Comments by "Андрей Борцов" (@Mentol_) on "TimeGhost History" channel.

1. Demonization of the history of Russian communism is on your side. 2. I will give you the opinion of the German generals about the Soviet army in a separate report. 3. You are not looking for rational factors. The United States never took part in the war for the survival of its people like the USSR or Germany. The great Soviet and German losses are not an indication that the Soviet army is fighting poorly, but an indicator of the great intensity of the war + the killing of Soviet prisoners of war in German captivity (racial policy). Do not let your anti-Soviet stereotypes take hold of your mind. Rationalization prevents this.
1
Here are a opinion about red army from the German generals and politicians: - "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). - "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). - "On the Eastern Front: the fighting continues. Strong and desperate resistance of the enemy ... The enemy has many dead, few wounded and captured ... In general, very heavy fights are taking place. On the "walk" is out of the question. The Red Regime mobilized the people. To this is added the fabulous stubbornness of the Russians. Our soldiers are barely able to cope. But until now everything is going according to plan. The situation is not critical, but serious and requires all effort". (Diary of Goebbels). - "The Russians have proven themselves to be skillful, hardy and fearless soldiers, crushing our old prejudices about racial superiority". (Metelman G. Through Hell ... P.288, 294). - "The new generation in Russia possessed strength and courage ... They often acted mechanically, like robots ... These people believed their power and submitted to it." (Wolfsinger V., "The Merciless Massacre ..." p 99, 100). - Colonel-General von Kleist: "From the very beginning the Russians showed themselves as first-class warriors, and our successes in the first months of the war were explained simply by the best preparation. Having gained combat experience, they became first-class soldiers. They fought with exceptional perseverance, had astounding endurance and could withstand the most intense battles" - (Liddell-Garth B. "Battle of the Third Reich" ... p. 265). - General Blumenthrit: "We were confronted by an army that by its fighting qualities was far superior to all other armies we had ever met on the battlefield ... The Red Army of 1941-1945. was a much stronger opponent than the tsarist army, for she selflessly fought for the idea. This strengthened the resilience of Soviet soldiers. Discipline in the Red Army was also observed more clearly than in the tsarist army. They know how to defend themselves and stand to death. Attempts to overcome them cost a lot of our blood". (Liddell-Garth B. "They know how to defend themselves ...", p. 382; "The Battle of the Third Reich ..." P. 271-272). - "The information from the front confirms that the Russians are everywhere fighting to the last man ... It is striking that few people are surrendering to captivity when capturing artillery batteries, etc." - (Diary of Frans Halder, June 29 +July 4, 1941). - "Russian soldiers and junior commanders are very brave in battle, even a single small unit always accepts an attack. In this regard, one should not allow human treatment of prisoners. Destruction of the enemy by fire or cold steel must continue until the enemy becomes safe ... Fanaticism and contempt for death make the Russians as adversaries, the destruction of which is compulsory ... ". From the command of the 60th Motorized Infantry Division. - "The Soviet government in the rear of the enemy organized the struggle of 6,200 partisan detachments with a membership of up to 1 million. The fight against partisan detachments was a monstrous reality ... in July 1943, 1560 railways were blown up in Russia, in September - 2600. That is, 90 per day". (Justus G. "Alfred Jodl is a soldier without fear and reproach. chief of the OKW of Germany ", p.97). - "The Party and its organs have tremendous influence in the Red Army. Almost all commissars are residents of cities and people from the working class. Their courage borders on recklessness; these people are very smart and determined. They managed to create in the Russian army what it lacked in the First World War - iron discipline. A similar military discipline, which I do not know for pity - which, I am sure, could not be sustained by any other army - turned the unorganized crowd into an unusually powerful weapon of war. Discipline is the main trump card of communism, the driving force of the army. It was also a decisive factor in achieving the enormous political and military successes of Stalin ... Russian remains a good soldier everywhere and under any conditions". (From the book of General Friedrich von Mellenthin "Tank Battle: 1939-1945"). - "The Party's political work sharply strengthened the fighting efficiency of the Red Army. Meetings of the members of the CPSU (b) were held regularly. It is pointless to ignore Stalin's role in the war. Russians for a good thousand years lagged behind in general historical development from other European nations. Stalin set the task to overcome the thousand-year-old abyss in 20 years and in many respects achieved its fulfillment. He became a kind of God". (Haape G.," Grin of Death ... " p. 177). - "Western concepts of the