Evgeniy Khodas

- Architect from Belarus. 🇧🇾
- I draw and write. 🦊
- I’m creating my own original world and story. 🌌
- Inspired by authors and illustrators. 🇯🇵⛩️

[Evgeniy Khodas @EvgenKhi]

念のため、脳神経外科に加えて循環器科も受診して、心臓の検査を受けるといいと思います。心電図と心エコー（心臓超音波検査）を受けてください。手の痛みやしびれは神経や脊椎に関係することが多いですが、時には心臓が原因のこともあり、特に負荷がかかったときや心臓の筋肉に異常がある場合には注意が必要です。ですので、追加で検査しておいて損はありません。

[Evgeniy Khodas @EvgenKhi]

Now we're entering the realm of "alternative history," which is pointless to argue about. "What ifs" are endless. History doesn't have a subjunctive mood, and we simply don't know what would have happened.

The US didn't enter the war just because they "wanted to" or had a choice not to. They were dragged into it by Japan at Pearl Harbor. In the early years of the war, Japan was the primary problem requiring US action.

You say, "if X happened, the USSR would have surrendered." But the USSR didn't surrender, despite the catastrophic start of a surprise war. They kept fighting with everything they had, uniting the people against the threat. Similarly, the US didn't try to negotiate a truce with Japan; they went to fight, understanding it was a global war that determined their future, too.

So much is unclear with a different course of events. For instance, what if Germany had developed the atomic bomb first? The entire outcome of history would be highly questionable.

[Evgeniy Khodas @EvgenKhi]

No one is downplaying the role of the Allies in the overall victory. Every participant of those events made an invaluable contribution to our common victory. The US fought Japan, preventing them from opening a second front against the USSR. The USSR ground down and tied up 80% of the Wehrmacht's forces so Germany couldn't throw its overwhelming might against the UK and the US. Europeans actively weakened the German defense and war machine, which also kept the Germans on edge in the rear. Ultimately, the US opening a second front in Europe accelerated the overall victory over Germany. Just as the USSR's defeat of the Kwantung Army accelerated the US's final victory over Japan, preventing them from getting dragged into long continental battles in China. As you can see, every member of the anti-Hitler coalition acted to the absolute limit of their capabilities. All participants of the anti-Hitler coalition were grateful to each other for the help and self-sacrifice each side provided. This is noted by both the facts and the words of the leaders of that era. Trying to appoint a "leader" of the WWII victory more than 80 years after the war ended is meaningless, because it was exactly what it was—a world war, and "many fought against many.

[Evgeniy Khodas @EvgenKhi]

No one is downplaying the role of the Allies in the overall victory. Every participant of those events made an invaluable contribution to our common victory. The US fought Japan, preventing them from opening a second front against the USSR. The USSR ground down and tied up 80% of the Wehrmacht's forces so Germany couldn't throw its overwhelming might against the UK and the US. Europeans actively weakened the German defense and war machine, which also kept the Germans on edge in the rear. Ultimately, the US opening a second front in Europe accelerated the overall victory over Germany. Just as the USSR's defeat of the Kwantung Army accelerated the US's final victory over Japan, preventing them from getting dragged into long continental battles in China. As you can see, every member of the anti-Hitler coalition acted to the absolute limit of their capabilities. All participants of the anti-Hitler coalition were grateful to each other for the help and self-sacrifice each side provided. This is noted by both the facts and the words of the leaders of that era. Trying to appoint a "leader" of the WWII victory more than 80 years after the war ended is meaningless, because it was exactly what it was—a world war, and "many fought against many.

[Evgeniy Khodas @EvgenKhi]

Every front was important. Underestimating the actions of one side oversimplifies the picture. The USSR ground down the vast majority of the Wehrmacht’s land forces, which was noted by the Allies as the decisive factor in defeating Germany. You can disagree with me, but the facts and the key participants of those events say otherwise.

Winston Churchill, in a letter to Stalin on 27 September 1944, wrote:
"I shall take the occasion to repeat tomorrow in the House of Commons what I have said before, that it is the Russian army that tore the guts out of the German military machine and is at the present moment holding by far the larger portion of the enemy on its front."

