Soviet blunders in World War 2

Re: I respect opinions..

Yes, fighting to last man is stupid. Just retreat, or run, the hell, just surrender as say French and then collaborate. Why the hell not? I see your point, French = smart, Russians = stupid. And yes, France lost less people in WW2 than Russia, therefore they are better at it, smarter and much more courageous.. point taken.[/quote]

In no case did the french army run during the 1940 campaign.The fact that France was so quikely beaten was due to the use of revolutionary tactics by the german(Blitzkrieg), which the alies were not prepared to face.
Figthing to the last man was not an option for France in 1940, it just would have destroyed the whole country, and cost the germans some weeks more to conquer the whole country.So when the french governement got the chance for a cease fire and conditions that were compatible with national survival and honour, they accepted it.

Do not forget that if the Soviet Union had the size of France it would have been beaten as quickly.
In no way btw did the russians always fight till the last man, just see the 4 million prisoners the germans made in 1941.(They didn't take that many in France!!)

Yes, there was collaboration in France during the occupation, but I would say far less than there was collaboration in the german occupied territories in the Soviet Union.Hundreds of thousands of russians were willing to fight under germaqn uniform, and it would have been far more if Hitler had treated the russians in a somewhat human manner.

I'm certainly not saying the russians are stupid, or the french smart for the way they fought, the two situations just are not comparable.

 

ok, 1/3 of asia was a..

an exaggregation for sake of emphasis. I was just trying to point that Roman Empire was bigger than that of Alexander the Great. Geez, talk about picking.

Now, back to original point about Russian stupidity. So, if Russians accepted Separate peace in 1941 that was compatible with national honor and vital for survival of the nation (cant disagree that it looked pretty grim in 1941) they would have done smart thing?

Well, if that is really your opinion then I don't think there is really a point to arguing about it. The high Soviet losses were due to exactly same tactics that defeated France. The difference was that Red Army chose to fight. Yes, it is very easy to say that "if France fought back they woulda lost anyways". Who wants to make Paris into French Stalingrad after all? Let stupid Russians die so smart French can live.

You know, I am beginning to see your point. Russians were stupid. Shoulda done exactly what France did and laughed.. wel.. no one would laugh if that was the case, but hey.. its good to be smart eh?

As for rewriting history for 10th time.. its been argued that after France declared war on Germany in 1939 they didnt attack precisely because they wanted Germany to clash with Russia first and then come from behind when both Russia and Germany exhausted themselves. it also been argued that if France put any kind of resemblance of resistance other than sitting behind Maginot line, Russia would have attacked Germany. We will never know now exactly because French were the smart ones.

 

Just take a map, look at France(550.000km/c), then look at Soviet Union (22.000.000km/c).

Then look at population numbers, France 38.000.000 in 1940, Soviet Union 180.000.000.

Know you know why the soviets were able to sûrvive the early german sucesses and why France was not.
Of course the russians were very brave soldiers(And not stupid at all!!), but their situation just cannot be compared with the one of France.

And speaking of separate peace treaties, there were at least two occasions where Stalin was willing to make peace with Hitler, trhe first in october 1941, where he oredered Beria to contact the germans via the ambassador of Bulgaria, and in june 1943, where Ribbentrop and Molotov met secretely.

 

Are you going to treat Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, etc the same way?

All capitulated within a few weeks. I don't think anyone can claim that they (or France) were not thoroughly beaten first.

Alexander got all the way to India. The scale on this map is not the same as GP's, so I can't tell which is bigger. Anyone have the facts?

 

It should also be noted that in 1940 the Germans benefitted from France's excellent road network, which they didn't have in Russia. This crippled the Germans logistically during much of the years they were in Russia because most of their transport was wheeled rather than tracked. Simply could not deal with Russian mud.

 

Ehh..

Railorad tracks existed in Russia, in fact, Russian railroads were pretty good. However the track width was different so you had to use russian locomotives (were blown up or evacuated) and russian guerillas sabotaged railroads extensively.