impassability of the terrain for the Russians are of very limited importance. Here the spirit of the German soldier, his courage, initiative, selflessness fought against the desperate resistance of the enemy, whose strength lay in the favorable terrain, in the endurance and incredible firmness of the Russian soldier, reinforced by the iron system of coercion of the Soviet regime. In addition, the Russians were masters of quickly rebuilding roads. The Russian troops have always fought bravely and sometimes brought incredible sacrifices". (Field Marshal Erich von Manstein). - "The Russians held with unexpected firmness and perseverance, even when they were circumvented and surrounded. This they won time and used for counterstrikes from the depths of the country more and more reserves, which were also stronger than it was supposed ... the enemy showed an absolutely incredible ability to resist ". (General Kurt Tippelskirch). - "The wide and cleverly planned operations of the Red Army led to numerous encirclements of German units and the destruction of those that resisted ... The Russian command developed and perfectly carried out this operation. We lost the 100,000-strong army at Koenigsberg". (General O. Fun Lash - commandant of the fortress Koenigsberg). - "In the Second World War it became evident that the Soviet supreme command also possesses high capabilities in the field of strategy ... Russian generals and soldiers tend to obedience. They did not lose their presence of spirit even in the most difficult situation of 1941 ... ". (from Heinz Guderian's book "Results of the Second World War"). - "During the war, I watched the Soviet command becoming more and more experienced ... It is quite true that the highest Soviet command, beginning with Stalingrad, often exceeded all our expectations. He masterfully carried out a rapid maneuver and transfer of troops, changing the direction of the main strike, showed the ability to create bridgehead and equip them with starting positions for the subsequent transition to the offensive... ". (General Oberst G. Frisner, commander of Army Group "South Ukraine"). - "The fact that the Red Army soldiers continued to fight in the most hopeless situations, completely not caring about their own lives, can be attributed to a large extent to the brave behavior of the commissars. The difference between the Russian Imperial Army in the years of the WW1 and the Red Army, even in the very first days of the German invasion, was simply colossal. If in the last war the Russian army fought as a more or less amorphous mass, a sedentary, devoid of individuality, a spiritual upsurge, caused by the ideas of communism, began to affect already in the summer of 1941". (General Erich Raus). - "Many of our leaders have grossly underestimated the new enemy. This happened partly because they did not know the Russian people, not even the Russian soldier. Some of our military leaders throughout the First World War were on the Western Front and never fought in the East, so they had no idea about the geographical conditions of Russia and the steadfastness of the Russian soldier, but at the same time ignored the repeated warnings of prominent military specialists in Russia. .. The behavior of the Russian troops, even in this first battle (for Minsk) was strikingly different from the behavior of the Poles and the troops of the Western Allies in the conditions of defeat. Even being surrounded, the Russians did not retreat from their borders. " (General Blumentrite). - "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). - "If you remember that Frederick the Great confronted the enemy, who had a twelvefold superiority in forces, you seem to yourself just an nonentity... This time we have the superiority in the forces! Is not this a disgrace? ". (Hitler's Table Talk, 28. 01.1942).
1
Demonization is a form of propaganda. I will tell you a little secret: the Nazis did not perceive themselves as criminals, the Communists, too. Why? They had their own independent worldview which they followed. This is a struggle of worldviews. But if we use modern liberal morality, which is based on the protection of human rights, we will not be able to understand other worldviews beyond the limits of liberal morality. In this case, you will deny the concept of the struggle of worldviews and you will not understand how the Nazis and communists saw the world. This is how propaganda works.
1
Can you prove that they were evil? What is the criterion? You did not understand my previous message. To understand the Communists, you need to look at the world through THEIR EYES. These people do not consider themselves evil and fight for their ideas. You cannot put into their head the thesis "we are evil criminals." Such logic does not work.
1
The monopoly on the interpretation of human instincts is not rational.
1
The term totalitarian regime was created by Mussolini to image his own system. But later during the Cold War, propaganda changed the term totalitarianism, giving it a different meaning in order to equate the USSR with the Third Reich.
1
In science, there is the principle of historicism, according to which events should not be disconnected from the historical context that was relevant at that time. If we are talking about Soviet policy, then we rely on the views of the Soviet government that created this policy. It is pro-Soviet. Everything is logical.