Franklin D. Roosevelt, in a letter to Stalin on 22 February 1943, stated:
"The Red Army and the Russian people have surely started the Hitler forces on the road to ultimate defeat, and have earned the lasting admiration of the people of the United States."

These statements from Churchill and Roosevelt, made at critical moments of the war, directly acknowledge that the Soviet Union bore the brunt of the fighting and played the decisive role in defeating Nazi Germany.

[Evgeniy Khodas @EvgenKhi]

I wanted to explain to you a bit why I am debating with you. Understand, more than 80 years ago, the USSR and the Allies won the war together. Each side valued the other for their help and thanked them. More than 80 years have passed, and many of those who made decisions, fought, and knew the reality firsthand have already died. And now their descendants are arguing, "who exactly became the true leader of the entire Second World War?". In the West, the role of Lend-Lease is beginning to be exaggerated; in the East, the defeat of the Kwantung Army, without which, according to many, the US could have gotten bogged down in China. I believe this is exactly the problem. There is history, facts, and the stories and words of those who lived through it. If descendants continue to argue about the contribution of each side, it will devalue the very self-sacrifice that was shown in that war by all nations.

[Evgeniy Khodas @EvgenKhi]

I think we are actually saying the same thing here. The math isn't a contradiction; it's just the difference between total deliveries, combat losses, and the actual active fleet.

You are right about the ~400k total Lend-Lease vehicles. But if we look at the timeline: about 240k arrived by 1944, and the remaining ~160k arrived in 1944-1945. However, the real reason the active numbers look much lower is catastrophic combat losses.

In 1941 alone, the Red Army lost 159,000 vehicles. In 1942, another 66,200. In 1943, 67,000 more. These massive losses ate up both domestic production and incoming imports.

That’s why the actual composition of the active fleet looked like this:
By Jan 1, 1943: ~404,500 total (378,800 Soviet, 22,000 Lend-Lease).
By Jan 1, 1944: ~496,000 total (387,000 Soviet, 94,100 Lend-Lease).

Even with constant deliveries, Lend-Lease never outnumbered Soviet domestic vehicles, peaking at just 32.8% (218k out of 664k) by May 1945.

So yes, Lend-Lease was a vital accelerator for the 1943-44 offensives, but the foundation—the vast majority of the vehicles that actually held the line and carried the bulk of the fight-was Soviet industry. Even Harry Hopkins, the chief administrator of Lend-Lease, agreed in 1945: "We never believed that our Lend-Lease assistance was the main factor in the Soviet victory... It was achieved by the heroism and blood of the Russian Army.

[Evgeniy Khodas @EvgenKhi]

You are partly right: any alliance is ultimately driven by pragmatic interests and the desire for an advantageous imbalance. However, there is a fundamental structural difference between an alliance and geopolitical rivalry. The Allied Powers formed an active, unified front against a shared existential threat, creating military coordination mechanisms and long-term institutions (like the UN). The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, on the other hand, was a pre-war secret deal aimed at partitioning territory and buying time. Any alliance is a deal, but not every deal is an alliance. The first is a coalition built to fight a war together; the second is a cynical truce between rivals preparing for a future clash. That is the fundamental difference between an alliance and geopolitical rivalry.

[Evgeniy Khodas @EvgenKhi]

wip
すぐ新作を上げるからね 🙂
#創作 #イラスト #ファンタジー #OC #イラスト好きさんと繋がりたい

[Takuya's Drawing @takuya_kakikata]

How to Draw a Posture with Arms Crossed.

❌ Before → ⭕️ After

[Evgeniy Khodas @EvgenKhi]

Yes, you are listing real historical facts, and that is true. But it is important to understand for what purpose this was done. The Reich and the USSR a priori could not be allies for a number of reasons. Both states historically considered the other an adversary and believed that a future war was inevitable. But the question of "when" remained open, and both sides, by bluffing and pulling the wool over each other's eyes, tried to buy time to prepare. Let me remind you that just 21 years ago - in 1918 - both states actively fought against each other on the battlefields of World War I, and both ultimately lost strategically, as the German and Russian empires ceased to exist. It is logical that both sides wanted to revise the borders again.