I am not even talking about standing and fighting to the last man on streets of Paris. A well coordinated guerilla warfare could have slowed Hitler significantly, look at Yugoslavia, precisely at Serbia. Territories comparable to France. Read much about guerillas in Serbia?

Back to territory. Yes, Russia is bigger, however, it also means it is harder to defend and longer supply lines. France could concentrate troops better and theres always England with RAF and fleet. You really need to come up with better excuses for France not putting much of a.. well make it no fight what so ever.

Have France and England at least tried to fight back or started a well supplied and coordinated guerilla warfare instead of collaborating, Hitler would be too busy to fight Russia.

 

Sarco, I repeat what Castelot has pointed out, the fact that the USSR is bigger than France is what saved it. How much Soviet territory did the Germans capture in 1941? I am prepared to bet that it is more than the half of France they over-ran. Space does make it harder to defend, even when you do have a superiority in numbers, but space can also be traded for time. Scorched Earth, and all that.

I can see the point you are trying to make, but I'm not sure that it really applies. Remember, nobody (except the Germans!) was really prepared for such a form of warfare, either in training or equipment. We had Poland as an example, but did not believe it would happen to France - we're protected by the Maginot Line, after all! The USSR had the example of Poland and Western Europe, but did not believe it would happen to them.

Guerilla warfare, yes. If somehow it could have been arranged, British/French troops left behind by the Panzers could have wreaked havoc on the German supply/reinforcement columns. But there was no real way of co-ordinating this. The whole situation was a bit of a shambles. Plus, Yugoslavia is not really comparable to France - the terrain there is far more suited to Guerilla operations.

Plus, I doubt they would have been too busy to fight the USSR - they would not have needed significantly more troops than they already had stationed there as a defence against possible invasion.

 

Re: Ehh..

[

.

But the road system is not comparable to the french one, and absolutely not suitable fot Blitzkrieg warfare.Btw, french resistance also sabotaged railroads extensively(So called battle of the rail)

Actually most of resistance in Yugoslavia took place in Bosnia(altough by serbians) not Serbia.Bosnia is a very mountaineous region.In France too difficult acess areas were suitable to the resistants.Ever read about the Vercors, about Corsica....
Unfortunately till june 1941, Stalin called upon french communists not to resist, as a german victory would be in the interest of "bolchevist revolution...."

So you sincerely believe that having the size of France, Russia would still have won??

[/quote]

Yes, and had the soviets not supplied the germans with oil and other raw materials they would not have been able to start the war in the first place.

 

Re: Ehh..

Yes, and had the soviets not supplied the germans with oil and other raw materials they would not have been able to start the war in the first place.[/quote]

Excellent points, Castelot. The fact is that Russia *almost* collapsed under the German onslaught. Had Hitler designated the capture of Moscow as the objective for Barbarossa, he might well have succeeded, for the loss of the capital in the wake of such disasters as Kiev might well have led to the collapse of Soviet morale. Not to mention the actual damage to the Russian war effort the loss of Moscow would have caused. But this did not happen. Instead, Hitler kept vacillating, sending the panzer units hither and yon after whatever will o' the waisp had caught his fancy this time, giving the Russians enough time to put together a defense that the Wehrmacht couldn't penetrate before winter set in.

 

The Roman empire was significantly larger than that of Alexander, and it held just about a hundred times as long. Ironically, had Alexander advanced any further east he would have encountered the Chinese, and that would have meant his immediate and utter defeat and death.

Sarco, you must argue, not call names. You must respect the opinions of other people. And above all, you can't go about insulting whole nations for actions that really did have reason. Now try again by stating the point you are trying to make, and the arguments you have to support it.

 

One wonders if Alexander would have made it past India, Roel, especially given the climate and terrain.

 

Lets leave Romans and Macedonians aside.

Sarco mentioned Rokossovsky as replacment for purged officers. Rokossovsky was purged and imprisoned in Siberia. He was reinstuted after a winter war dissaster. A lot of red army officers were reinstuted after the winter war.

Tuhachevsky was responsible for modernisation of red army. He was first soviet commander to recognize value of paratroopers ( first use of them in winter war was a dissaster), airforce and tanks. Sarco forgot to mention his use of poisenous gass in quelling uprise in Kavkasus.