1
1. The cause of the two world wars was capitalism at the stage of imperialism (the struggle for economic markets). 2. USSR has never been a German ally.
1
Alexander Solzhenitsyn is an anti-communist propagandist. This is a bad source of information. All his numbers in the book are false, the conclusions are also false (for example, he says that the Bolsheviks hated Russian culture).
1
Solzhenitsyn’s book is rubbish. When you recommend reading it, you are insulting this person. For example, Solzhenitsyn said that the number of prisoners in Soviet camps in 1941 was 15 million. In fact, it was 1.5 million. And this is only a small lie. He creates the greatest lie when he says that the Bolsheviks hated historical Russia and its culture. Do you know why he says this? Because he is a nationalist and has such a picture of the world. As a result, people in the West do not read Soviet documents because it is boring - they read a person who hates the Soviet regime for ideological reasons. There is no need to create a false choice between the denial of the Soviet camps and the lies of Solzhenitsyn. It is necessary to use a scientific point of view without any demonization (a form of propaganda).
1
If Solzhenitsyn was just an honest man, then he would say that his book is based not on the truth, but on his personal fantasies. He would say that my book is the opinion of a man who hates the Soviet regime, so you should not evaluate it as an objective source of information. The only value of Solzhenitsan’s book is recognition of the fact that there are Soviet labor camps. Everything else is fantasy and demonization. It is not surprising that in the west his books gained great popularity because in fact it is an information weapon. Now people will read the book and say that capitalism has no alternative - this is the task of propaganda.
1
We must evaluate the Soviet system from the point of view of its government. German - from a German point of view, etc. We should not use the opinion of people who are marginalized within the framework of this system (the communists considered nationalism a bourgeois idea).
1
Solzhenitsyn uses demonization in his book. This is a form of propaganda. Primitive propaganda. You talk about the value of his book, but you never wondered about the opinion of the Soviet government? They rules the state, not Solzhenitsyn. What is true for government, nationalists may perceive differently. How many Soviet documents have you personally read? How many books of Stalin or Lenin have you read? I think not one, but you are always ready to read the demonization of Solezhnitsyn.
1
The initial task of any propaganda is to create demonization (like hell on earth).
1
> gulags Labor camp for criminals in the soviet system. > siberia Geographic concept. > purges Aggravation of the class struggle against the exploiting classes (minority). > famine Hunger is not the goal of government. At this time, hunger was also (except for the USSR) in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland. How many of these countries do you consider hell on earth? > NKVD terror Terror is a fight. Refusing to fight means losing. > and murdering millions of its own citizens For all the time in the USSR, about 800 thousand people were sentenced to death. Most are class enemies and criminals. > is propaganda? Propaganda is the demonization of individual facts (instead of a simple description). For example, it is well known that the cause of two world wars was the crisis of the capitalist system (the struggle for economic markets). For my part, propaganda would be that “capitalism always means war” or something like that. Now look at your first post and find propaganda there.
1
> what counterarguments one can present to your denying that Stalin murdered millions of its own citizens You inattentively read what I write to you. For all the time in the USSR, about 800 thousand people were sentenced to death. Source - Viktor Zemskov. > What can I say to your flatly denying the great famine in Ukraine intentionally arranged by Stalin There is no point in organizing hunger. You use the interpretation of some Western historians who cannot document this point of view. Here are data on assistance to the regions. In total, in 1932, Ukraine received 3.2 million centners in the order of food aid, and in 1933 - 5.3 million centners. This is 53.1 million poods in total. And on the basis of this assistance a large-scale network of canteens was organized. According to data as of May 1933, 8.8 million people ate in rural canteens in the European part of the USSR. In Ukraine, at the same time, there were 20.7 thousand canteens, to which 3 million people were attached. In total, in 1933, catering, including food during field work, reached 39 million people. It makes no sense to deliberately create hunger and then fight it. > The Baltic states were forced to join the SU against their own will USSR did not have large-scale guerrilla resistance here. Forest brothers were marginalized. > Finland was invaded but the soviets didn't manage to deprive them of their independence. They refused the Soviet territorial exchange. > Was Besarabia part of Russia before 1918? Yes, she was part of the Russian Empire. > so was large part of Poland that Russia forcefully annexed in 1772. USSR did not lay claim to the ethnic territories of Poland. They remained in the zone of German influence (west of the Curzon line). > the land that once belonged to Russia should belong to Russia USSR is a union of different republics, and not a national Russian state. > but the spacious territories that belonged to Poland but were stolen by Russia should not belong to Poland? Ethnic Poles had a minority east of the Curzon line. > Stalin didn't agree to Ribbentrop-Molotov pact dividing their neighbors between themselves? There was a zone of political influence which did not mean aggression against other states. Read the original text. > The soviets also didn't massacre over 40 thousand Polish officers in Katyn? Fight against war and class enemies. > because it's unbearble to realize the soviets were just as bad as the nazis. The equality of the Nazis and the Communists was created in European propaganda after the collapse of the USSR. But this has nothing to do with the historical reconstruction. The element of information war. > Ukraine and Belarus never said they wanted to be part of the soviet paradise either. During the war against Nazism, they showed their high loyalty. > After 1945 Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and east Germany didn't ask to be soviet satelite states either. When the USSR left there, they became American vassals. This is not a soviet guilt, it is a matter of their limited sovereignty and double standards.
