WWII's Top Mistakes-USSR

Churchill had informed Stalin that Germany was going to attack from messages they had decoded from the Ultra machine. Also they had been informed of this attack was pending by other sources as well
 
Churchill had informed Stalin that Germany was going to attack from messages they had decoded from the Ultra machine. Also they had been informed of this attack was pending by other sources as well


...and Stalin due to his nature of trusting nobody though it was a trick.
 
...and Stalin due to his nature of trusting nobody though it was a trick.
Regardless of what he thought, he should not have been as unprepared as he was. He gambled with his nation's survival by sticking his head in the sand. He was also unlucky in the sense that it was not the best time for his reforming Red Army to actually have to do something, like defend against the most professional and seasoned army in the world.
 
Churchill had informed Stalin that Germany was going to attack from messages they had decoded from the Ultra machine. Also they had been informed of this attack was pending by other sources as well

Yes, Churchill and the US sent warnings that Germany would attack. Why should the USSR trust either one of them? They thought the English simply wanted the USSR to attack Germany to take the pressure off of England.
 
Regardless of what he thought, he should not have been as unprepared as he was. He gambled with his nation's survival by sticking his head in the sand. He was also unlucky in the sense that it was not the best time for his reforming Red Army to actually have to do something, like defend against the most professional and seasoned army in the world.

And when should he have launched the reforms? He was preparing his army for 'the most professional and season army in the world' by launching reforms and letting the Red Army grow to it's size of over 5 million. Find out how many men the Red Army had in 1938.
 
"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.

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.

Hitler and Stalin were very similar in many ways. One of those was the fact that they both tended to try to micromanage their militaries to a ridiculous extent. Saying that Stalin "wasn't giving all the orders" is ridiculous. He had overwhelming authority to make happen whatever he saw fit. What he did not do was establish sufficiently strong defensive preparations along the German Border. To the other point, did Stalin know all in advance? No. Never said that. But he had more than enough cause to greatly strengthen his border forces and defenses just to be on the safe side.

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.
He disregarded that in the invasions of Poland and France. Why change what seems to be working just fine? Germany was outnumbered in every category going into France, yet they were victorious in less than 40 days.

The invasion of the Soviet Union did not fail because of lopsided numbers. Barbarossa was brilliantly successful on every level ... until the Russian Winter kicked in. The problem was the same as that encountered by Napoleon: Russia is just too big, too cold and to far from your supply lines. The three great Russian generals were at their finest in 1941: General Snow, General Mud and General Distance.

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.
If someone starts a pissing contest with you (or you think that's what's happening) then any intelligent person comes prepared to fight. Stalin did not.
 
Saying that Stalin "wasn't giving all the orders" is ridiculous. He had overwhelming authority to make happen whatever he saw fit.

Then you have a skewed view of Stalin and his reign in the Soviet Union.

What he did not do was establish sufficiently strong defensive preparations along the German Border.

The border had moved, the old defensive line, dubbed the "Stalin Line" was taken apart and the new defensive line was in the midst of being built when the Germans attacked.

To the other point, did Stalin know all in advance? No. Never said that. But he had more than enough cause to greatly strengthen his border forces and defenses just to be on the safe side.

He was doing just that, you seem to also lack an understanding of what was going on within the Soviet Union before the war began.

He disregarded that in the invasions of Poland and France. Why change what seems to be working just fine? Germany was outnumbered in every category going into France, yet they were victorious in less than 40 days.

There is no comparison between the two and the Soviet Union, this is also why Blitzkrieg ideas did not work in the Soviet Union.

The invasion of the Soviet Union did not fail because of lopsided numbers. Barbarossa was brilliantly successful on every level ... until the Russian Winter kicked in.

You must be joking. Do you know the goals for Barbarossa? Look them up, then show me how it was 'brilliantly successful on every level.' The winter is what facilitated the launching of operation Typhoon, your knowledge of the Eastern Front is severely lacking.

The problem was the same as that encountered by Napoleon: Russia is just too big, too cold and to far from your supply lines. The three great Russian generals were at their finest in 1941: General Snow, General Mud and General Distance.

If you want to show off your ignorance, you're doing an excellent job. Please, list the casualties suffered by the Wehrmacht due to the 'snow', 'mud', and 'distance', then list those inflicted by the Red Army. I find it hard to believe that an armed force, considered by many to have been the greatest of their time, would be destroyed by 'winter', 'mud' and 'distance.' If that is the case, then they are an entirely over-rated opponent.

