General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Андрей Борцов
Military History Visualized
comments

Comments by "Андрей Борцов" (@Mentol_) on "Barbarossa: Why such high Soviet Losses? - Explained" video.

Soviet irrecoverable losses during the Battle of Berlin - 78.300. German - from 590 to 780 thousand (almost the entire army). Your comment: the losses of the Soviet army were terrible. My comment: what's wrong with you guys?
4
The total number of the Red Army throughout Soviet territory was 5.7 million. Of these, 3.2 million were in the western regions, 600k in reserve, 350k in the south against Iran and Turkey, 720k in the east against Japan. The remaining forces are within the country. But of course, these 3.2 million were not at the border, but were divided into three echelons that were stretched 400 km from the border line. Directly next to the border (no further than 50 km from it) there were 56 Soviet divisions. They were attacked by 128 German divisions from the first echelon.
4
1. The numbers of casualties for the Red Army in this operation can be found in the research of Grigory Krivosheev. German casualties are also well known - almost the entire army. You have not refuted this data. 2. "The General Staff gives me a book with biographical data and portraits of Soviet generals and marshals. From this book, it is not difficult to get various information about what mistakes we made in the past years. These marshals and generals are on average exceptionally young, almost none of them older than 50 years. They are ... extremely energetic people, and on their faces you can read that they have a good people's features... I have to make an unpleasant conclusion that the leaders of the Soviet Union come from better people's layers than our own. I inform the Fuhrer about the General Staff's book on Soviet marshals and generals that was provided to me for review, adding that I had the impression that we are not at all able to compete with such leaders. The Fuhrer fully shares my opinion. Our generals are too old, outlived themselves... which speaks of the colossal superiority of Soviet generalship" - (Diary of Goebbels, March 16, 1945).
3
@chekvb 1. After the Polish campaign, the Germans created "tank groups" that made it possible to break through the defense to a great depth. In these groups there was a good balance between the number of tanks, vehicles, infantry and artillery. Their organization allowed them to operate autonomously even when separated from supply bases. Another situation was in the Red Army. The Soviet command did not have the experience of breaking through modern defenses (the Finnish war was a specific experience), therefore, in the shock units of the Red Army there was an excess of tanks and a lack of transport, infantry and artillery. In 1941, the Red Army captured German documents and studied them. This made it possible to balance the amount of equipment and at the end of 1942 tank armies were created, which were analogous to German tank groups. For the first time they were successfully used to encircle the German 6th Army near Stalingrad. 2. Infantry losses are affected by the number of artillery shells (where Germany was the leader on the eastern front until 1944) and the quality of education of soldiers and the level of your technologies. When you attack the defense, if it is not broken through, then you usually suffer more losses than the enemy. But if it is destroyed, then the enemy loses its organization and communications, which either compares the losses, or makes them more than those of the attacking side. In 1943, the Soviet government abandoned the large encirclement of enemy armies for political reasons (Stalingrad was an exception). This led to a more rapid expulsion of the enemy from Soviet soil, but without its complete destruction (the German organization was preserved). This was one of the reasons why Soviet casualties in 1943 were still higher than German ones. In 1944, the Red Army changed its strategy of driving the enemy out to a strategy of destroying him. In addition, Germany lost its leadership in the number of heavy artillery shells. As a result, German losses increased from 814k in 1943 (killed and captured) to 1756k in 1944. If we add the German allies here, the result will show that the ratio of losses on the eastern front in 1944 became 1 to 1 and rose to 2 to 1 (in favor of the Red Army ) in 1945. When you need to compare the ratio of losses on the eastern front in 1944, then people usually take Krivosheev's data for the Red Army, which includes all categories of losses and "ten-day reports" for the Wehrmacht, which exclude those who died from wounds, slightly wounded, non-combat losses, missing who were recognized as killed through time, losses of supply personnel, as well as aviation and navy personnel. The German casualty system showed short-term losses for the their high command, but it is incorrect to use ten-day reports for a general comparison of losses. So, for example, according to these reports, the Wehrmacht lost 359k killed on the eastern front in 1944 against 1233k according to Overmans, whose study takes into account these categories.
2
No. Germany was successful at the beginning of the war, not because of the purge, but because the Red Army did not complete its mobilization and had a low concentration of soldiers per kilometer of front. Plus, soviet intelligence was unable to correctly determine the direction of the main attacks of the wehrmacht.
2
Can you prove this with the help of Soviet documents? Of course not.
2
Solonin is not a professional historian. He cites only those facts that support his theory, and ignores those that contradict. This is not a scientific research method.
2
Solonin is not a historian, but a propagandist. He creates a false picture for ideological reasons.
2
Victor Suvorov is not a professional historian - he is an engaged publicist.
2
In real life, the Axis armies maintained a numerical superiority on the eastern front until December 1941.
2
RifleEyez 1. In real life, the Germans used propaganda against Stalin's government. There were numerous leaflets with fake numbers of victims. 2. Forced resettlement and dekulakization was done in favor of the majority of people, so information about this can only anger a minority within the USSR. Soviet citizens are not modern liberals who may be outraged by the violation of human rights. 3. Do not forget that the majority of Ukrainians fought on the side of the Red Army. Even if 10% violated the Soviet oath, this does not mean that all Ukrainians thought the same way.
2
RifleEyez 1. You do not have statistics proving that many Soviet citizens hated Stalin. But you have German films that are made for the purpose of propaganda. 2. Soviet hiwi are not ideological anti-communists. They serve Germany in exchange for food. In the second half of the war, these people deserted from the German army. 3. According to German documents, as of December 18, 1942, the strength of the 6th German Army was 249,600 people. Of these, the hiwi number was 19,300 (7.7% of total). Your information about the 25% is probably taken from Anthony Beevor's book which contains a lot of false information. 4. You do not understand the main thing. For a normal person, hatred for Stalin should not turn into sympathy for Hitler. The latter means betrayal of one's country. Therefore, the words that the loyalty of Soviet citizens can be obtained if you make more effort is an insult to them. Such a view denies their patriotic feelings.