The USSR, as the successor to the Russian Empire, wanted to reclaim its former territories (Poland, Latvia, etc.), thereby creating a buffer for future confrontation. At the same time, the Kremlin desperately tried to negotiate with the West: on April 17, 1939, the USSR proposed to Britain and France to conclude a tripartite mutual assistance treaty. However, the West dragged out the negotiations, and Warsaw flatly refused to let the Red Army pass through its territory. It was after the failure of these negotiations that Stalin made a deal with Berlin.

Germany wanted to distract the USSR, placating it with promises of dividing spheres of influence. Hitler needed a guarantee that he would not have to fight a war on two fronts, as in World War I. Despite this, both sides secretly prepared for a possible war.

And here is the main proof that this was a game for time, not an alliance: already on December 18, 1940, when the USSR was still conscientiously fulfilling its trade obligations, Hitler signed Directive No. 21 — the Barbarossa plan. How can there be talk of an alliance if a plan for destruction was approved six months before the attack? Stalin paid with resources for technology, but did not fight on Hitler's side.

Let me explain a bit why this conflict needs to be looked at more deeply. On paper and in the statements of leaders, there can be peace and friendship. In strategic plans and reality — potential preparation or war. Back in 1919, Marshal Foch, assessing the Treaty of Versailles, prophetically remarked: "This is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years." He was wrong in his foresight by only two months — World War II began 20 years and 64 days later. From modern examples, we can recall the US and Iran: for a long time, they spoke of peace and neutrality on paper, while reality and geopolitics showed the opposite.

You cannot trust someone who, just 21 years ago, was grinding your troops on the fronts. That is the main nuance. And publicly, the treaty looked like a cold friendship. On June 22, 1941, Germany treacherously violated the pact and attacked the USSR. True allies do not act like that.

Geopolitics is the foundation upon which any real politics begins. Both countries had colossal historical traumas and geographical phobias: the USSR had no natural barriers in the West and a fear of invasion; Germany was squeezed in the center of Europe with the nightmare of a two-front war. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is not an ideological alliance, but a classic geopolitical bargain between two empires, each trying to solve its centuries-old problems at the expense of third countries. And the meaning was that they were already enemies.

[Evgeniy Khodas @EvgenKhi]

The vehicles delivered under Lend-Lease did indeed help accelerate the Soviet advance. However, it is also important not to discount the USSR's own domestic production during the war, which was rapidly shifted to a war footing.

Here are the statistics on domestic production and Lend-Lease deliveries by the end of 1942. This was one of the most difficult, yet pivotal years for the entire USSR, as the enemy was closing in on Moscow and the fierce Battle of Stalingrad was underway.

It is also important to take into account that the USSR had its own production capacities, which is often denied. Let's just compare the numbers by the end of 1942.

Soviet production in 1942:
- Aircraft: 25,400 (including 21,700 combat aircraft)
- Tanks and SPGs (self-propelled guns): 24,500
- Guns and mortars: 287,000
- Automobiles: about 35,000 (of which about 31,000 were trucks)
- Overall industrial output grew by 70% compared to the previous year, and military equipment output by 129%.

Lend-Lease deliveries to the USSR by the end of 1942:
- Aircraft: about 3,052
- Tanks: about 4,048
- Automobiles: about 30,031
- Total cargo: about 1.2 million tons from the US and about 532,000 tons from the UK.

As you can see, the USSR was actively producing its own vehicles for the war effort. That said, I do not deny the importance of Lend-Lease in accelerating our victory and reducing casualties.

“…We never believed that our Lend-Lease assistance was the main factor in the Soviet victory over Hitler on the Eastern Front. It was achieved by the heroism and blood of the Russian Army.”¹

¹ Harry Hopkins, in conversation with J. V. Stalin, late May 1945.
Harry Hopkins (1891–1946) was an American statesman, the closest adviser to U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt (and later to Harry S. Truman), a special envoy of the President, and the administrator of the Lend-Lease program. The statement was made during a diplomatic conversation with Stalin and reflected the position of the American administration at that time.

