The myths of WWII (Eastern Europe)

The Soviet army was completely unready for war, the officer corp was just beginning to recover from the purges and most officers had little experience in their jobs. There was a massive over haul of tnaks going on and production on the BT series was stopped, but the T34 was just starting. Apx half of the Soviet tanks were not working and there were few parts. The Soviets started off Barbarossa with about 4 million trained men and over 3 million were killed captured or wounded by December. Besides the tanks, there was a severe shortage of trucks and communication equipment, fortifications were removedand had not been set up in their new areas. That is not a prepared army.

 

Havent we been through these Icebreaker myths Oleg?

If the Soviet Union was ready for war then why were half of her troops away from the front lines?
Why were new defenses being built?
Why were troops lacking in weapons and ammunition?
Why were there no orders issued in case of an attack?
Why were new weapons being manufactured (T-34 Katusha etc.) Instead of sticking with the BT7s?

How can a country thats ready for war perform so poorly during Barbarossa???

 

I remember reading that the number was actually as high as 800k!

 

How can a country that is not ready, still win the war after the Barbarossa?

Multiple factors played the role during the collapse insummer of 1941. A human factor is always overlooked. An army of slaves loses the command and control structure and in many cases it is every man for himself, and so it was until system regained the control.

 

Because Germany was even less prepared. Germany based everything on winning in 6 months and the success they did have was mostly based on Soviet unpreparedness.

 

Was that country not Germany ?
After all: who was ready for war and failed in the summer ?

 

STALIN. His Draconian measures (which would have never worked in a democracy) held the country together.

 

Barbarossa was a calculated offensive. Germany's mistake was that she underestimated Russia and the Soviet regime while overestimating her own military capabilities. That is far different from Russias scenerio.

 

These last 10 or 20 posts illustrate again an eternal and unnecessary politicization of Soviet victory against Nazis even though there was very little politics in this struggle for the living space vs. mere survival. That was a struggle among nations, not among political systems. Whatever Soviets did good, was later, after the war, interpreted as bad just to diminish the value of Soviet victory itself. An enemy, the former ally, was painted as black (red) as possible, for some obscure, selfish reasons.

The victory was great and well deserved. Regardless whether Soviets were prepared or not. Regardless whether Soviets were more numerous than Nazis. Regardless everything else but the outcome of the war. There is nothing bad in being prepared for attack; there is nothing bad to be more numerous than an enemy.

What is indeed crucial is that Nazis wanted to expand the Reich over any reasonable borders and have collapsed their own territories to the borders achieved 1,000 years ago, by Otto I. Instead of achieving a 1,000 year lasting Reich they have reverted 1,000 years of gradual expansions to the East. In fact, Nazis have imploded Germany to a midget state, compared to its historic size. Nazis weren't just an enemy of almost all other nations but they were foremost the worst enemy of their own, German nation.

 

What a strange thing to say. Politics was the driver at the very heart of both WWII and the Nazi Soviet segment of it in particualr.

Without the Nazi, fascist, or Soviet systems would WWII have occurred? I strongly suspect not.

Was it? I never read anything bad about the Soviet failure to give in to the Nazis. Furthermore to anyone who actually studied the Eastern Front it was clear that the Soviets did a very good job in some areas (although certainly not all).

I think you exaggerate significantly. Now in the US as I suspect most areas there's a tendency to be more interested in the part ones own nation played. In that regard both the Soviets and the West tended to simply ignore each others efforts to some extent during the cold war. Not necessarily selfish and not the conspiracy to blacken the other that you seem to believe in.

Quite the opposite. Especially given the capabilities of Soviet intelligence being as poorly prepared as they were is almost inexcusable, it certainly increased the cost.

Is it? The Communist had even greater designs, Stalin simply wasn't willing to take the risks that Hitler was at least in part because he had a more realistic view of the situation.

 

Dear lwd! I wish you were right! Your posts are usually coherent, logical, with correct conclusions and well founded. But this time I guess you've had a bad day.

 

If Russia is not ready for war and Germany is even less ready, would that make Russia more ready for war than Germany?

 

War is the continuation of politics by other means.

The value of Russian Army’s victory can never be taken away, but it was created to serve one of the most monstrous political systems ever.

Soviet victory over Germany and liberation of Eastern Europe was the brightest spot in history of Soviet Union. It was Soviet Politically influenced Historical Doctrine that elevated this event to almost mystical proportions.

Stalin’s crimes do put a black mark on this victory, because Russian army was there to do his will and took part in many of the crimes.

 

I gave you salute for this passage:

because, in my view, for many East European countries, the inconvenience of life behind the Iron curtain has paid-off in the end. Without the Soviet umbrella, many territories would have been lost in trading-off peace between the West and the post-war Germany. Without Soviets, territory gains granted by the Potsdam Conference would have been impossible. Italians would have retained Dalmatia and Croatian isles. Without Soviets, your Zadar would have been Zara today. Without the Soviets, I would have ended as humiliated ethnic minority in Austria.

But:

the Nazi war wasn't an ordinary war. It was a war of conquest and ethnic cleansing of vast territories. It wasn't an extension of politics by other means but mere an instrument to execute the Nazi racial doctrine. That doesn't fit into the definition of a war which you've just addressed.

Pozdrav iz Slovenije.

 

Acknowledged....

Had the Soviets possessed more complex and expensive methods, their military would not have recovered from the severe beating it took in 1941.

It is arguable whether any other military system in the world was CAPABLE of rebuilding after the '41 campaign!

There is no doubt in my mind that The Red Army profitted from Stalinist leadership. A more suitable anti-dote to 'Barbarossa' could not be imagined. And what of the ordinary Soviet citizen, confronting the awful truth that the invader represented no way out, that Stalinism wasn't just going to collapse as many thought it would.

After all, Adolf Hitler stated, pre-Barbarossa...

"We have only to kick in the door, and the whole rotting structure will come down!"....How wrong he was

No argument there....

But Stalin was still a butcher, and his death in '53 was a great turning point in Russian history, for the better.

 

It was a great turning point, Sadly they are know been saddled with Putin.. Might not go around massacring his citizens but he sure is corrupt and power hungry.. So would love to give a shout out to the Gorgeous Russian Miss Earth contestant that wasnt afraid to speak out against the greed and corruption when asked what made her proud of her country.

Russia's Miss Earth Contestant Speaks Her Mind | News | The Moscow Times

Its nice to see smarts along with beauty and courage.. In any case sorry for the side tracking .. =]

 

The irony is, if Stalin had not given Hitler a free hand against France he would have not had to face Germany alone

 

Did Stalin face Germany alone? I think the USSR was offered help the second Barbarossa begun...

 

In what way?

 

??? It was indeed pretty much an ordinary war if you look at the run of human history. While one didn't see huge changes of territorial sovernty in Europe during the previous century you don't need to go back much further than that and certainly there are examples outside of Europe that are not far off.