2
RifleEyez You do not understand the psychology of the Soviet people. The main reason is that you are using modern sources that distort history by creating a liberal interpretation of events. Why distort? Because the Bolsheviks were not liberals. You need to understand how they saw the world. The Bolshevik government was shaped by the civil war and the idea that terror was a necessary tool to fight for one's own rights. They made this idea part of state propaganda. The result was that ordinary people themselves began to demand increased terror against the kulaks, Trotskyists and other groups. The goal was to gain social cohesion by destroying those who violated it. The rights of the minority must be limited in the interests of the majority. Within the framework of this logic, only a minority could consider Stalin a maniac. Also in the 1930s, a new concept of Soviet patriotism was created which said that a normal communist should take the best of Russian history and improve it with the help of Marxist philosophy. The revolution does not negate Russian history, but complements it. Now it has become fashionable to be a communist. This is the vanguard of the working class. As a result, during the war, many people joined the Bolshevik Party or other communist organizations. The percentage of people with communist beliefs in the Red Army during the war ranged from 30 to 50% (according to Soviet sources). And it wasn't just the Russians. According to statistics, about 6 million Ukrainians fought on the side of the USSR against 250 thousand on the side of Germany and local nationalists. But the German propaganda films were so powerful that people now think that most Ukrainians greeted Germany as liberators.
2
In fact, all continental opponents of Germany (Poland, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, the USSR) suffered more losses than the Wehrmacht. This has nothing to do with outdated tactics. This is a consequence of the implementation of the blitzkrieg and the superiority of Germany in the number of heavy artillery shells.
2
@macjackson6071 The main topic of this discussion is your thesis that Operation Barbarossa was preventive. The number of Soviet tanks, Soviet policy in 39-41, the plans of the Red Army in 1938, as well as Romanian policy - have nothing to do with this topic. The decision to start the war is made by Hitler personally and this decision is described in meetings with generals and some other documents. It seems that you have never read this source. This means that you have not even begun to study this issue.
2
Soviet losses: Military - 8.7 million. (Krivosheev). Civil - 13.7 million.
1
You never read Stalin's articles, right?
1
It is a myth. The documents show that the level of training of the Red Army before and after the repressions was the same.
1
@peterciszewski1034 Mark Solonin is not considered a professional historian in Russia. He is politically biased in relation to the Soviet government and projects this belief into his books. In reality, the Red Army used an active defense strategy, which means a series of counter-offensives to try to seize the strategic initiative. But the Soviet government realized too late that war was inevitable (mobilization began on June 10, 1941, but the full process takes about a month). Thus, Stalin knew about the beginning of the war, but did not have time. He did not leave for the dacha. And the Soviet large losses are explained by the fact that the red army was torn into three echelons, the number of which was insufficient to stop the Germans (you do not have artillery to support the infantry and you do not have parts for equipment to support the tanks). Also, the USSR did not have military airfields near the border - this is also a myth.
1
The purpose of the purge was to prepare for war. Stalin believed that the Republicans in Spain were defeated due to large political contradictions in the rear and did not want to repeat this in the USSR.
1
Zhukov meant that the Soviet infantry must be able to independently overcome minefields, even before the arrival of sappers, so as not to give Germany time to organize defense.
1
In my country this is a long-known myth (i have only russian source). Zhukov told General Eisenhower these words and he incorrectly interpreted them and used them in his memoirs. The long wait for professional sappers gives Germany time to prepare the defense and effectively organize artillery fire, which increases the losses of their enemy. Therefore, the Soviet infantry learned to independently neutralize minefields, which reduced its losses.
1
In fact, the repression did not affect the fighting capacity of the Red Army - this is an old myth.
1
@rick7424 On the question of the purge, I have already answered in another comment, and now I will tell you about Stalin's decisions. Western countries still believe that Stalin had no military experience (in reality he was a participant in the civil war in Russia) and always made the wrong decisions, but in the case of Kiev, the situation was different: Soviet intelligence incorrectly determined that insignificant forces of Wehrmacht were moving towards Kiev. As a result, the Soviet command decided to defend the city, but when it became clear that a mistake had been made, it was already too late. Also, German documents show that the level of initiative of the Soviet commanders was higher than in the French army. The myth of low initiative was created by Russian liberals who think that people living in a totalitarian system cannot have high initiative (stereotype). The documents refute this - the red army has always used counter-attack tactics when the situation allowed it to be done. As a result, the Wehrmacht was losing the ability to continue its blitzkrieg. Source - military lectures by Alexey Isaev.
1
At the beginning of Barbarossa, Germany had 4 million man and 870 thousand of their allies against 3.2 million in the Red Army.
1
"The peculiarity of the country and the uniqueness of the character of the Russians make the campaign very specific. The first serious enemy". (Diary of Halder, July 25, 1941).
1
1. Suvorov is not a historian. His theories have long been refuted. 2. USSR never had 1 million paratroopers. Suvorov confused these people with civilians who used the parachute jump as a hobby. 3. Find any information about the tactics of "active defense".
1
The difference in the mobilization resource was not too large even before the war. Reich - 114 million people. (Within the boundaries of 1941). USSR - 196 million. Taking into account allies for the Eastern Front (Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Finland) - about 148 million. The final pre-war ratio of human resources is 1: 1.32 in favor of the USSR. By the end of 1941, about 70 million Soviet people remained under the occupation. But managed to take out about 17 million 196-70 + 17 = 143. From this number, it is necessary to subtract a minimum of 3 million irretrievable losses for 1941. In total, by the beginning of 1942 (when the war became a war of attrition), the USSR had about 140 million people. This gives the following ratio of human resources: 1.23: 1 (the USSR versus one Reich) and 1.05: 1 (Axis against the USSR). If we add the human resources of conquered Europe and parts of the USSR - the superiority of the Axis countries will become overwhelming. When Germany began a new offensive in the summer of 1942 - the maximum number of people (79 million) fell under the German occupation. This was one of the reasons for the appearance of the famous order No. 227, which explicitly states that the USSR no longer has superiority in human and agricultural resources over the enemy, so the Red Army must harden its resistance and keep the enemy from advancing to the east.
1
1. You do not know what active defense is. 2. Production of weapons in the USSR (1941-1945). Rifles and carbines - 12.139.300 Submachine guns - 6.173.900 Machine guns of all types - 1.515.900 Production of weapons in Germany (1940-1944). Rifles and carbines - 8.911.000 Submachine guns - 2.035.000 Machine guns of all types - 1.048.500
1
On November 14, 1940, analyzing the results of the talks in Berlin, Stalin said: "Hitler's position during the talks, in particular his stubborn refusal to take into account the security interests of the USSR, his categorical refusal to stop the occupation of Finland and Romania - all this indicates that in fact preparations are being made for an attack on our country". On May 5, 1941, addressing graduates of military academies, Stalin said: "We and Germany do not have friendly relations, the war with Germany is inevitable ... Germany wants to destroy our socialist state built by working people under the leadership of the Communist Party. Germany wants to destroy our great homeland , the birthplace of Lenin, the achievements of the October Revolution, to exterminate millions of Soviet people, and to turn the remaining ones into slaves. Only war with fascist Germany and victory in this war can save our homeland".
1
This is true if you use money as a criterion. However, the main military and economic objectives of Germany were on the eastern front. Thus, money is not a criterion of the economic priority of your state.