Additional quotes from Western leaders acknowledging the decisive role of the USSR:

Winston Churchill, in a letter to Stalin on 27 September 1944, wrote:

«I shall take the occasion to repeat tomorrow in the House of Commons what I have said before, that it is the Russian army that tore the guts out of the German military machine and is at the present moment holding by far the larger portion of the enemy on its front.»²

² Winston Churchill, letter to J. V. Stalin, 27 September 1944. Churchill was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during World War II.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, in a letter to Stalin on 22 February 1943, stated:

«The Red Army and the Russian people have surely started the Hitler forces on the road to ultimate defeat, and have earned the lasting admiration of the people of the United States.»³

³ Franklin D. Roosevelt, letter to J. V. Stalin, 22 February 1943. Roosevelt was the President of the United States during World War II.

These statements from Churchill and Roosevelt, made at critical moments of the war, directly acknowledge that the Soviet Union bore the brunt of the fighting and played the decisive role in defeating Nazi Germany.

[Evgeniy Khodas @EvgenKhi]

Here’s something to keep in mind:
Lend-Lease was an important but not decisive factor in the USSR’s victory. Its total volume amounted to only about 4% of the Soviet Union’s gross industrial output, although for certain critically important items the share was substantially higher: about 12–15% for aircraft and tanks. The decisive argument against the myth of the “decisive role” of aid is the time factor: the main flow of supplies came in 1944–1945, while the turning point in the war (the battles of Moscow and Stalingrad) occurred before Lend-Lease became large-scale. In 1941–1942, the Allies effectively failed to fulfill their obligations in terms of the volume and range of supplies. At the same time, the aid was invaluable in narrow but critically important areas: motor transport (supplies of trucks, in particular Studebakers, were roughly twice the USSR’s own production), communications equipment, aluminum, sheet steel, gunpowder, and food (about 4.7 million tons, including the famous canned meat). Thus, Lend-Lease accelerated the end of the war and reduced losses, but it was not the foundation on which victory rested: the USSR bore the main burden of the war, destroyed the overwhelming majority of Nazi Germany’s forces, and suffered colossal human losses. According to modern historical estimates, the total human losses of the USSR in the Great Patriotic War amount to 26.6 million people. Of these, the irrecoverable losses of the Red Army were 11.9 million servicemen, and civilian losses were 13.7 million people. Within those 13.7 million civilian victims: 7.4 million people were deliberately exterminated by the Nazis, 2.2 million died in forced labor in Germany, and 4.1 million died of hunger, disease, and lack of medical care in the occupied territories. These figures are direct evidence that victory was achieved at the cost of unprecedented sacrifices by the Soviet people, not through external aid.

[Evgeniy Khodas @EvgenKhi]

Calling the USSR an 'ally' of Germany is a fundamental distortion. The 1939 document was a non-aggression pact, not a military alliance. The secret protocol only divided spheres of influence in Eastern Europe - it was a cynical territorial bargain, not a military union. The true allies of Nazi Germany, who actually invaded the USSR alongside it, were Italy, Romania, Hungary, Finland, Slovakia, and Croatia. Moreover, Germany attacked the USSR on June 22, 1941 — an act that is impossible between allies. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a cynical tactical deal, but it never made the USSR a co-belligerent of the Third Reich.

[Evgeniy Khodas @EvgenKhi]

The vehicles delivered under Lend-Lease did indeed help accelerate the Soviet advance. However, it is also important not to discount the USSR's own domestic production during the war, which was rapidly shifted to a war footing.

Here are the statistics on domestic production and Lend-Lease deliveries by the end of 1942. This was one of the most difficult, yet pivotal years for the entire USSR, as the enemy was closing in on Moscow and the fierce Battle of Stalingrad was underway.

It is also important to take into account that the USSR had its own production capacities, which is often denied. Let's just compare the numbers by the end of 1942.

Soviet production in 1942:
- Aircraft: 25,400 (including 21,700 combat aircraft)
- Tanks and SPGs (self-propelled guns): 24,500
- Guns and mortars: 287,000
- Automobiles: about 35,000 (of which about 31,000 were trucks)
- Overall industrial output grew by 70% compared to the previous year, and military equipment output by 129%.

Lend-Lease deliveries to the USSR by the end of 1942:
- Aircraft: about 3,052
- Tanks: about 4,048
- Automobiles: about 30,031
- Total cargo: about 1.2 million tons from the US and about 532,000 tons from the UK.

As you can see, the USSR was actively producing its own vehicles for the war effort. That said, I do not deny the importance of Lend-Lease in accelerating our victory and reducing casualties.