If someone starts a pissing contest with you (or you think that's what's happening) then any intelligent person comes prepared to fight. Stalin did not.

Your comparisons have no context.
 
And you sir, are an *******. Is it even possible for any human being to be any more condescending?


Is that the best you can do? Pay attention, I do not attack you as a person, which you seem to be doing to me at the moment. Rather, I attack your ignorant statements and your ignorance itself. Learn from your mistakes and move on.
 
And when should he have launched the reforms? He was preparing his army for 'the most professional and season army in the world' by launching reforms and letting the Red Army grow to it's size of over 5 million. Find out how many men the Red Army had in 1938.
You will note from my post that I made no negative comment regarding the timing of the Red Army reforms, just that they were ongoing when the Germans attacked. From that point of view Stalin was just unlucky.

For the record, Blitzkrieg ideas did work in Russia. We have been over this tired old ground before but the numbers from June 22nd until October 2nd speak for themselves.
 
Is that the best you can do? Pay attention, I do not attack you as a person, which you seem to be doing to me at the moment. Rather, I attack your ignorant statements and your ignorance itself. Learn from your mistakes and move on.
My intelligence and my knowledge, flawed as you may feel them to be, are a part of me. You've been attacking me and everyone else who dares make a statement that offends your self-righteous all-knowing sensabilities. Your condescending attitude is not discussion. It is belittlement. You've taken it upon yourself to preach the true gospel of Joseph Stalin and the Eastern Front of World War II, and damn all who oppose your righteous truth. It is not a medium in which "opinions" and "personal thoughts" are welcome nor able to flourish. Not unless they are your own of course. I don't know what you're hoping to accomplish with your approach. But I've lost all taste for such "discussion."

You might be the one and only person who appears to be willing to not just defend Joseph Stalin. You're giving off the impression of being a great admirer of the man.

Don't bother to respond to this. I'd been absent from these forums for about a year, and only barely had come back. Don't know why I bothered at this point. I'm done with being insulted and belittled by Joseph Stalin's biggest fan.
:salute:
 
My intelligence and my knowledge, flawed as you may feel them to be, are a part of me. You've been attacking me and everyone else who dares make a statement that offends your self-righteous all-knowing sensabilities. Your condescending attitude is not discussion. It is belittlement. You've taken it upon yourself to preach the true gospel of Joseph Stalin and the Eastern Front of World War II, and damn all who oppose your righteous truth. It is not a medium in which "opinions" and "personal thoughts" are welcome nor able to flourish. Not unless they are your own of course. I don't know what you're hoping to accomplish with your approach. But I've lost all taste for such "discussion."

You might be the one and only person who appears to be willing to not just defend Joseph Stalin. You're giving off the impression of being a great admirer of the man.

Don't bother to respond to this. I'd been absent from these forums for about a year, and only barely had come back. Don't know why I bothered at this point. I'm done with being insulted and belittled by Joseph Stalin's biggest fan.
:salute:

Nice try, fallacies won't work with me. I've yet to defend anyone, I have simply presented the truth as well as I have learned it. Your own ignorance is responsible for your blatant perversion of history.
 
With the warning that Stalin received he could have put his forces on an alert and dispersed his aircraft around the country, but instead he chose to do nothing and got hammered for it. When Churchill informed Stalin about the forthcoming attack on Russia he did not ask Russia to join in the fight at that time, but just sent the information as a warning
 
My intelligence and my knowledge, flawed as you may feel them to be, are a part of me. You've been attacking me and everyone else who dares make a statement that offends your self-righteous all-knowing sensabilities. Your condescending attitude is not discussion. It is belittlement. You've taken it upon yourself to preach the true gospel of Joseph Stalin and the Eastern Front of World War II, and damn all who oppose your righteous truth. It is not a medium in which "opinions" and "personal thoughts" are welcome nor able to flourish. Not unless they are your own of course. I don't know what you're hoping to accomplish with your approach. But I've lost all taste for such "discussion."


Its simple he is hoping to get the last word, I have to admit for a guy who's sole response to everything is "You are wrong, I know it all" the people of this forum are wasting a lot of time responding to him.
As I have seen nothing in the way of a counter argument (just denying a point is not in itself a counter argument) containing fact or sources (Oh wait they are all in Russian) from him I really think he makes a good candidate for the ignore list.

So as it goes Stalin apparently was perfect, countless Russian soldiers and civilians committed suicide simply to make it a fair fight for the grossly inferior Germans who were not attempting to implement a blitzkrieg style action in the area, have I missed anything here?
Oh and we are all ignorant because we lack the vast knowledge of a 24 year old ex-pat Russian, I think I have it all now let me know if I missed anything else.
 