1
February 3, 1933. Berlin. The statements of the Reich Chancellor Hitler, set out before the commanders-in-chief of the ground forces and naval forces during the visit of the infantry general Baron Hammerstein-Eckvoda at his apartment. The sole aim of general policy: the regaining of political power. The whole State administration must be geared to this end (all departments!). 1. Domestic policy: Complete reversal of the present domestic political situation in Germany. Refusal to tolerate any attitude contrary to this aim (pacifism!). Those who will not be converted must be broken. Extermination of Marxism root and branch. Adjustment of youth and of the whole people to the idea that only a struggle can save us and that everything else must be subordinated to this idea. (Realized in the millions of the Nazi movement. It will grow.) Training of youth and strengthening of the will to fight with all means. Death penalty for high treason. Tightest authoritarian State leadership. Removal of the cancer of Democracy! 2. Foreign policy: Battle against Versailles. Equality of rights in Geneva; but useless if people do not have the will to fight. Concern for allies. 3. Economics: The farmer must be saved! Settlement policy! Further increase of exports useless. The capacity of the world is limited and production is forced up everywhere. The only possibility of re-employing part of the army of unemployed lies in settlement. But time is needed and radical improvement not to be expected since living space too small for German people. 4. Building up of the armed forces: Most important prerequisite for achieving the goal of regaining political power. National Service must be reintroduced. But beforehand the State leadership must ensure that the men subject to military service are not, even before their entry, poisoned by pacifism, Marxism, Bolshevism or do not fall victim to this poison after their service. How should political power be used when it has been gained? That is impossible to say yet. Perhaps fighting for new export possibilities, perhaps—and probably better—the conquest of new living space in the east and its ruthless Germanization. Certain that only through political power and struggle can the present economic circumstances be changed. The only things that can happen now—settlement—stopgap measures. Armed forces most important and most Socialist institution of the State. They must stay unpolitical and impartial. The internal struggle not their affair but that of the Nazi organizations. As opposed to Italy no fusion of Army and SA intended—most dangerous time is during the reconstruction of the Army. It will show whether or not France has statesmen: if so, she will not leave us time but will attack us (presumably with eastern satellites). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source of English translation: Jeremy Noakes and Geoffrey Pridham, eds., Nazism, 1919-1945, Vol. 3: Foreign Policy, War and Racial Extermination. Exeter: Exeter University Press, 2001, pp. 20-21. Source of original German text: Handwritten notes by General Lieutenant Liebmann. Munich, Archive of the Institute for Contemporary History, No. 167/51, fol. 39; reprinted in Thilo Vogelsang, Dokumentation: „Neue Dokumente zur Geschichte der Reichswehr 1930-1933“, Vierteljahreshefte fur Zeitgeschichte 2 (1954), Heft 4, pp. 434-35.
1
780-900k versus 1.4 million. You do not need to have a global superiority because you can create a local superiority by cutting down minor front areas.
1
On November 14, 1940, analyzing the results of the talks in Berlin, Stalin said: "Hitler's position during the talks, in particular his stubborn refusal to take into account the security interests of the USSR, his categorical refusal to stop the occupation of Finland and Romania - all this indicates that in fact preparations are being made for an attack on our country".
1
1. The Germans used new methods of warfare that allowed them to break through defenses to great depths. This is not a question of the competence of the Soviet government. 2. In one month, Germany captured about 426 thousand Soviet prisoners, not millions. 3. If your attack is successful, then your losses will be less than those of the enemy whose defense is destroyed. This is the rule, not the exception. Look at the losses of Poland and France.
1
> However, when they conquered eastern Europe, they moved their western defense towards Germany. > Instead of setting up puppet states as buffer to absorb first blows Buffer states do not have the power to fight against Germany. This means that they will be crushed by the Wehrmacht or will become German satellites and will be used against the USSR.
1
"The Fuhrer again sharply criticizes the General Staff ... The Fuhrer is right in saying ... that Stalin timely carried out this reform [purge of the Red Army Command] and therefore now enjoys its benefits. If such a reform is imposed on us today by our defeats, but then for ultimate success it is too late". (Diary of Goebbels, March 5, 1945).
1
"Soviet officers lacked plans for defensive operations, all their notes regarding the upcoming German war contained info and plans for offensive operations only" - This is the theory of the publicist Viktor Suvorov, who is not a professional historian. The pre-war plan for the defense of the USSR was developed taking into account the three defensive lines: frontline, strategic and state. The front line was determined along the western border of the USSR. Strategic - along the Western Dvina and the Dnieper The last, state line of defense was located at distant approaches to Moscow. Plus, the Red Army used tactics of active defense, so there were so many counterattacks in 1941. "secondly the Soviet Union lost several officers and generals due to Stalin's purges" - there is a video on the TIK channel dedicated to this issue. "Stalin also locked himself away, which made whatever ability they could respond with practically non-existent " - it is not true. Find any information about the journal of visits to Stalin's study. It is available in Russian. "only at Stalingrad were men without guns sent in" - myth.
1
This does not explain the large losses of Poland and France.
1
1. The theory of a preventive war has long been refuted. It is supposed to justify German aggression. To shift responsibility from the aggressor to the victim. All the rhetoric about poor german preparation is aimed at this. 2. The Germans were successful at the beginning of the campaign not because of Soviet tactics, but because the Soviet divisions did not complete their deployment at the border and as a result were stretched out along the front beyond the statutory norms. 3. The Germans had a lot of horses, but they also had more trucks than the USSR. 4. Communism is an ideology, not a state. You can destroy the USSR, but communism as an ideology will survive. The Cold War is the result of the fact that there are countries in the world that do not want to have a unipolar world order.
1
Show me a soviet document that aims to attack Germany in 1941.
1
Occupation means that the region must be controlled by a military administration. This was in Europe only for a short period after the war.
1
@dreamdiction seized power and occupation isnt the same thing. After collapse ussr local nanionalist in europe rewrite history and create myth about occupation.
1
@dreamdiction This topic is about the occupation of Europe, not about your stereotypes about communism.