“…We never believed that our Lend-Lease assistance was the main factor in the Soviet victory over Hitler on the Eastern Front. It was achieved by the heroism and blood of the Russian Army.”¹

¹ Harry Hopkins, in conversation with J. V. Stalin, late May 1945.
Harry Hopkins (1891–1946) was an American statesman, the closest adviser to U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt (and later to Harry S. Truman), a special envoy of the President, and the administrator of the Lend-Lease program. The statement was made during a diplomatic conversation with Stalin and reflected the position of the American administration at that time.

Additional quotes from Western leaders acknowledging the decisive role of the USSR:

Winston Churchill, in a letter to Stalin on 27 September 1944, wrote:

«I shall take the occasion to repeat tomorrow in the House of Commons what I have said before, that it is the Russian army that tore the guts out of the German military machine and is at the present moment holding by far the larger portion of the enemy on its front.»²

² Winston Churchill, letter to J. V. Stalin, 27 September 1944. Churchill was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during World War II.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, in a letter to Stalin on 22 February 1943, stated:

«The Red Army and the Russian people have surely started the Hitler forces on the road to ultimate defeat, and have earned the lasting admiration of the people of the United States.»³

³ Franklin D. Roosevelt, letter to J. V. Stalin, 22 February 1943. Roosevelt was the President of the United States during World War II.

These statements from Churchill and Roosevelt, made at critical moments of the war, directly acknowledge that the Soviet Union bore the brunt of the fighting and played the decisive role in defeating Nazi Germany.

[Evgeniy Khodas @EvgenKhi]

I’m sitting here reading the comments and amazed at how many people take the myth “without the US, the USSR would have lost” at face value. You should at least study the statistics and history in detail before commenting on posts like this...

Here’s something to keep in mind:
Lend-Lease was an important but not decisive factor in the USSR’s victory. Its total volume amounted to only about 4% of the Soviet Union’s gross industrial output, although for certain critically important items the share was substantially higher: about 12–15% for aircraft and tanks. The decisive argument against the myth of the “decisive role” of aid is the time factor: the main flow of supplies came in 1944–1945, while the turning point in the war (the battles of Moscow and Stalingrad) occurred before Lend-Lease became large-scale. In 1941–1942, the Allies effectively failed to fulfill their obligations in terms of the volume and range of supplies. At the same time, the aid was invaluable in narrow but critically important areas: motor transport (supplies of trucks, in particular Studebakers, were roughly twice the USSR’s own production), communications equipment, aluminum, sheet steel, gunpowder, and food (about 4.7 million tons, including the famous canned meat). Thus, Lend-Lease accelerated the end of the war and reduced losses, but it was not the foundation on which victory rested: the USSR bore the main burden of the war, destroyed the overwhelming majority of Nazi Germany’s forces, and suffered colossal human losses. According to modern historical estimates, the total human losses of the USSR in the Great Patriotic War amount to 26.6 million people. Of these, the irrecoverable losses of the Red Army were 11.9 million servicemen, and civilian losses were 13.7 million people. Within those 13.7 million civilian victims: 7.4 million people were deliberately exterminated by the Nazis, 2.2 million died in forced labor in Germany, and 4.1 million died of hunger, disease, and lack of medical care in the occupied territories. These figures are direct evidence that victory was achieved at the cost of unprecedented sacrifices by the Soviet people, not through external aid.

But suppose the commenters do not believe these figures, although they appear in all widely known sources and are upheld by historians worldwide. Here is the next fact. After the end of World War II, the USSR was able to restore the devastated territories as quickly as possible. As early as 1961, the USSR launched the first human into space (Yuri Gagarin), overtaking the US—a country not ravaged by war and industrially developed—in this achievement. The USSR also created its own atomic weapon already in 1949, and in 1954 the world’s first nuclear power plant (the Obninsk NPP). In the US, fears of communism were so great that in the 1940s–1950s they launched the campaign known in history as the “witch hunt” within their own country. This raises a logical question: if, as you say, the USSR was so weak that Nazi Germany would have crushed it, why were Europe and the US so afraid of it, and how did it manage to recover so quickly and surpass the West in a number of achievements? There are simply facts, and there is fanaticism and propaganda. In such comments I see only superficial knowledge and arrogance.