The most stupid mistake made by Stalin was that he simply refused to belive that Adolf will atack SSSR in 1941. He belived that Adolf simply couln't afford such attack and would eventualy attack in 1942 or even 43.
That is why soviet industry started to gear for war in may of 41. Much too late. Commisar for industry production wanted that done sooner and was imprisoned for that.
Stalin had THE BEST spy network in the world. Soviets had complete OOB for german forces ( down to company level), knew german plans and date of attack etc. Soviet officers in border regions tryed to put up some countermesures ( minefilds, troop redeployments etc), but were rebuffed by higher command. Even as late as few days before the attack commisars from Moscov had speaches for the troops in wich they stressed taht Germany will never attack SSSR becouse they were their ''best friends''. Airforce was prohibited to attack german recce planes. When Germans did attack Stalin simpy refused to belive the horrible truth.

Averge soviet solder fought well, but if you don't have weapons, ammo and food you can't do anything.

Germans also acted stupidly. If their conduct to soviet population would be good, Russia would collapse. Everyone was sick and tired of Stalins communism. Strategic mistake par exellence.
As one Soviet general put it ( much later):
''We had a choice. We could choose betwen two dictators equaly bad for our poeple. We chose one that could at least speak russian.''

As for fighting to the bitter end and dying for your country.
Our old sargent ( when i served my ''fate'') said:
''Your duty is not dying for your country. Your prime duty is helping as much of our enemys to die for their country. If you don't have any ammo you have your digging spade and bayonet after that it realy doesn't matter anymore.''

 

where to start.......

 

Tiso, I am really disappointed.
You give Stalin and Tukhachevsky too much credit. The last one was an idiot and a mass murderer. The first one - a diplomatic and political genius. Strategic mediocrity. Mass murderer in really devilish proportions. Maybe the most bloody in history?
And he didn´t know all about Germans in 1941. Please, read my earlier entries about operation Groza. I have writen about it so many times, I can´t repeat myself too much. Or have you got some info to the contrary?

 

I wouldn't say Stalin was a strategic mediocrity, indeed Lord Alanbrook felt he had the best grasp of grand stratergy of all the Allied leaders. He was certainly an extremely evil man, but that does not mean he was also a fool.

 

I think the point here is that none of the Allied leaders were themselves great generals; they were concerned with politics, not military strategy. There is no problem in this as long as the political system the leader heads doesn't require him to make all the decisions; when it does, usually by his own making, then him being a strategical retard gives trouble.

 

Izaak i don't want to be inpolite but read my post again.
Tuhachevsky did reorganize the red army. SSSR had first paratroop army, but did not use it ( one dissaterous operation in Winter war and one succesfull operation in winter 1941/42 during counter ofensive around Moscov). SSSR had most modern air force and tank force in 1937. Soviet tank design progress before the purge can be atributed to his support of this arm. However he was a mass murderer and bucher. That is why i wrote about a poisenous gas use. Not to mention his civil war record.

Stalin was a bloodiest dictator that this planet had misfortune to have ( even bloodiest than Hitler). I don't claim he was political genious, but he could put Miachavelli to shame. But still he did have almost enciyclopedic informations on german troop movements before the war. Problem was that all info that was not to his liking was seen as comming from the ''west'' ( or someone thought to be from west) and was classified as British provocation. Nobody wanted to explain it to him that all this info can't be simply provocation of British or some of his generals ( now who would want to have fall out with Stalin). Golikov ( military inteligence) often classified info that wasn't to Stalins liking as unproven or unreliable. In one instance when a report from Czeh worker in Skoda plants arrived that all shipnemts to SSSR were to be halted or delayed Stalin wrote the remark : This spy is a british provocator. Responsible must be punished.