1
@dreamdiction Here are my thoughts. You are confusing fact with interpretation. For example, the Berlin Wall is a fact, and the fact that its purpose was to prevent people from going west is your interpretation. German documents do not contain such a purpose. The goal of the Berlin Wall was to improve the quality of border controls and reduce foreign provocations. You also confuse the values of different ideologies. For example, when you say that the USSR punished people by placing them in the gulag, then you mean that it was the wrong policy. But among ideologies, only liberalism prohibits violence as a policy, while pragmatism tells us to use any means to achieve own goal. The communist ideology tells us that we need to restrict the activities of the exploiting classes (the minority) so that the rights of the majority are protected. And liberalism says that any restriction is evil. This is a different worldview. During the Second World War, countries with different political systems became allies. But contrary to myths, the Soviet system did not deny democracy, but used it in a different sense (social freedom in the USSR vs personal freedom in the West). If you read the discussion in the Soviet government and in the German one, you will see that the USSR adheres to the principle of democratic centralism, while Hitler considers democracy to be a disease that morally corrupts your nation. This is one of the reasons why the USSR and the West became allies, and Nazism as an ideology was condemned in Nuremberg. Because Nazism is an ideology that spreads hatred towards other peoples, and Soviet communism is the idea of equality of all nations. The fact that the USSR was a dictatorship in the era of Stalinism does not mean that it denied democracy because the dictatorship was a form of defense of the Soviet version of democracy. The dictatorship of the interests of the majority over the minority. Western liberalism destroyed the idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat in communism and created a non-violent version of cultural Marxism. Therefore, it is unprofitable for Western civilization to completely condemn communism (only violence in it) because such an action would mean a rejection of democratic values.
1
@dreamdiction You have not yet been able to prove that my words are incorrect. You cannot use an argument so far it hasn’t been proven. Also, you say that my words are nonsense, but probably this is just a reaction of your anti-communist stereotypes to neutral information.
1
@dreamdiction It's funny how the person who said that I am a Soviet Jew (this is Nazi rhetoric) now condemns imperialism. At the very least, you need to prove it. For example, one of the hallmarks of imperialism is the creation of privileges for the metropolis through the exploitation of the colonies. Can you show me which regions in the USSR were the metropolis and colonies? Can you quote the Soviet constitution which proves that the western Soviet regions (for example the Baltic) had fewer civil rights than ethnic Russians? I think that you cannot because besides anti-communist stereotypes you have not a single argument.
1
@dreamdiction Because for a normal person there is no connection between communism and Jews. The opposite can only be argued by a convinced Nazi. In any case, you could not prove that the USSR was an imperialist state - not a single document or evidence. When you said "these are only words," then you talked about yourself. A normal person first proves his thesis and only then uses it as an argument.
1
@dreamdiction Are you serious? The idea of a world revolution was created by Marx and Engels, and then used by Lenin. This idea suggests that the capitalist system strongly binds different states into a single economic market, and when a crisis moment comes, this has a social impact on other states. Then the working class, seeing the successes of the socialist revolution in Russia, will want to do the same in own countries. Lenin used this idea to free the European proletariat from the oppression of the capitalist system. In fact, this is a struggle for social freedom from the economic exploitation of the minority , that is, anti-imperialism. Why did you call it imperialism? You couldn't even name a scientific definition of imperialism and occupation. Lenin even wrote a book about this - "Capitalism as the Highest Stage of Imperialism." Have you read it? If not, why are you talking about what you have no idea about? Because even if you disagree with this book, then you need normal arguments to refute it. You even contradict yourself. For example, you say that Russia was a successful country before the revolution. This means that you agree with the fact that Russian imperialism considers the territories of Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic to be part of its empire. In this case, you consider it a "successful country", and when the Bolsheviks want to regain control over the old territories (not politics), then you condemn it as imperialism. You cannot even quote a single document that shows that the Soviet government has personal control over the means of production and is enriched by this. You call it an oligarchy, but you cannot prove it properly using primary sources.
1
@dreamdiction First, I'm not even a communist. My political views between liberalism and social democracy. But I don't like it when people distort history just because they are anti-communists. Normal people know that personal enmity should not interfere with an objective understanding of the historical process. Secondly, I not need to defend communism - just open the books of Marx and the works of Lenin (primary source) and see in what context they use the term "world revolution". And then compare with what you said about it. Third, you are again talking about Soviet imperialism and exploitation, although you have not yet proved it. You cannot ignore the basic logic and use the thesis as an argument until it not proven. The fact that you repeat your thesis over and over again is not proof of its correctness. Also, you completely ignore my criticism, and it says that you are not interested in the search for truth, but in the repetition of theses from the right-wing literature. But this literature has nothing to do with the politics of the USSR. Normal people do not ignore criticism and study history based on primary sources.
1
@dreamdiction You have not provided scientific definitions for the terms invasion, colonization, imperialism and oligarchy. You cannot give facts that I can check for reliability. You have already been caught in a lie when you said that the idea of a world revolution is part of imperialism, but it is enough to open the works of Mark or Lenin (the primary source) to be convinced of the opposite. Moreover, you used the term "totalitarian" in a negative light, but its author is Mussolini, and if you open his book "The Doctrine of Fascism", you can understand that he uses totalitarianism as a positive alternative for democracy. And if you compare Mussolini's book with the Soviet constitution, it becomes clear that the USSR was not a totalitarian state. You see? I give you sources that can be verified for reliability, and you give me nothing, except your anti-communist stereotypes.
1
> Russia’s only tactic for slowing down the German offensive was sending in droves of men who were under-equipped and supplied Try to quote any soviet order that has such a goal.
1
1. You did not quote Soviet orders that have a goal of suicide attacks. Your Smolensk example was supposed to show this, but there was a large encirclement of the Soviet armies. This has nothing to do with Soviet military tactics. 2. Germany had 4 million people against the USSR. If we take into account the personnel of the Luftwaffe and kriegsmarine. 3. Find the TIK channel and watch the video about the eastern front on it. 4. "The Fuhrer again sharply criticizes the General Staff ... The Fuhrer is right in saying ... that Stalin timely carried out this reform [purge of the Red Army Command] and therefore now enjoys its benefits. If such a reform is imposed on us today by our defeats, but then for ultimate success it is too late". (Diary of Goebbels, March 5, 1945).
1
This is called Nazi stereotypes about racial superiority. If you use stereotypes and rumors as evidence of suicidal attacks instead of real documents, then this is not a scientific method of research.
1
Three factors for casualties: large surroundings, more artillery shells (wehrmacht) and the nazi policy.
1
Can you quote any soviet order that shows that Stalin did not care about his people?
1
В чем провал ркка? У границы было 128 немецких дивизий против 56 советских. При таком соотношении сил немцы разумеется выиграли приграничное сражение и начали развивать свой успех далее. Если уж говорить о провале, то это неточные данные советской разведки.
1
This is an old myth.
