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
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 Stalin due to his nature of trusting nobody though it was a trick.
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
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.
"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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
And you sir, are an *******. Is it even possible for any human being to be any more condescending?
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.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.
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."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."
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
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.
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.
Look.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.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.