1
The reputation of a reliable neighbor? The United States destroyed sovereign Iraq, but no one used economic sanctions against it. He who has power will determine what is preferred.
1
1. The cause of the two world wars was capitalism at the stage of imperialism (the struggle for economic markets). 2. USSR has never been a German ally. 3. To say that Stalin is guilty of the initial failures during Barbarossa (demonization) is like saying that the French leaders are guilty of the Gelb plan being completely successful.
1
* in 1918.
1
Communism is not a religion. The Bolsheviks are atheists and operate outside of religious logic.
1
No, this is not a dogma. Lenin said that you need to get rid of any dogma and study dialectics.
1
cool2martini You are a primitive propagandist.
1
> one of the main reason Stalin didn’t trust the Ukrainians later false.
1
Fragment from the speech of Stalin on April 17, 1940. Mortars - the fourth, there is no modern war without mortars. All corps, all companies, battalions, regiments must have six-inch mortars necessarily, 8-inch ones. This is a terrible need for modern warfare. These are very effective mortars and very cheap artillery. Wonderful thing mortar. Do not spare the mines, here is the slogan, pity your people. If you spare the bombs and shells - do not spare the people, fewer people will be. If you want our war to be with little blood, do not spare the mines.
1
> The revolution was funded by US Bankers fake info. > like Schiff. He supported february revolution, not october one. > Russians were promised everything and got nothing. Here is a brief list of the achievements of the two russian revolutions of 1917. - The peasants were given more land. - The working day is reduced from 10.5 hours to 8 hours. - Improvement of the health care system. - The policy of eliminating illiteracy of the population. - Equality of men and women is presented. - Elimination of class privileges. - Separation of church from state.
1
Soviet leaders have never declared that they are building a totalitarian state. The original term totalitarianism was created by Mussolini and had positive properties for him.
1
> since communism is as bad as hitlerism. This is modern propaganda which says that capitalism has no alternative.
1
> Russia had "a historical right" to lands that were for 500-800 years under Polish rule USSR is not Russia, but a union of several republics. The USSR returned the territory to ethnic Ukrainians and Belarusians. Polish colonists were deported. > people are criticizing THE SECRET PROTOCOL of the treaty. You do not understand what the term crime means (from the point of view of Soviet interests). These are not new political spheres of influence, but inaction.
1
1. Find the materials of the 10th Congress of the Communist Party. The national question is discussed there. When the Bolsheviks rely on their point of view, this is not revisionism. 2. If you know Russian, then find a book Александр Дюков - "пакт молотова-рибентропа в вопросах и ответах". It gives an analysis of Soviet policy on the conclusion of a pact with Germany. 3. The text of the secret protocols does not contain a military plan, but only the sphere of influence. 4. Joint arad in Brest is a myth. It was a German parade and Soviet guests on it. Soviet technology did not participate in the German parade and simply changed its location in the city. 5. You again do not understand. The deportation of the Poles is not a crime. Crime is inaction. It will mean that anti-Soviet Poles will create problems for the Red Army when Barbarossa operations begin.