1
@rick7424 You have outdated data. What is Glantz referring to? In any case, this is a secondary source of information. Because Soviet documents (primary source) show that only 8,122 officers were arrested during the purge for political reasons and 9,859 were dismissed from the army for other reasons (figures include partial rehabilitation in the period 38-39). Your data is also incorrect regarding the number of the total number of officers in the Red Army - in reality, in March 1937 the Red Army had 206 thousand officers, and in June 1941 - 439k. Source - Игорь Пыхалов, великая оболганная война, стр 35-52 (издание 2015г). The documents also show that the level of training of the Red Army before and after the purge was the same, and the first period of the war with Finland had planning errors, not a consequence of the purge. Also, the purpose of the purge was Stalin's desire to take into account the mistakes of the republican government in Spain, which allowed political and social instability in their rear during the civil war. This purge did not affect the quality of the Red Army, but perhaps Soviet society became more monolithic because criminals and anti-Soviet elements were removed from it. But the head of the NKVD Yezhov exceeded his powers during purge and therefore was replaced by Beria. After that 280k people were rehabilitated in 39-40. Sources: Виктор земсков - Ложь под видом статистики. Об одной публикации в журнале «Социологические исследования». Журнал Столица. Андрей Смирнов - обезглавил ли Сталин красную армию? Издание 2011г.
1
Turn to Kiev? It was originally provided for in the Barbarossa plan.
1
No, the turn to the south in 1942 is the struggle for resources that is most important in the war of attrition. If your new offensive to Moscow fails, you will not have / will have less resources than if you seize Ukraine and the Caucasus.
1
Do you think you know the situation better than the Germans themselves in 1942? I do not consider them idiots. They chose a logical solution. Your attempt to blame one man for failing (Hitler) is a form of rehabilitating Nazism. Why? Because your logic says that if they chose another option - they could win the war (you are promoting the theory of "Hitler idiot", thus removing the collective responsibility of others for the military-economic failure of the struggle in the east). However, you do not know for sure. And you do not see that the role of personality in history is a subjective factor, while war is the sum of objective and subjective factors.
1
1. Find the TIK channel and watch the video "The MAIN Reason Why Germany Lost WW2." I believe that despite the fact that the author is somewhat exaggerating problems in Germany, nevertheless her amount of fuel was for a bottleneck for its army and economy (as well as aluminum for the USSR). 2. In late May 1945, US presidential adviser Harry Hopkins, in a conversation with Stalin, said: "... we never believed that our Lend-Lease assistance was the main factor in the Soviet victory over Hitler on the Eastern Front. It was achieved by the heroism and blood of the Russian army." In the report of the US President to Congress on the implementation of the Lend-Lease program until March 31, 1945, it was pointed out that the Soviet armies were supplied mainly with Soviet weapons and materials.
1
1. I use the video as an argument for those people who do not have time to study the books and documents in the original. I don't need this because I know the basic facts. However, I do not know what my opponent knows. 2. Your stereotypes about the USSR are your problems. They are not related to the issue under discussion. 3. We just can not know what will happen to the USSR if Moscow is captured by Germany. What we know for sure - it will be weakened. However, you make a global conclusion based on a simple assumption. This is not a scientific method. In reality, the USSR has built a whole industrial empire beyond the Urals. The weakening of soviet logistics does not guarantee its military defeat. 4. Western aid for the USSR is only a bonus in relation to Soviet economic efforts. Remove the Red Army and Soviet workers from this equation and there will be no one to use these weapons / materials. Here are the details for Lend-Lease. The percentage of allied aid from Soviet production. Tanks - 12.3% Planes - 13%. Artillery - 2.7% Ships - 22.4% Infantry weapon - 0.75% Food (grain) - 2.8% Self-propelled artillery - 7.8% Anti-aircraft guns - 21% Antitank guns - 9% Automobile gasoline - 2.7% Aviation fuel - 40% Railway rails - 36% Steam locomotives - 72% Explosives - 36.6% Aluminum - 55% Copper - 45% Tires - 30% Sugar - 29.5% Cotton - 6% Industrial machine tools - 24% The percentage of imported cars in the Red Army: 22.6.41 - 0% 1.1.42 - 0,1% 1.1.43 - 5.4% 1.1.44 - 19% 1,1,45 - 30,4% 1.5.45 - 32.8% Percentage of total US assistance (100%) for the USSR by periods. 1941 - 2.1% 1942 - 14% 1943 - 27.4% 1944 - 35.5% 1945 - 21%
1
1. You can not use the thesis of the constant lies of the soviet government as proven until you prove it. While I do not even understand in what context you use it. 2. For the entire period of the war, the Allies delivered 4.5 million tons of food to USSR. For comparison - the volume of grain harvest in the USSR was: 1941 - 55.9 million tons. 1942 - 29.7 million tons. 1943 - 29.4 million tons. 1944 - 49.1 million tons. 1945 - 47.3 million tons. Total - 211.4 million tons. Thus, a direct percentage of allied assistance is 2.2% of the volume of the soviet harvest. However, allied canned food was food concentrates so these data should be increased, but as far as - unknown. But even if we increase their share on two or three times, their percentage will still not exceed 10% of the soviet harvest. 3. Nobody argues that the loss of Moscow and Leningrad for the USSR would worsen his logistics. But you say that this means the automatic collapse of the USSR. However, this is only your assumption that we can not check in real life. Only theory. China also had a weak logistics and industry, but its front did not collapse. 4. You yourself said that Stalin asked the allies to open a second front. But then you said that Hitler made a classic mistake - he started the war on two fronts. So Germany fought with two fronts or not (1941-1943)? My opinion is no. Just look at the forces they used in Africa (periphery theater) and in the west. This is less than 40 German divisions that Stalin asked to "distract" from the eastern front. This is also the reason why the Italian front cannot be considered a real second front. It seems you are making another mistake. Do you think that Hitler moved a lot of forces to the west and this relieved the pressure on the USSR. This is true but it happened only in the second half of 1943 (land army) and at the end of 1941 (aviation). Both of these dates were after the Barbarossa plan failed. That is, at first was the defeat of the plan of Barbarossa, and only later - the movement of forces to the west.
1
"The Fuhrer again sharply criticizes the General Staff ... The Fuhrer is right in saying ... that Stalin timely carried out this reform [purge of the Red Army Command] and therefore now enjoys its benefits. If such a reform is imposed on us today by our defeats, but then for ultimate success it is too late". (Diary of Goebbels, March 5, 1945).
1
"The Fuhrer again sharply criticizes the General Staff ... The Fuhrer is right in saying ... that Stalin timely carried out this reform [purge of the Red Army Command] and therefore now enjoys its benefits. If such a reform is imposed on us today by our defeats, but then for ultimate success it is too late". (Diary of Goebbels, March 5, 1945).
1
The main feature of modern Russophobia is the thesis that "Russia has no right to protect its national interests." If she do it, then the West considers her as criminal. But no one appointed him to the role of judge.
1
Find information about an active defense strategy.
1
Do you seriously compare the naval power of Britain, which can evacuate its soldiers and the battle for Kiev? Are you seriously compare the Soviet Air Force with the Birtan Air Force which was 80% obsolete?