[Evgeniy Khodas @EvgenKhi]

The vehicles delivered under Lend-Lease did indeed help accelerate the Soviet advance. However, it is also important not to discount the USSR's own domestic production during the war, which was rapidly shifted to a war footing.
Here are the statistics on domestic production and Lend-Lease deliveries by the end of 1942. This was one of the most difficult, yet pivotal years for the entire USSR, as the enemy was closing in on Moscow and the fierce Battle of Stalingrad was underway.

It is also important to take into account that the USSR had its own production capacities, which is often denied. Let's just compare the numbers by the end of 1942.

Soviet production in 1942:
- Aircraft: 25,400 (including 21,700 combat aircraft)
- Tanks and SPGs (self-propelled guns): 24,500
- Guns and mortars: 287,000
- Automobiles: about 35,000 (of which about 31,000 were trucks)
- Overall industrial output grew by 70% compared to the previous year, and military equipment output by 129%.

Lend-Lease deliveries to the USSR by the end of 1942:
- Aircraft: about 3,052
- Tanks: about 4,048
- Automobiles: about 30,031
- Total cargo: about 1.2 million tons from the US and about 532,000 tons from the UK.

As you can see, the USSR was actively producing its own vehicles for the war effort. That said, I do not deny the importance of Lend-Lease in accelerating our victory and reducing casualties.

“…We never believed that our Lend-Lease assistance was the main factor in the Soviet victory over Hitler on the Eastern Front. It was achieved by the heroism and blood of the Russian Army.”¹

¹ Harry Hopkins, in conversation with J. V. Stalin, late May 1945.
Harry Hopkins (1891–1946) was an American statesman, the closest adviser to U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt (and later to Harry S. Truman), a special envoy of the President, and the administrator of the Lend-Lease program. The statement was made during a diplomatic conversation with Stalin and reflected the position of the American administration at that time.

[Evgeniy Khodas @EvgenKhi]

The vehicles delivered under Lend-Lease did indeed help accelerate the Soviet advance. However, it is also important not to discount the USSR's own domestic production during the war, which was rapidly shifted to a war footing.

Here are the statistics on domestic production and Lend-Lease deliveries by the end of 1942. This was one of the most difficult, yet pivotal years for the entire USSR, as the enemy was closing in on Moscow and the fierce Battle of Stalingrad was underway.

It is also important to take into account that the USSR had its own production capacities, which is often denied. Let's just compare the numbers by the end of 1942.

Soviet production in 1942:
- Aircraft: 25,400 (including 21,700 combat aircraft)
- Tanks and SPGs (self-propelled guns): 24,500
- Guns and mortars: 287,000
- Automobiles: about 35,000 (of which about 31,000 were trucks)
- Overall industrial output grew by 70% compared to the previous year, and military equipment output by 129%.

Lend-Lease deliveries to the USSR by the end of 1942:
- Aircraft: about 3,052
- Tanks: about 4,048
- Automobiles: about 30,031
- Total cargo: about 1.2 million tons from the US and about 532,000 tons from the UK.

As you can see, the USSR was actively producing its own vehicles for the war effort. That said, I do not deny the importance of Lend-Lease in accelerating our victory and reducing casualties.

I would also note that when discussing the USSR, people often automatically write "Russia." This is incorrect and can be misleading regarding the true potential and mobilization resources the USSR possessed. The Soviet Union consisted of 15 republics (including Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, etc.). It's akin to talking about the European Union but only referring to France and its potential. You'd agree that's incorrect, right?

Of course, such colossal production figures in the USSR were achieved thanks to the self-sacrifice of its peoples, who united and worked to the point of exhaustion in the rear for the sake of victory. This human factor is often overlooked when looking at cold, hard numbers—when productivity was driven not by wages, but by the desire to liberate the Motherland from the invaders and win.

[Evgeniy Khodas @EvgenKhi]

今日箱を片付けてたら、ずっと前にフェスで展示したFrostpunkのブース用にAIで生成したイラストが出てきたんだ。このファンアート、今でもすごく気に入ってて、保存しておくことにしたよ。
#創作 #イラスト #ファンタジー #OC #イラスト好きさんと繋がりたい