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?