" (text not on line as far as I know, typed quotes in).

Regarding German strength prior at the start of Operation Barbarossa.

On 14 June in 'eastern and northern parts of Germany', which meant those parts of Poland and Czechoslovakia captured or annexed between 1938 and 1939, nearly 4 million German troops, organized into 180 divisions, with 3350 tanks and 7200 guns supported by 2000 aircraft, stood ready to march to war. They were to be accompanied by fourteen Romanian divisions and shortly to be joined by the Finnish, Hungarians and puppet Slovak armies, together with a volunteer Spanish (the 'Blue') and several Italian divisions

Only a fraction of those German troops were fighting in Russia. Germany had 4 million troops spread across an entire continent and later into africa.

Also Russia had a lot of soldiers but they were poorly equipped to the point where less than half of them had rifles and even fewer had anything resembling a military uniform. Stalin's military tactics for defending against german sieges were literally to keep sending men out until the nazis ran out of ammunition.