godofthunder9010
Active member
Nope, that's not what he said at all.
WINNER OF WW2
- Status
USAFAUX2004
Active member
Patton spoke of uniting with the axis against russia (then getting rid of the axis)
godofthunder9010
Active member
That is something Patton may have said, but I thought you meant that was what Doppleganger was saying.
USAFAUX2004
Active member
No he just said that patton said that russians are bad, and that patton was right about it. I disagree
godofthunder9010
Active member
Finland and 1939. The USSR invades in an unprovoked attack. Between that and grabbing half of Poland, I think the USSR showed its true colors early on. Fast forward to the Berlin Blockade and you see Stalin once again proving himself to be a danger to the rest of the world.
That is not to say that the people of the USSR were bad. They weren't. They were just led by a man who was bad.
That is not to say that the people of the USSR were bad. They weren't. They were just led by a man who was bad.
USAFAUX2004
Active member
thats Stalin, not the russians
godofthunder9010
Active member
Yep, exactly what I just said. Problem was, Stalin had the Russian people under his thumb and could have enlisted them to help him do whatever end he wanted.
USAFAUX2004
Active member
godofthunder9010 said:
No, he terrified people to the point where its you do it his way or you go to Siberia...breath some fresh air.
At one time he wanted to get rid of zhukov (after the war) and he send people to kill him. Zhukov was informed so he put a mashine gun in his doorway, and when they tried to kill him he fought back. Then he called stalin and (loosly translated) told him : "comrade stalin I am Being attacked, but i will not give up)
Doppleganger
Active member
godofthunder9010 said:
How so God? Whilst the purges didn't help I think you overstate their impact quite a bit. The lack of purges would still have saw the Red Army caught off guard and wrongly deployed as this was a direct order from Stalin. They still would have had to face the Wehrmacht and Blitzkrieg at the peak of their powers. The Soviet pockets created as a result of the German onslaught fought extremely fiercely and it's difficult to see how they could have fought any harder. The Soviet tank divisions would still have had no radios and therefore been hampered in any counter response to German armor.
It's true the purges did take away much of the tactical and operational ability of the Red Army, but I really don't think it would have helped them all that much anyway. I mean, the French Army hadn't been weakened by purges but it didn't help them much. Another argument is that the purges helped speed up the Red Army's transformation into the combined arms juggernaut that emerged in late '42 onwards.
USAFAUX2004
Active member
The french didnt expect that Hitler would BlitzKreig their asses
godofthunder9010
Active member
Well, we both know how ridiculously outnumbered the Germans were going in. If there had been some better operational command, at the very least it would have been messier for the Germans.
True point that Stalin would have left his armies in very poor positioning. They still would have lacked all of those things. Still, the Red Army not having to wait for Stalin before acting? Good, intelligent responses on the operational level? It would have been a much harder road for Germany. Barbarossa would have had a lot harder time of it, and in the long run its a disaster anyways.
After Hitler redirected Army Group Center away from Moscow, the best chance of victory was lost and Barbarossa was the beginning of a very bad idea. Better leadership on the Red Army's part may have turned the tide sooner and may have foiled some of the German's successes.
True point that Stalin would have left his armies in very poor positioning. They still would have lacked all of those things. Still, the Red Army not having to wait for Stalin before acting? Good, intelligent responses on the operational level? It would have been a much harder road for Germany. Barbarossa would have had a lot harder time of it, and in the long run its a disaster anyways.
After Hitler redirected Army Group Center away from Moscow, the best chance of victory was lost and Barbarossa was the beginning of a very bad idea. Better leadership on the Red Army's part may have turned the tide sooner and may have foiled some of the German's successes.
USAFAUX2004
Active member
Stalin may have lacked the strategy skills needed to win the war, but his threats to kill zhukov with his own hands helped to reach berlin
Kick_in_the_eye
Active member
godofthunder9010 said:
Yes you are right, I will not dispute that they were a part of the allies, and perhaps the most valuable one. But in context it's easier to look at them as independent. UK and US did not send much love in the direction towards SU - the co-operation was a necessity due to circumstances. And the other way around. As an example: I wonder what would have happened with the lend-lease if Barbarossa came to a halt much earlier?
godofthunder9010
Active member
It could have been done without the needless sacrifice of so many Russian soldiers. Numerous of them need not have died if tactics and strategy has taken the place of wave tactics and Stalin's ultimatims for the Red Army to reach X location by date Y or else.drilldownmaster2004 said:
USAFAUX2004
Active member
godofthunder9010 said:
Stalin did not contribute to strategy Zhukov made it to berlin himself
Doppleganger
Active member
drilldownmaster2004 said:
The Soviet losses in 1943 onwards were not entirely due to bad strategy, human waves etc, although in cases that still occurred. The Soviets at that time were employing good operational combined arms tactics thanks to leaders like Georgei Zhukov. They had learned well the lessons of the first 2 years of Barbarossa and the units that were left after the horrendous losses in '41/42, coupled with fresh units being built beyond the Urals, were the best of what had been the old Red Army. This made it easier to construct the new Red Army which was now pushing the Wehrmacht back.
The Red Army were still suffering a 4:1 loss ratio against the Germans and this was for 2 reasons. The Germans were now on the defensive and were enjoying the benefit of ever shortening supply and logistical lines, employing good tactics somewhat akin to the 'fluid defense' tactics that Manstein wanted to employ before Kursk. The 2nd reason is a little puzzling as the operational level of the average German soldier was still very high, even though the quality of the average Wehrmacht battalion must have been steadily reducing ever since 1941.
I think a combination of improved technology and the constant ability of the average German NCOs to adapt and take command of the local situation was probably the reason myself. This is why I believe that the Wehrmacht was probably the best army in modern times. This ability for soldiers at platoon level to instantly take command and react to a crisis. The Soviets still suffered grievous casualties, despite the fact that they were now employing sound strategy and tactics. I think the same fate would have been suffered by the Anglo-American forces had they been in the Red Army's shoes. Of course we will never know..
USAFAUX2004
Active member
Doppleganger said:
Ist true that after 43 the war went better and that also was in part to the fact that the new il 2 came out
godofthunder9010
Active member
From start to finish, there was a tendency to rush things on the USSR's part. Patience and better planning could have saved them casualties. The taking of Berlin, for instance, we again see a more hurried approach at the expense of lives. That's about as late in the war as you're gonna get.
USAFAUX2004
Active member
Hegario said:
that and the fact that stalin did not want GB and US to get there before them
- Status