I will say this they needed to devlop better unit strategies then just throwing troops at the Germans.I think they would've saved a lot more men that way.

Originally Posted by Josh678

I will say this they needed to devlop better unit strategies then just throwing troops at the Germans.I think they would've saved a lot more men that way.

Can you give some examples when Red Army men were 'thrown' at the Germans?

During the battle for Stalingrad Infantry was thrown at the German Lines.

Originally Posted by Josh678

During the battle for Stalingrad Infantry was thrown at the German Lines.

Can you quote an actual action where this happened, or is "Enemy At the Gates" your source for this?

There biggest mistake was not listing to the people that told them that the Germans planned to attack them. They even had the date of the attack and took no precautions whats so ever

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

There biggest mistake was not listing to the people that told them that the Germans planned to attack them. They even had the date of the attack and took no precautions whats so ever

1) There were sources who said Germany wouldn't attack.
2) Most of the sources that said Germany would attack were treated as disinformation, and to a large degree this was correct, since what they were reporting usually turned out to be wrong.
3) Who reported the 'date of the attack'?

I think Stalin was stupid to think Hittler wouldn't attack him after all look at what had happened to Britian after they had made a deal with Hittler.

Originally Posted by Kunikov

Can you quote an actual action where this happened, or is "Enemy At the Gates" your source for this?

Battle of Berlin for one. Yeah, yeah, I'm looking for a source. But it is the opinion of many historians that the Red Army, in an effort to rush their assault on Berlin, took substantially more casualties than necessary. Working on finding a source for you. For one, I've not yet unpacked my library from the last move.

Enemy at the gates is laughable ... for the most part. Entertaining historical fiction.

1) There were sources who said Germany wouldn't attack.
2) Most of the sources that said Germany would attack were treated as disinformation, and to a large degree this was correct, since what they were reporting usually turned out to be wrong.
3) Who reported the 'date of the attack'?

Can't help you on the third one, but as to the other two:
1.) What sources? What evidence did they provide Stalin to prove their point?
2.) Had anyone actually READ Mein Kamf?? Had any intelligence reported ANYTHING about Hitler? Surely they must have known that the foundational ideology that Hitler rode to power on was the demonization of Jews and Communists. He repeatedly refered to them as one and the same. "Judeao-Bolshevism" and the like. How could the Soviet Union NOT expect an attack?

But you'd have to have been a complete twit to ignore reports of German troops massing at the border ... coming from people at or near the German/Soviet border. Consider this: The 1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union was the largest scale invasion in human history. How in the world can you miss something that enormous coming your way?

I will forever be puzzled by the apparent total trust that Stalin place in Hitler. Stalin, by his very nature, was NOT a trusting man. That is how he survived. That is how he managed to never be overthrown. That is how he came to power to begin with. By distrusting everyone and everything, and having the best and most information available on all and any threats to him. But somehow, Stalin got blindsided by Hitler. I'd love to know how that works.

Originally Posted by Josh678

I think Stalin was stupid to think Hittler wouldn't attack him after all look at what had happened to Britian after they had made a deal with Hittler.

Did Hitler invade England? Why is Stalin 'stupid' for thinking that Hitler would first destroy England before turning to the East?

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

Battle of Berlin for one. Yeah, yeah, I'm looking for a source. But it is the opinion of many historians that the Red Army, in an effort to rush their assault on Berlin, took substantially more casualties than necessary.

Do you know how many casualties the Red Army took compared to how many they inflicted?

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

Can't help you on the third one, but as to the other two:
1.) What sources? What evidence did they provide Stalin to prove their point?

Stalin, GRU, and the NKVD received reports from Berlin, Tokyo, Helsinki, Zurich, Paris, Belgrade, Budapest, and a number of other locations. Intelligence sources have various sources of their own, I'm not about to write a book for you. See Murphy's "What Stalin Knew: The Enigma of Barbarossa" for a look at some of what Stalin was receiving, although picked information and a lot is left out.

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

2.) Had anyone actually READ Mein Kamf?? Had any intelligence reported ANYTHING about Hitler? Surely they must have known that the foundational ideology that Hitler rode to power on was the demonization of Jews and Communists. He repeatedly refered to them as one and the same. "Judeao-Bolshevism" and the like. How could the Soviet Union NOT expect an attack?

"Expecting" an attack and knowing when to mobilize an entire nation for an attack which one knows will definitely occur are two separate issues. The Red Army was growing in size for a reason.

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

But you'd have to have been a complete twit to ignore reports of German troops massing at the border ... coming from people at or near the German/Soviet border. Consider this: The 1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union was the largest scale invasion in human history. How in the world can you miss something that enormous coming your way?

An invasion that failed. If Hitler wanted to conquer the Soviet Union he should have used a lot more troops, at least adhering to the usual 3:1 ratio. Secondly, Stalin had reason to believe the massing of troops on the Soviet border would be part of Hitler's attempt to get concessions out of the Soviet Union.

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

I will forever be puzzled by the apparent total trust that Stalin place in Hitler. Stalin, by his very nature, was NOT a trusting man. That is how he survived. That is how he managed to never be overthrown. That is how he came to power to begin with. By distrusting everyone and everything, and having the best and most information available on all and any threats to him. But somehow, Stalin got blindsided by Hitler. I'd love to know how that works.

Stalin apparently picks and chooses who to trust and not trust, the same goes for the sources coming in with regards to Hitler planning an attack. Furthermore, those giving Stalin information did not always give him ALL the information. You need to move away from the notion that Stalin knew and saw all as well as gave all the orders.