1
Kev > Poland waged practically no offensive wars. Then what did the Polish army do in Minsk and Kiev in 1919-1920 ? These are not Polish national lands. > later they sold Poland to Stalin in Yalta It was not "sold to Stalin", but respected by Soviet state interests because the military efforts of the USSR in the victory over Germany was dominant. > but USSR under Stalin was no better than III Reich in many cases. This is a modern rewriting of history that attempts to equate communism and Nazism. During the war, most people did not think so. > Polish resistance that later created the largest underground state in Nazi occupied Europe I know that Polish nationalism has no boundaries. First you say that your pilots won the air battle for England. Then say that your partisans destroyed the German communications on the eastern front and thereby saved the USSR from defeat. Now you are claiming that the Polish partisans were the biggest resistance movement. But what data confirms this? For example, the Balkan partisans killed 104 thousand German soldiers over the entire period of the war. The Red Army and Soviet partisans killed 3.9 million Axis soldiers.
1
Kev 1. Poland wanted to annex the lands where ethnic Ukrainians and Belarusians lived in 1919. This is imperialism, not democracy. Soviet Russia also tried, but it was an international union of different republics, and the Polish state was national (with an ethnic border on the Curzon line). Thus, these nations had a choice between equality in the USSR or Polish dominance in Poland. 2. Do you know that the number of Soviet partisans exceeded 1 million people? Do you know that Soviet partisans conducted coordinated military operations with the red army? Why is the number of Polish partisans (400 thousand) the largest resistance movement in Europe? Too much Polish nationalism. Why is the defeat of the uprising in Warsaw organized by the government in London and not coordinated with the red army is Soviet fault but not Polish? Why is an unsuccessful uprising in Warsaw the largest military effort in Europe, and a successful rail war on the eastern front is nothing?
1
Kev 1. I already told you earlier that the Soviet national concept said that the urban population (for example, Lviv) is a consequence of colonial influence. Thus, if the Poles have a majority there, then for the Soviet concept this is not a Polish city, but colonial influence. The same thing happened with Russian cities in eastern Ukraine. 2. This forum will not allow in detail to discuss the issue of hunger in the USSR. I will only say that the famine was not only in the USSR, but also in Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria. Soviet famine did not affect the patriotism of Soviet Ukrainians. 250 thousand Ukrainians fought on the side of Germany against 6 million on the side of the USSR. There is also no correlation between social equality and the fact of hunger. 3. Collectivization allowed the USSR to have enough food during the war and successfully complete it. The percentage of foreign aid was 6%. Only at the very beginning did collectivization fail, but later on it was successful. 4. Soviet partisans were also part of the resistance movement in Europe. For example, Belarusian partisans seized and controlled several regions in their republic that the Germans could not control. But you say that the uprising in Warsaw is the largest military action in Europe. What is more - one city or several regions in the USSR? In the Balkans, partisans also controlled several regions.
1
1. From the point of view of Soviet laws, the kukak was a criminal who used usury and economic speculation. These people created money from nothing and their activities were officially banned in the USSR. But Western Sovietology calls them an innocent victim of the Soviet regime. This is a modern rewriting of history that ignores internal rules in the Soviet state. 2. You need to study the materials of the 10th Congress of the Bolshevik Party. It says what rules the Russian Soviet Republic uses and what ethnographic concept it creates as an alternative to the colonial policy of the Russian Empire. 3. I have no problem accepting the fact of Polish resistance in this war. I have a problem with some Polish nationalists who say that "our pilots won the air battle for England" or "our partisans destroyed the German supply lines on the eastern front and saved the USSR from defeat." That is, a false choice is given between the denial of the Polish resistance and its decisive role in this war. My opinion is that partisans (any) without outside help cannot independently win the war - they do not have industry and their own organized army to fight the Wehrmacht on equal terms.