Last edited:
With the warning that Stalin received he could have put his forces on an alert and dispersed his aircraft around the country, but instead he chose to do nothing and got hammered for it. When Churchill informed Stalin about the forthcoming attack on Russia he did not ask Russia to join in the fight at that time, but just sent the information as a warning

The Red Army was put on alert, it didn't help. I already explained why Churchill's warnings were ignored. He didn't have to ask the Soviet Union to join the war, it was implied.
 
Its simple he is hoping to get the last word, I have to admit for a guy who's sole response to everything is "You are wrong, I know it all" the people of this forum are wasting a lot of time responding to him.
As I have seen nothing in the way of a counter argument (just denying a point is not in itself a counter argument) containing fact or sources (Oh wait they are all in Russian) from him I really think he makes a good candidate for the ignore list.

Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, no surprise that you use fallacies as well. Showing that none of you can back up your arguments is doing more for me than listing my sources, which is simply saving time for me.
 
Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, no surprise that you use fallacies as well. Showing that none of you can back up your arguments is doing more for me than listing my sources, which is simply saving time for me.

No but absence of substance is proof of emptiness.
It is impossible to back up an argument with someone that continually refuses to make a counter point, as has been said in other posts I don't care who's side you take in an argument as long as you provide some validation of your point and oddly enough just claiming you are right is not enough because I seriously doubt anyone believes you are the sole processor of all "correct" knowledge on the Eastern Front, in fact I don't recall any books on the matter quoting you as its source.



Still as I said in the previously at best people will stop responding to you at worst you will kill interest in the forum itself either way you are not convincing people and that after all is one of the goals in discussions.
 
Last edited:
Nice try, fallacies won't work with me. I've yet to defend anyone, I have simply presented the truth as well as I have learned it. Your own ignorance is responsible for your blatant perversion of history.

As you have learned it???

Your whole argument seems to revolve around the point that if you've learned it, it is fact. Whereas is someone else has learned it it is fallacy. All I can say is, "Boy! have you got a lot to learn about the world".

I think you have been too long under the influence of the Commissars. That's their standard argument.

I could just imagine you looking about yourself in a squad of marching men and thinking. "Why are all of these other fools out of step"?
 
Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, no surprise that you use fallacies as well. Showing that none of you can back up your arguments is doing more for me than listing my sources, which is simply saving time for me.
Look.

Listing multiple sources is all very well. However, if you're unable to accept that a) there are few definitive answers when it comes to a subject as vast as the Eastern Front and b) just because someone has a different opinion to yours that it can also be just as valid.

It's all very well being able to quote hundreds of sources, but if you can't interpret them correctly what use are they? I'm not saying that you are misinterpreting them per se, just that you seem unable to see the value of other sensible opinions. If you are unwilling to enter into debate, why the hell are you even bothering to post on this forum? To show off your knowledge? It's refreshing that you're attempting to balance the overwhelming German bias in terms of reporting and perception, but acting in the manner you are doing is unraveling any sympathy you might get for your stance.

Put it this way my man. There are greater men who know more than you and me and the rest of this forum combined who are still humble enough to know that they can still learn from others. No-one has all the answers, certainly not me and definitely not you. How about you stop acting like you do? If your profile is correct you are 24 years of age. How the hell can you have all the answers at 24?

I give Monty, God of Thunder and everyone else more respect than you because they don't claim to be all-knowing and are willing to enter into debate. You might be more knowledgeable but I give you no respect because of the way you act. I suspect you won't give a **** but neither do I mate. ;)
 
No but absence of substance is proof of emptiness.
It is impossible to back up an argument with someone that continually refuses to make a counter point, as has been said in other posts I don't care who's side you take in an argument as long as you provide some validation of your point and oddly enough just claiming you are right is not enough because I seriously doubt anyone believes you are the sole processor of all "correct" knowledge on the Eastern Front, in fact I don't recall any books on the matter quoting you as its source.



Still as I said in the previously at best people will stop responding to you at worst you will kill interest in the forum itself either way you are not convincing people and that after all is one of the goals in discussions.


First off I haven't claimed much, aside from showing people's ignorance. Secondly, you and your cohort are the ones who are, continuously, addressing me instead of the subject at hand. If you'd move on to actually show some knowledge in the area this would be played out quite differently. Now, indeed, stop addressing me, rather address what I've written, be it based on something or a lack thereof.
 
Back
Top