1
1. Throughout 1941, Germany had a numerical advantage over the USSR on the eastern front. She also had an advantage in mobility. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Soviet armies were surrounded in Kiev. 2. As I said, British planes were not as obsolete as Soviet ones. Plus, some Soviet aircraft were destroyed on the ground at the beginning of the campaign.
1
1. The Wehrmacht had numerical superiority at the beginning of the war on the eastern front and retained it until the beginning of 1942. 2. Germany had 610 thousand cars and 625 thousand horses.
1
1. The balance of power is determined by the number of people, not technology, which is just a tool in the hands of man. 2. Show me any period of 1941 where the USSR has numerical superiority at the front. 3. At the beginning of the war, the Axis had 5 million people against 3.8 in the USSR. At the beginning of 1942, the Axis had 5.1 million against 4.9 million in the USSR. The USSR more actively used its reinforcements, but during 1941 it did not have a numerical advantage.
1
1. The Soviets more actively used replenishment for their divisions, but the losses were so high that the total Soviet strength did not exceed the size of the Axis throughout 1941. 2. You are mistaken because you are using incomplete data. In June 1941, the Wehrmacht had in the east: ground forces - 3.3 million Luftwaffe - 650 thousand kriegsmarine - 100 thousand In total - 4.050.000 plus 1 million allies. Your data do not include Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine staff and may not include SS.
1
The second front for Germany is considered only the land front in Europe, which fights at least 40 German divisions. Africa is the periphery. War in the air and at sea is the restraining operation of Germany.
1
@macjackson6071 Are you saying that historians are subject to propaganda only in Russia? It seems similar to the theory of national exceptionalism.
1
> Grand Soviet Strategy: Throw in just enough cannon fodder Now try to find any soviet order that has such a goal.
1
Vlad79500 Где можно найти информацию о письме Гитлера к Муссолини от 28 октября 1941 ?
1
Suvorov is not a historian. He gives false information.
1
You write absurdity about Stalin.
1
It is not true. Victor Suvorov is not a professional historian.
1
Germany used a new strategy of war - blitzkrieg. This means that if the strategy is successful, then your army loses many soldiers as prisoners. It has nothing to do with political motivation. Most Soviet people (as well as other nations) are patriots of their country, and your message denies their patriotism under the influence of anti-Soviet propaganda.
1
@objectivistathlete You have terrible knowledge of history. 1. Soviet Russia lost the battle for Warsaw because there was a parallel civil war in Russia and the Red Army did not have enough strength to strengthen its flanks. 2. The USSR won the winter war against Finland. And the second war too. 3. Just take the number of killed and captured Poles in the war against Germany and compare with Soviet soldiers. And you will see that Poland lost more soldiers as prisoners, but never says that the Polish soldiers did not want to defend their government. No one just needs to engage in such primitive propaganda as you do. You should be ashamed of your primitive nationalism.
1
Of course, after all, the Soviet regime can never be good according to the logic of the Western imperialists. Good only Gorbachev and Yeltsin are the people who weakened Russia. All who made Russia stronger are a priori bad.
1
To create a strong line of defense throughout the eastern front requires 8-9 million people. The USSR had a maximum of 6.5 million during the war. In June 1941, it had 3.2 million. This means that an active defense strategy (counterattack) was the only possible option for the Red Army, given limited forces.
1
In late May 1945, US presidential adviser Harry Hopkins, in a conversation with Stalin, said: "... we never believed that our Lend-Lease assistance was the main factor in the Soviet victory over Hitler on the Eastern Front. It was achieved by the heroism and blood of the Russian army. "In the report of the US President to Congress on the implementation of the Lend-Lease program until March 31, 1945, it was pointed out that the Soviet armies were supplied mainly with Soviet weapons and materials.
1
Please quote any Soviet document that sets out the task of "killing Christians".
1
> толпы людей были приказаны бежать стенкой против Немцев без оружия. Ну-ка процитируй этот приказ.
1
Болтун. Тебя публично поймали на вранье. Вместо конкретных документов продолжаешь рассказывать "офигительные" истории.
1
Доказательством являются документы и приказы потому что любое государство опирается на них. Рассказы человека не являются доказательством потому что проверить их невозможно. Это знает любой НОРМАЛЬНЫЙ человек. И только дураки как всегда не в курсе. Продолжают распространять непроверенную информацию и очернять историю собственной страны. При этом имеют наглость считать себя нормальными людьми.
1
Fake info.
1
"What about the war plans to conquer Germany?" - show this plan.
1
There is no such plan. You are spreading false information. If you think I'm wrong, just name this plan - name, number, date, author.
1
You never show me document like this. February 3, 1933. Berlin. The statements of the Reich Chancellor Hitler, set out before the commanders-in-chief of the ground forces and naval forces during the visit of the infantry general Baron Hammerstein-Eckvoda at his apartment. The sole aim of general policy: the regaining of political power. The whole State administration must be geared to this end (all departments!). 1. Domestic policy: Complete reversal of the present domestic political situation in Germany. Refusal to tolerate any attitude contrary to this aim (pacifism!). Those who will not be converted must be broken. Extermination of Marxism root and branch. Adjustment of youth and of the whole people to the idea that only a struggle can save us and that everything else must be subordinated to this idea. (Realized in the millions of the Nazi movement. It will grow.) Training of youth and strengthening of the will to fight with all means. Death penalty for high treason. Tightest authoritarian State leadership. Removal of the cancer of Democracy! 2. Foreign policy: Battle against Versailles. Equality of rights in Geneva; but useless if people do not have the will to fight. Concern for allies. 3. Economics: The farmer must be saved! Settlement policy! Further increase of exports useless. The capacity of the world is limited and production is forced up everywhere. The only possibility of re-employing part of the army of unemployed lies in settlement. But time is needed and radical improvement not to be expected since living space too small for German people. 4. Building up of the armed forces: Most important prerequisite for achieving the goal of regaining political power. National Service must be reintroduced. But beforehand the State leadership must ensure that the men subject to military service are not, even before their entry, poisoned by pacifism, Marxism, Bolshevism or do not fall victim to this poison after their service. How should political power be used when it has been gained? That is impossible to say yet. Perhaps fighting for new export possibilities, perhaps—and probably better—the conquest of new living space in the east and its ruthless Germanization. Certain that only through political power and struggle can the present economic circumstances be changed. The only things that can happen now—settlement—stopgap measures. Armed forces most important and most Socialist institution of the State. They must stay unpolitical and impartial. The internal struggle not their affair but that of the Nazi organizations. As opposed to Italy no fusion of Army and SA intended—most dangerous time is during the reconstruction of the Army. It will show whether or not France has statesmen: if so, she will not leave us time but will attack us (presumably with eastern satellites). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source of English translation: Jeremy Noakes and Geoffrey Pridham, eds., Nazism, 1919-1945, Vol. 3: Foreign Policy, War and Racial Extermination. Exeter: Exeter University Press, 2001, pp. 20-21. Source of original German text: Handwritten notes by General Lieutenant Liebmann. Munich, Archive of the Institute for Contemporary History, No. 167/51, fol. 39; reprinted in Thilo Vogelsang, Dokumentation: „Neue Dokumente zur Geschichte der Reichswehr 1930-1933“, Vierteljahreshefte fur Zeitgeschichte 2 (1954), Heft 4, pp. 434-35.