This was mostly becouse of Franco-British plans to bomb Baku and Caucasus oil fields ( in summer of 1940) to stop oil deliveries to Germany. French set of plans ( together with aerial reccon photographies made by Siddney Cotton) was discovered by germans in French general staff archive they captured, and of course promptly delivered to Stalin ( source about plans: Luftkrieg 39-45 by J. Piekalkiewicz). Some of his illogical decisions before and in beggining of war and some info about purge of red army can be found in the book: 900 days of siege of Leningrad ( this info i admmit has to be viewed with some reservations as this book was written in the 1960's).

 

Tiso, I hope we will come to some sort of consensus and learn something together. That´s why we are here.
And also to have a good time, maybe to joke a bit. I don´t use the smileys much, but believe me - I am having a good time in this Forum.

The last one here to say he understands strategic things will probably be me. But: Tukhachevsky has got looots of credit in the west and many have been very unhappy about Stalin´s decision concerning his neck.

But - was he really an original strategic thinker? I began to have my doubts when I have read some excerpts from his treatises. I was amused, even with my very limited knowledge. Not to say that he has botched the campain in Poland. I don´t remember the book´s title etc. Bad luck.
But I understood at last Stalin´s decision conc. T´s neck. And I don´t think it had anything to do with their mutual animosity because of the Polish campaign in 1920.

As to Stalin: I did acknowledge his Machiavellian genius in politics and diplomacy. (see above).
That he was a smarter strategist than Roosevelt was no big achievement, I would say. He needed good commanders to win this war and he knew it. His devotion to Voroshylov however was strange, as Kliment was not too bright. Mediocre doesn´t mean hopeless. I just wanted to say that Stalin was not a military genius in my opinion.

Maybe it is a great strategy to win a war (with a little bit of help from his friends) loosing 30 million of his own people. Maybe.
Maybe it´s a genial move to prepare a great army only for attack and forget to teach it basics of defensive tactics, not to talk about strategy. And to dismantle all defensive positions and arrangements the USSR has ever had on it´s western borders.
I´m just thinking loud. :roll:

 

Izaak you are not the only one that has a lot of fun on this forum.
I also am but an amateur trying to learn as much as possible.

About T's neck. I strongly belive that it was a dangerous buissnes to become popular under Stalin ( just look at Kirov) and for all his foults he was popular with the army. It is interesting that after the purge tanks and tank tactics lost much support from Stalin. As one can see that next generation of developments in tanks and aircraft was only after polish campain ( T-34, KV-1/2, Yak-1, MiG-3, Lagg-3, Pe-2, Il-2 etc) . When soviets bought examples of planes and equipment from Germany during their honymoon period with germany.

You are not the only one to ponder a question what the heck was so special about K.Voroshilov. A lot of generals were shot for much smaller mistakes than his.

About neglecting defensive preparations. Most soviet commanders ( at least those with some brains) in border regions knew that imeddiate counter offensive ( as per soviet doctrine)and subsequent conduct of war on enemy territory won't work in case of suprise attack as adequate preparation were needed to halt the first german attack. But try to explane that to Stalin. Soviet army was cought with theit pants down.

About losses of red army one has to look closly at the style of strategic and tactical conduct of generals and their fear not to make decisions that they thought Stalin would dislike. Plus some commanders didn't have any education or were idiots and were promoted after the purge just to fill positions that became empty. Up to early 1943 ( and later as well) they routinly made last stands only to be encircled or they attacked without proper preparations. Totaly unimaginate 1.ww tactics. First time red army retreated in good order ( or more exactly was allowed to) was before Stalingrad ( summer 1942). Later on when when new generation of soviet commanders took command ( Rokossovski, Katukov, Rotmistrov Mareckov, etc.) their tactics became more imaginative. It is also interesting their relation toward their troops. Zhukov was just a bloody bucher in this respect.

 

Well, there are many reports from non-American officers during the early part of the Korean War about the defensive tactics of the American troops. Apparently they simply dug a shalow trench along their position, named it the 'Main Line of Defense' (or a similar name) and sat in it.
Apparently this was because the emphasis on training given in & since WW2 was on offence, not defence.

This I read somewhere, and put forward to show that not only Political Leaders can sell their soldiers short.

Obviously, any verification of the alledged tactics above would be nice, as would proof against it. I don't care if I'm proved wrong or right, as long as it is proved.