WWII's Top Mistakes-USSR

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. ;)

You're making quite a few assumptions in regards to me. I have not claimed how much I know, what I know, etc. Your respect, given or not given, means nothing to me as you mean nothing to me. I don't have any respect for anyone here, rather I'll respect what they've written as either something worth reading or the garbage, that in most instances, it is. Once again, you seem to have a problem of addressing me as the person rather than my arguments, as few of them as there might be. If you'd like to pick up the slack of another poster, go right ahead, I'll quote the last post and my response for you:

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.

Now, where am I wrong? What would you like evidence for? What would you like me to put into context or interpret for you?
 
You're making quite a few assumptions in regards to me.
I'm making the assumption that you're not humble or self-effacing based on your posts thus far. You have an arrogance that is simply not deserved.

I have not claimed how much I know, what I know, etc.
However, you claim everyone else either knows nothing, is ignorant or posts garbage.

Your respect, given or not given, means nothing to me as you mean nothing to me. I don't have any respect for anyone here, rather I'll respect what they've written as either something worth reading or the garbage, that in most instances, it is.
I suspected as such but I won't lose any sleep over it.

Once again, you seem to have a problem of addressing me as the person rather than my arguments, as few of them as there might be.
It's not a problem as far as I see it. I can't separate you the person from your arguments because of the way you type - your arrogance overrides any sensible arguments you might make, I agree with much of what you say, but your condescending, superior tone and your unwillingness to enter into debate spoil any progress you might have made.
 
If you have no problem with any of what I've written above in regards to actual historical discussions, then we can move on.
 
Kuniko.................If as you say that the warnings of the German attack were heeded then why did the Germans wipe out the Russian Air force on the ground. The Russian Aircraft had not been dispersed but where sitting there like clay pigeons waiting to be shot up.
 
"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." quote


Precisely.
 
Kuniko.................If as you say that the warnings of the German attack were heeded then why did the Germans wipe out the Russian Air force on the ground. The Russian Aircraft had not been dispersed but where sitting there like clay pigeons waiting to be shot up.

In some places they were destroyed, in others less so, like in the south where precautions were taken. Don't be so general. I also don't remember saying they were 'heeded', specifically. I said some precautions were taken by Stalin and the Red Army due to the growing nature of an eventual threat from Hitler. The warnings were contradictory and in many instances completely wrong.
 
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

Only because this is part of my research at the moment, here is what Golikov, head of military intelligence, wrote on March 20, 1941, to the People's Committee of Defense, Central Committee of the Party, etc, in a report in regards to the intelligence coming in: "The majority of the information coming in which talks about war with the USSR in the spring of 1941 is from Anglo-American sources, whose job it is at the moment, is apparently to worsen relations between the USSR and Germany."

"Operatziya'Ramzai'" by Gavrilov and Gorbunov pg.325.
 
I think in Russia at this time there were a lot of people tying to cover there butts after the German attack. Lets face it mistakes were not tolerated by Stalin
 
I think in Russia at this time there were a lot of people tying to cover there butts after the German attack. Lets face it mistakes were not tolerated by Stalin


Yes, Kunikov's last point of his last post establishes your take on this issue, Lee Enfield. And how wrong could they be?
 
I think in Russia at this time there were a lot of people tying to cover there butts after the German attack. Lets face it mistakes were not tolerated by Stalin

If you are speaking of my last post the report Golikov submitted was in March of 1941, before the German attack. If you are talking about something else, please, be more specific.
 
The 3 biggest mistakes were as already stated namely:

1. The Stalinist purges of the late 1930s purged many fine officers from the ranks of the Red Army. Because of this, inexperienced and mediocre commanders were placed in charge of Red Army formations that otherwise they never should have had the right to command. A good example of this would be Marshall Semyon Budenny, a character that looked like Daniel Day Lewis's character from 'Gangs of New York' but who was responsible for the loss of over 600,000 men at Kiev.

Very true. 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.

2. The failure of Stalin to believe that a German attack was imminent. Old Josef had the 'Lucy' Spy Ring, Winston Churchill and Richard Sorge all warn him of the aggressive intent of Germany. Stalin had the date of the attack, the German campaign plan, the names of each Army and all the names of all Army commanders down to Corps level. He also knew exactly how many tanks each Army Group had, what type they were and their initial deployment and lines of attack. Never has there been a state that was better warned about the intentions of another but Stalin did nothing, fearful that 'enemies' were trying to put a wedge between himself and Hitler.

Really quiet interesting when one really thinks about it. Stalin - a ruthless sociopath who had lied and backstabbed his way to power was dumb enough to believe that hitler wasn't plotting against him. I mean come on that guy believed everyone (just look at the earlier part of your post) was trying to destroy him BUT Hitler! I have been trying to figure out why he thought Hitler would never attack the USSR since I was 13 and my search never seems to get anywhere.