1
You just became a victim of propaganda. The revisionist story that Operation Barbarossa was preventive and Germany a victim. You need to learn to distinguish conspiracy theories from the scientific point of view. In fact, all your argumnets have long been refuted by professional historians.
1
Poland and France showed a different result, right?
1
1. Germany had sub-caliber shells that could destroy the T-34. 2. Soviet unpreparedness was expressed in incomplete mobilization, which means that the Red Army did not have rear organizations.
1
What Soviet order has such a goal?
1
"The problem was a lack of will to fight and hatred toward the Soviet regime" - fake info. "That is what cause these colossal losses of 1941" - All continental nations that fell victim to German aggression suffered heavy losses. It’s just that your sources of information are unreliable.
1
DeutschwehR There is order 227 (forbidden to retreat) and there is order 270 (it is forbidden to surrender). There is no order 277. These two orders have nothing to do with large losses. They have to do with strengthening the morale of an army that is in crisis due to the collapse of the front.
1
DeutschwehR "Run into the enemy Mg and when you run back you get shot by your own comrades" - you were deceived. The text of these two orders does not contain such goals. This is propaganda from a Hollywood movie. "I know tales from german soldiers and they say that they only go backwarts because they run out of ammunition" - this is Nazi propaganda. They say this to save their egos after they have lost the war to "subhumans". In reality, Germany had over 16 billion bullets for infantry weapons. Plus artillery, etc. "The russians step over corpses of his comrades again and again with the same suicide tactic" - find the text of these two orders (227 and 270) and read them. You will see that what you are saying is a stupid myth.
1
DeutschwehR You are spreading false information about the war on the eastern front and about the history of the Russian revolution. These are two Nazi myths. The first myth about order 227 allows you to feel morally superior despite the military defeat from the Soviet army. You cannot say that the Wehrmacht was defeated in equal fight, so you need to say that the USSR used "the wrong tactics" or had an infinite supply of weapons (these two theses contradict each other). The second myth about the Russian revolution should justify the invasion of the USSR and the German terror "because this is not a conquest but the liberation of Russia from Bolshevism." You should be ashamed that instead of studying the original Soviet documents, you are using such primitive myths. You have not yet read the text of Soviet orders and I am sure that you have never read the books of Lenin or Stalin to talk about the revolution in Russia. Shame.
1
@DeutschwehR Cite the text of soviet order number 227, which has the goal of "use suicidal offensive tactics on german machine guns". I mean original text in russian.
1
@DeutschwehR I asked you to quote an excerpt from the Soviet order, which aims to use suicidal tactics. You haven't done that.
1
DeutschwehR 1. Soviet orders No. 270 and No. 227 appeared when the Red Army was in strategic defense (!!!). Thus, it has nothing to do with attacks on German positions. You're a liar. You have never read the text of these two orders. 2. Germany planned to kill Soviet prisoners of war and civilians by starvation even before the start of the war. This has long been proven by historical research. Germany signed the Geneva Convention and its rules stated that the party that signed it (Germany) must comply with its rules regardless of the positions of other countries (USSR). But this was not done because for Hitler, the war in the east was a war of annihilation, not a struggle to free Russia from Bolshevism as modern neo-Nazis say. You don't know the history of your own country.
1
@DeutschwehR 1. You lied about the content of the soviet orders. 2. "We are a people of masters and must rule toughly and fairly. I will take every last thing out of this country. We must realize that the smallest German worker is racially and biologically a thousand times superior to the local population." Hans-Erich Volkmann (Hrsg.), Das Russlandbild im Dritten Reich, Koln 1994, p. 43. 3. Hitler speech to generals, february 1933. "How should political power be used when it has been gained? That is impossible to say yet. Perhaps fighting for new export possibilities, perhaps—and probably better—the conquest of new living space in the east and its ruthless Germanization". Source: handwritten notes by General Lieutenant Liebmann. Munich, Archive of the Institute for Contemporary History, No. 167/51, fol. 39; reprinted in Thilo Vogelsang, Dokumentation: „Neue Dokumente zur Geschichte der Reichswehr 1930-1933“, Vierteljahreshefte fur Zeitgeschichte 2 (1954), Heft 4, pp. 434-35.
1
1. German expertise in 1996 concluded that Ilya Ehrenburg never called the Red Army to violence against women. This myth was created by Nazi propaganda in 1944. They tried to make themselves a victim in this war and show that the red army is barbarians. 2. If you cannot read Russian, then you always have the opportunity to use "google translate". 3. Numerous sources confirm that Hitler wanted to get living space on the territory of Poland and the USSR. It takes a war to get it. Hitler was not afraid to run the risk of a major war. He was never a pacifist. He thought that life belongs to strong nations and fighting is the normal solution to economic problems. 4. In fact, Soviet losses are not unique. Check out the statistics. France in 1940 lost 2.3 times more soldiers (killed without prisoners) than the Wehrmacht. The Red Army in 1941 lost 3 times more soldiers. Poland in 1939 lost 4.4 times more soldiers. Yugoslavia lost 5 times more soldiers. Did they all use suicidal tactics? No, it's just that the Wehrmacht had more ammunition for artillery (this is the main thing) and a better military organization. The weaker the economy of the state, the higher the losses because the difference in military capabilities matters.
