Yet you yourself make blanket statements and demand people justify themselves to you.

From just one post of seven lines:

Maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions and make assumptions about something you know little to nothing about.

These are called BLANKET statements because someone is too lazy to do any research before they open their mouth and blanket an entire group of people with their ignorant ideas.

I am sure you can see that cyclic problem it creates.

No, my statement was made based on what the person in question wrote in regards to the question I asked. It isn't baseless and it most certainly isn't a blanket statement. Well, enough is enough, not one of you can challenge what I've said yet are quick to call me names and pin labels onto me. Has anyone to prove my statement wrong? Or actually look into what I'm questioning? No, you all enjoy yourselves, I'm done here.

Originally Posted by Kunikov

Maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions and make assumptions about something you know little to nothing about. The following comment was made:" Stalin's purges killed off vaste numbers of highly skilled and experenced officers. He then replaced them with political commissars which had little or no military training. The Red Army was staffed largely by Stalin's old cronies and suffered for this greatly in the Winter War and early days of Operation Barbarossa." Why is it assumed that all of these men were 'highly skilled'? Perhaps you didn't know, Commissars were also purged. Secondly, who are these 'political commissars' who replaced the 'highly skilled' commanders? Zhukov was a commissar? Vasilevsky? Kirponos? Malinovsky? Who? These are called BLANKET statements because someone is too lazy to do any research before they open their mouth and blanket an entire group of people with their ignorant ideas.

I don't think people are necessarily disagreeing with your comments but they are written in such a way that a response is impossible without getting into an argument, lets be a little realistic here, asking someone to list all the people involved is probably not going to happen.

On one hand you are saying that Easy8 is incorrect, in the next post you quote that the information confirming what he said is available and therefore known to you.

So really all you wanted was an argument, admit it, you are nothing more than a poor quality troll.

Originally Posted by Kunikov

Amazing that people so easily make such blanket statements. Can you please name all the commissars who had 'little or no military training' and the killed off 'experienced officers' whom they replaced?

The purges were bad for the Red Army though, this can be agreed, although the poster's statement was indeed a blanket one. Brilliant commanders such as Tukhachevsky were lost, whether you agree with the notion he was plotting against Stalin or not.

Originally Posted by Kunikov

Looks like you haven't learned much since 13. I'm sorry, "communist warfare doctrine", are you just making things up now? Can you provide a source where I can read about this "communist warfare doctrine"?

He probably means the concept of 'Deep Operations' or 'Deep Battle'. Wasn't Deep Operations as a doctrine temporarily abandoned by the Red Army after the Winter War, only to reappear later on? I suspect he was also referring to the Red Army tactics of 'human waves' which were also used in the Winter War and at least, in 1941 against Germany. Whilst Deep Operations is a sound battlefield system the latter is clearly not.

Originally Posted by Kunikov

Soviet Mech Corps circa 1941 did not have 'thousands of tanks' within their ranks, in fact they had a bit over 1,000. This is comparable to a German Panzer Corps. Also, most of the Mech Corps in 1941 were not at full strength.

My point was else... I wanted to say - there was mistake to create up to 20 Mech Corps with no enough tanks within each. More rationally will be having a smaller number of Mech Corps, but all or at least most of them having all needed 1031 tanks.

Originally Posted by Josh678

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

There was no obvius enough intel data, that Germans will attack, as well as no information regarding data of attack. Besides, intel data also including desinformation about Hitler's plans to achieve victory before turning to East.

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?

The concentration of German forces was revealed, but too late (beginning of May 1941). No time for adequate reaction was left (Germans prepared for attack already from January, while Soviets reacted only in May).

Originally Posted by Kunikov

Amazing that people so easily make such blanket statements. Can you please name all the commissars who had 'little or no military training' and the killed off 'experienced officers' whom they replaced?

I think it is kinda clear that the commanders didn't know what they were doing considering that whole Army Groups were lost within a few months.

What would be interesting is if you actually knew what you were talking about. Stalin suspected quite a lot, one example being that Germany and Hitler would ask for concessions another was that he would have time to mobilize the Red Army, etc. Looks like you haven't learned much since 13. I'm sorry, "communist warfare doctrine", are you just making things up now? Can you provide a source where I can read about this "communist warfare doctrine"?

Stalin clearly did not expect a attack because of the fact he posted his forces way too far forward. Mordernizing your military after a little adventure in a tiny place like Finland you tend to see the need to get your **** together war or no war. as far as the whole "communist warfare doctrine" I am just colorfully stating what is made clear in every history book that involves communists vs ... some other guy. I mean I can only think of a very small number of times where a communist military did not overrun a enemy with vast numbers of men and equipment and lose vast numbers of men and equipment in the process.

One has to wonder where you get your education, is it the TV? Is that it?

Nah, I just do ALOT of reading on websites and books

Im waiting to hear what you gotta say...