1
Kev 1. Each system has its own moral. The Nazis have one moral. The Communists have a different one. The capitalists have a third. The Nazis lost the second world war and their point of view was forgotten. The Communists lost the Cold War and their point of view was also forgotten. Thus, we have gained the dominance in the modern world of the point of view of liberal capitalism which imposes its morality on the history of other systems. But such logic does not work. We must return during the Second World War and look at the world through the eyes of each system individually. 2. Russia is a federation where each nationality has its own rights. This is not a Russian empire where only Russians had privileges in comparison with other nations. The USSR was also a union of different republics, and not a national Russian state. You think that Stalin is an analogue of the Russian Tsar, but this is a mistake of Western historiography. In reality, Russian nationalists accuse the Bolsheviks of using anti-Russian policies and giving too many rights to other nationalities. 3. Even if the Polish pilots had a big score, then they used English planes and English equipment. Thus, their entire result was summed up to the efforts of the English army, and not the Polish one. Thus, Polish pilots cannot play a major role because they have no aircraft of their own and equipment. This does not mean that I deny Polish resistance. I want you to be more objective. 4. The Polish government in London did not want the Red Army to gain control of Warsaw, so they did not coordinate their rebellion with the Soviet command. When the uprising was crushed, they blamed Stalin for this. But this is a rewriting of history. Soviet interests consisted in the fact that the Red Army received a pause after a large offensive in Belarus. Stalin takes into account Soviet interests in the first place.
1
1. USSR built a classless society according to the communist ideology. But the kulaks were representatives of the exploiting class who committed economic crimes according to Soviet laws. To give complete freedom to these people means to abandon the communist ideology. Thus, the exploiting classes must be suppressed (deprived of social privileges) in the interests of the majority of society (working class). 2. The Soviet historiography characterized by the condemnation of the Polish national policy which suppresses the rights of Ukrainians and Belarusians (1921-1939). If you could give me a quote from the Polish constitution which shows that Ukrainians and Belarusians had equal rights in comparison with the Poles, this would be a big argument against Soviet claims. 3. Even if the uprising in Warsaw is successful, the USSR will not allow the anti-Soviet Poles to dominate the post-war Polish political system. The USSR will not allow these people to kill Soviet soldiers — you must understand this. This rebellion is like an act of desperation for a government in London that knows that it will not be able to regain its power. And from the Soviet point of view, the Polish government in London is strongly influenced by England, therefore it is not considered independent of their influence. Just like modern Europe is not independent of US policy.
1
Germany does not need Soviet intervention in the war against Poland. Germany is between two fronts - Polish and French. The lack of military coordination between them made it possible that Germany fought on one front, first in the east and then in the west.
1
The military and economic cooperation of the USSR with Weimar Germany was beneficial for the Soviet side because it weakened the unity of Western countries with regard to anti-communism. When you say that the USSR helped Germany create an army, you do not see the fact that Germany also helped the USSR. And we already know the result of this war.
1
Poland killed 17 thousand Wehrmacht soldiers in 36 days (472 people a day). France and allies killed 50,000 Axis soldiers in 43 days (1,163 people a day). The USSR killed 383 thousand Axis soldiers (1984 people per day) in 193 days (1941). The allies after the opening of the second front killed 340 thousand German soldiers in 216 days (1944), which gives 1,574 people a day. Moreover, the Allies had numerical, technical and material superiority over the enemy, in contrast to the Red Army in 1941.
1
Demonization is a form of propaganda.
1
> early ww2 soviet tactics seemed to be to run the germans out of ammunition, with the bodies of soviet soldiers. Cite any Soviet order that has such a goal.
1
1. The reason for the operation began Barbarossa was an attempt to deprive England of the last hope of victory in the war. It did not depend on Soviet politics. 2. Poland killed 17 thousand Wehrmacht soldiers in 36 days (472 people a day). France and allies killed 50,000 Axis soldiers in 43 days (1,163 people a day). The USSR killed 383 thousand Axis soldiers (1984 people per day) in 193 days (1941). The allies after the opening of the second front killed 340 thousand German soldiers in 216 days (1944), which gives 1,574 people a day. Moreover, the Allies had numerical, technical and material superiority over the enemy, in contrast to the Red Army in 1941.
1
@Redmanticore Firstly, the purge did not affect the fighting capacity of the Red Army because the old and new officers had the same experience of the civil war (Stalin also had). Secondly, the USSR did not end the winter war with a complete victory because Britain and France could intervene, and the Soviet government did not want it.
1
@Redmanticore People who say that the purge greatly weakened the Red Army cannot know in advance what would have happened if it had not been. This is a logical error.
1
@Redmanticore One of the main reasons why the Finnish army could achieve local victories in the winter war is the fact that the Finnish radio intelligence was able to reveal the Soviet codes even before the war, and thus the Finnish command knew what the Soviet army would do.
1