1
1. In this article, Ehrenburg cites German letters where German soldiers say how they mocked the Slavic population. Ehrenburg concludes that there is a war of annihilation and that in such a war the German ceases to be just an enemy - if you do not kill a German soldier, he will kill you. This article is simply a reflection of the war of destruction. It contains no calls to oppose the German civilian population. 2. The war in Europe began at the initiative of Germany - that's a fact. There are numerous documents that support this. For example the Hossbach protocol. Nazi propaganda tries to show that Germany was the victim of this war, not the aggressor. 3. The Soviet orders you are talking about do not contain suicidal tactics - that's a fact. You are talking about something that does not exist. When the red army was on the defensive (1941-1942), its losses were greater (2.5-3 to 1), and when it advanced (1944-1945), the losses on the front between it and the Wehrmacht were close to 1-1.5 to 1. This is a proven fact. I specifically quoted the losses of the different armies to you so that you could compare different campaigns, but you just ignored it and said that there was a different tactic here. But Soviet orders do not contain suicide tactics - this is a Nazi myth. During the entire war, 135 thousand soldiers of the Red Army were sentenced to death. The mobilization potential of the USSR was more than 34 million people. These people were sentenced to death for a variety of reasons, not mythical suicidal tactics. If you look at the Soviet losses in this war (7.3 million in the red army against 3.8 million Axis soldiers), you will see that 135 thousand executed people cannot change the picture much. Thus, Soviet orders have nothing to do with the difference in the number of Soviet losses. If you carefully read the text of order number 227, you would see that the retreat ban was first used by the German army (!) during the battle for Moscow. The Soviet command decided to use the German experience. By the way, about 20 thousand people were also sentenced to death in the Wehrmacht. 4. Germany had 1.6 million people against Poland, which had 850 thousand. Against France, Germany had 3.3 million on each side (parity). In the war against the USSR, the Axis armies had 5 million people against 3.8 million in the red army. Numerical superiority on the eastern front remained until December 1941. But Nazi myths tell you that the Wehrmacht always fought outnumbered — that's a lie. The number of tanks and aircraft does not play a big role because the Red Army had a different concept of using technology.
1
And another important point. You do not understand how the execution of the death sentence takes place. Propaganda tells you that the NKVD simply shoots its soldiers in the back, but in reality, if the soldier has panic, the NKVD stops the panic and returns the soldier to the front (the majority). If a soldier has committed a serious crime, then he can be sentenced to death (minority), but only by a military tribunal that is not on the front line, but behind it. Statistics show that most of the soldiers were simply returned to the front lines (in defense, not to suicide attack as propaganda says). In this case, the NKVD is playing the role of military police. Document nkvd about the fighting in the area of Stalingrad. From August 1 to October 15, 1942, 140,755 people were detained by block detachments. Of them: - Arrested - 3.980 or (2.8%) - Shooted - 1.189 or (0.85%) - Sent to penalty battalions - 2.961 or (2.1%) - Returned to the front - 131.094 or (93.2%).
1
If a person avoids alternative information, then with a high degree of probability he himself is a victim of propaganda. A real historian is obliged to study information even if he does not like its source.
1
@macjackson6071 The question here is not which regime was good, but what was Hitler's motivation for attacking the USSR. Among all sources of information, the most reliable are the materials of Hitler's meetings with generals. Have you ever read them? It seems that you haven't. Because if you had, you would never have said the stupid thing that the reason for Barbarossa was fear for Romanian oil (which made up 21% of Germany's fuel balance in 1940, not 100%).
1
@macjackson6071 1. The losses of the Red Army are not related to the nature of Operation Barbarossa. 2. Lenin's plans are not related to Operation Barbarossa. 3. Science establishes facts, and does not evaluate political regimes. 4. The correctness of information is not determined by whether the government pays the historian or not. 5. A normal researcher studies the issue in detail, and does not "look for a simple answer to my question" as you do. 6. All major countries in Europe, including France, the USSR and Poland, had offensive plans. But this does not mean that they were preparing aggression against Germany. 7. There are no documents proving that Hitler developed Barbarossa as a preventive plan. There is also no discussion on this topic among professional historians (any, not only Russian ones) because the truth has long been established.
1
@macjackson6071 1. The military losses have nothing to do with the nature of Operation Barbarossa. This is done by documents on the chronology of the development of these plans. 2. The plans of the Red Army do not include anything about the "conquest of Europe". They are offensive in nature, but this nature was not supported by a political plan that made them a plan of aggression. 3. The percentage of Soviet spending on the military sector fluctuated from 8.3% in 1937 to 22.1% in 1941. Your thesis that Stalin spent all the country's resources on the military sector is not not confirmed. 4. The start of the development of plans for Operation Barbarossa coincided with the Romanian crisis. But German documents contain no evidence that Barbarossa was somehow connected with this crisis. 5. At one of the meetings with the generals, Hitler says that if England and France conclude a military alliance with the USSR, the first German strike will be in the West. That is, the absence of the Molotov Pact did not prevent the war in Europe, but simply changed its scenario. Surprise.
1
You have repeated so many old myths. 1. The repressions did not affect the quality of the Red Army. 2. The famine was not caused by the government. 3. For the entire time of the Great Terror, 680 thousand people were sentenced to death, not 20 million. 4. You will not be able to quote a single Soviet order that has the goal of killing your soldiers after they retreat. 5. Zhukov's quote about minefields is the result of an incorrect translation. In the original, he says that the Red Army should be able to defuse mines even before the arrival of professional sappers so that the Wehrmacht does not have time to correct its artillery
1
@Korvintage64 and of course you dont refute my theses with documents. It is you victim of propaganda, not me.
1
@Korvintage64 These are only your words that are not supported by any documentary evidence. You must provide proof of your theses or apologize for misinformation.
1
@Korvintage64 Links are unavailable for viewing because YouTube is blocking them as spam. You can try to name a Soviet document that confirms that Stalin sentenced 20 million people to death. I know Russian and will find original. But since I know the real scale of the repressions, then of course you will never name the documents (the primary source), just give me an interpretation of Western historians or Russian exiles. You must understand that science studies history primarily with the help of primary sources, and not the interpretation of random persons.
1
@Korvintage64 Only the person who created the message sees his link, but the companion does not. This works for all countries, not just Russia. These are the algorithms of YouTube. You say that you are a scientist, but you still have not given me the name of the Soviet documents that confirm your theses. You say that totalitarian regimes destroy evidence in order to have the moral right to speak any unproven information. So I expect from you the name of the documents, not the links.
1
@Korvintage64 On the one hand, you say that the documentary evidence of crimes has been destroyed (there is no confirmation for this thesis), and on the other hand, you say that the number of those sentenced to death by Stalin (20 million) has long been established. You should be ashamed of such propaganda, especially if you are a scientist. If you don't stop spreading false information, your students and colleagues will be victims of your mistakes.
1
@aodh5966 You know Soviet history poorly and repeat Finnish propaganda.
1
@aodh5966 The tactics of the Red Army should be studied with the help of Soviet documents, and not Finnish evidence that is prone to demonization. The army of any country suffers heavy losses if it is surrounded or after an unsuccessful attack on the fortifications. All people who study history know this. And speaking of real life, the Red Army has always had more infantry weapons than the Wehrmacht. Just find the statistics for the production of weapons. All these stories about unarmed soldiers are German propaganda.
1