Stalin couldn’t have done it without the vast amounts of money the US sent his way (Russian nationalists don’t like to talk about Lend-Lease), and without the US and Western European countries fighting the Nazis on a second front.
Even then, Stalin’s psycopathy and ruthless incompetence caused far a far higher casualty rate than on the western front. He was fine throwing infantry into the meat grinder in a war of attrition, because Russia had more bodies than Germany did.
You’re repeating the nazi myth about Asiatic hordes and misunderstanding intentionally obfuscated things like the role of blocking brigades. In practice, the USSR didn’t have more bodies on the front until roughly Stalingrad. At which point casualty rates roughly equalized. Turns out it’s easier not to get encircled when you don’t have half the number of troops of the enemy.
That’s not to say that the USSR had the most competent leadership before Zhukov got his shit together, just that you shouldn’t get your understanding of either Stalin, WWII, or Stalin’s role in WWII from memes.
You’re repeating the nazi myth about Asiatic hordes and misunderstanding intentionally obfuscated things like the role of blocking brigades
No, I’ve just read history very closely.
you shouldn’t get your understanding of either Stalin, WWII, or Stalin’s role in WWII from memes
I shit on memes, and you have no idea about what I know or don’t know.
And your comparative casualty numbers seem to imply that there’s some kind of moral superiority in taking excessive casualties. That’s at best a bizarre view. The USSR bled that much because their leadership was shit, their logistics were worse shit (and that’s the reason there weren’t enough soldiers at the front), their military doctrine was simplistic and initially useless against a highly mobile, well-coordinated force with superior technology, and the inevitable process of refining strategy and tactics in order to fight more effectively was hampered by politcs. Perhaps more preparation to fight the fascists instead of carving up eastern Europe during the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact would have been wise.
That’s not to say that the USSR had the most competent leadership before Zhukov got his shit together
That’s an understatement.
The Red Army was ill-trained and horribly ill-equipped at the start of the war (infantrymen didn’t have workable rifles, and often didn’t have decent boots-- socks were still in short supply for years), and Stalin was slow to promote competent generals due to his paranoid belief that they might become rivals. However, Russian materiel improved in both volume and quantity as the war progressed (partially due to that US money coming in), and Stalin backed off of trying to micromanage the war effort.
Stalin couldn’t have done it without the vast amounts of money the US sent his way (Russian nationalists don’t like to talk about Lend-Lease), and without the US and Western European countries fighting the Nazis on a second front.
Even then, Stalin’s psycopathy and ruthless incompetence caused far a far higher casualty rate than on the western front. He was fine throwing infantry into the meat grinder in a war of attrition, because Russia had more bodies than Germany did.
You’re repeating the nazi myth about Asiatic hordes and misunderstanding intentionally obfuscated things like the role of blocking brigades. In practice, the USSR didn’t have more bodies on the front until roughly Stalingrad. At which point casualty rates roughly equalized. Turns out it’s easier not to get encircled when you don’t have half the number of troops of the enemy.
The USSR suffered about 9 million casualties due to combat, and 16 million more due to nazi warcrimes and famine.
Germany suffered roughly 5 million
That’s not to say that the USSR had the most competent leadership before Zhukov got his shit together, just that you shouldn’t get your understanding of either Stalin, WWII, or Stalin’s role in WWII from memes.
No, I’ve just read history very closely.
I shit on memes, and you have no idea about what I know or don’t know.
And your comparative casualty numbers seem to imply that there’s some kind of moral superiority in taking excessive casualties. That’s at best a bizarre view. The USSR bled that much because their leadership was shit, their logistics were worse shit (and that’s the reason there weren’t enough soldiers at the front), their military doctrine was simplistic and initially useless against a highly mobile, well-coordinated force with superior technology, and the inevitable process of refining strategy and tactics in order to fight more effectively was hampered by politcs. Perhaps more preparation to fight the fascists instead of carving up eastern Europe during the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact would have been wise.
That’s an understatement.
The Red Army was ill-trained and horribly ill-equipped at the start of the war (infantrymen didn’t have workable rifles, and often didn’t have decent boots-- socks were still in short supply for years), and Stalin was slow to promote competent generals due to his paranoid belief that they might become rivals. However, Russian materiel improved in both volume and quantity as the war progressed (partially due to that US money coming in), and Stalin backed off of trying to micromanage the war effort.
Removed by mod