3. The Red Army defending the border with Germany was wrongly dispersed. As a means to appease Hitler and not give him any possible provacation, Stalin had the Red Army widely dispersed in forward positions. The length of front allocated to each Army was far too long for them to realistically defend and the distance from each Army to its HQ meant that orders to withdraw into defensible positions couldn't possibly be received in time when the Germans attacked. Also, as a result of their forward dispersation, the Germans had suceeding in cutting much of the communication lines between the Red Army forward units and their HQs, further adding to the confusion. Moreover, the Soviet airforce, the VVS, was not able to be properly dispersed in time and consequently the Luftwaffe destroyed a large proportion of it on the ground.

The Red Army was badly placed at the beginning of Operarion Barbarossa. It's units where deployed WAY too far forward and where just sitting there waiting for the Blitzkrieg to rush in and destroy them. The basic idea behind communist warfare doctrine is as follows: rush a better trained, better equiped enemy with massive numbers of men and equipment. Which tends to work in the long run but you lose - massive numbers of men and equipment. I do believe that Fallshrimjagers could have been of great use in the early days of the war for reasons you descibed.

I haven't included the Winter War because, although a humilating defeat for the USSR, IMO it didn't really have a long term impact on the war. Of the 3 mistakes above No 2 is the most glaring.

The Winter War was a victory for the USSR but a real costly one. The USSR gained 10% of Finnish terrority and which contained 20% of Finnish industry. "Just enough to bury our dead" as one Soviet commander put it. Again it was classic communist warfare doctrine overrun a better trained (this time not so well equiped) with massive numbers of men and equipment this tends to work long term but you lose a shitload of men and equipment in the process.

I hope you find this interesting. :smile:
 
Very true. 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.

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?

Really quiet interesting when one really thinks about it. Stalin - a ruthless sociopath who had lied and backstabbed his way to power was dumb enough to believe that hitler wasn't plotting against him. I mean come on that guy believed everyone (just look at the earlier part of your post) was trying to destroy him BUT Hitler! I have been trying to figure out why he thought Hitler would never attack the USSR since I was 13 and my search never seems to get anywhere.
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.
The Red Army was badly placed at the beginning of Operarion Barbarossa. It's units where deployed WAY too far forward and where just sitting there waiting for the Blitzkrieg to rush in and destroy them. The basic idea behind communist warfare doctrine is as follows: rush a better trained, better equiped enemy with massive numbers of men and equipment. Which tends to work in the long run but you lose - massive numbers of men and equipment. I do believe that Fallshrimjagers could have been of great use in the early days of the war for reasons you descibed.
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"?
The Winter War was a victory for the USSR but a real costly one. The USSR gained 10% of Finnish terrority and which contained 20% of Finnish industry. "Just enough to bury our dead" as one Soviet commander put it. Again it was classic communist warfare doctrine overrun a better trained (this time not so well equiped) with massive numbers of men and equipment this tends to work long term but you lose a shitload of men and equipment in the process.


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

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?

What a stupid red herring. I'll bet he can't name all of the Jews killed by the SS, or individuals who have been killed in any number of natural or man made disasters. But that does not mean that they never happened. There is any amount of literature, much of it published in USSR that supports his story. Stop being an wise a*se.

You are free to believe what you will, but don't try to discredit those who tell the truth merely because the facts do not suit your argument.

I have seen your type before, first, you demand a source, then once a source is provided you then disallow the source on some other pretext.

Get over it, Joe Stalin was one of history's f*ckups who was responsible for the deaths of millions of his own people, some by design, most by ignorance and neglect. It has not been a state secret since Kruschev denounced his personality cult and mass murder program 50 years ago. That opened the floodgates and told the people of the USSR what the West had known for 20 years.
 
The list of the 660 Generals who were purged is readily available, and would be a good start. Just because you're too lazy to research a topic doesn't mean others are as well. Keep your fallacies to yourself next time.
 
WTF are you trying to say? 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. I think you just shot yourself in the foot.

For information like this, sources do not have to be quoted as they are common knowledge.

Obviously you are just trolling.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Because it is a BLANKET in no way detracts from it's validity.

You seem to be more interested in showing that everyone else's statements are incorrect rather than making a valid point towards your own argument or showing that they are conclusively wrong by quoting checkable sources that refute their statements.

I feel that this is nothing to do with right or wrong, but more a personal power game (trolling) on your own behalf. I noticed earlier in the debate that when you were cornered you suddenly started quoting sources written in the Russian language.

Very convenient, but not the least bit convincing. Yes, you are all knowing and everyone else is ignorant. I believe you,.... honest!! but I know a lot who would not.
Troll_spray.jpg
 
Blanket statements have no validity as they are generalizations with little to no foundation. Why is it that you use ad hominem attacks instead of proving my statement(s) wrong? You can't? Thought so.
 
Blanket statements have no validity as they are generalizations with little to no foundation. Why is it that you use ad hominem attacks instead of proving my statement(s) wrong? You can't? Thought so.

Tell you what how about you give us something to disprove first?

By this I mean...
Example of your current approach...
"You are wrong and ignorant"
This is usually followed by...
"Why is everyone angry"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Example of an approach that would actually encourage dialogue...
"Your are wrong because [insert knowledgeable answer or your opinion here]
-------------------------------------------------------------
See the difference?
 
That would mean I'd have to disprove something that's worth disproving, i.e. has been sourced. Blanket statements would take too long to disprove, that's why I asked for proof to begin with.
 
Back
Top