Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wonder if you disagree that the real slaughter of the Red Army began not on June 22, but during those terrible weeks in July as entire Soviet armies, blindly following Stalins orders to keep attacking were bypassed, encircled, cut off and most destroyed or taken prisoner. Stalin did not have a great military mind and the Red Army dod not start winning battles until he stepped back and let his Marshals(Zhukov,Konev etc.) direct the fronts.
Many Russian soldiers were sent into battle without rifles and were told to pick up the one from a fallen comrade. They were also prohibited from retreating with threats of being immediately shot. Surrendering meant getting starved to death in a Nazi concentration camp. So they were between a rock and a hard place as the saying goes. What actually helped the Soviets immensely was the weather for which German soldiers were totally unprepared and Japan's noninvolvement in Siberia which allowed Stalin to shift Siberian Armies to Europe.
Hitler's meddling via moronic time-wasting decisions at crucial moments also helped the Russians gain an upper hand all during the war.
This is basically a combination of stereotypes, half-truths, and generalizations. Some of these I already wrote at length in the past. I'll just briefly comment on them:
Re soldiers being sent into combat without rifles: Partially true unfortunately. There were sometimes local and temporary shortages of rifles. Sometimes a reserve unit needed to be sent into combat earlier than anticipated due to an emergency at the front (a German breakthrough, for example) and it had to be armed with whatever was on hand. That said, in general the Soviet Union did not lack rifles. It had vast stockpiles of them before the war and the Soviet industry produced many millions as the war went on. The USSR could have easily ordered American rifles but never resorted to that. The vast majority of Soviet Troops did have rifles.
Re retreating soviet troops were shot by their own when retreating: more correct would be to use the word "deserting", not "retreating". Abandoning your unit and your comrades was certainly a crime, and not just in USSR. Barrier troops were used sporadically, most notably during the Battle of Stalingrad. However careful examination of the records shows that very few people were actually shot. Out of those detained, some were arrested. Some were sent into penal battalions. The vast majority of fleeing troops were simply returned to their unit.
Surrendering meant getting starved to death in a Nazi concentration camp. True. About 3.3 million Soviet POWs, more than half of those captured, died (or were killed) in captivity.
I wonder if you disagree that the real slaughter of the Red Army began not on June 22, but during those terrible weeks in July as entire Soviet armies, blindly following Stalins orders to keep attacking were bypassed, encircled, cut off and most destroyed or taken prisoner. Stalin did not have a great military mind and the Red Army dod not start winning battles until he stepped back and let his Marshals(Zhukov,Konev etc.) direct the fronts.
I disagree with this. Every operation should be discussed separately on its own merits but in general this is much too simplistic and mostly false. I will have to come back to this when I have more time.
Look, I know there is a temptation to view Stalin as this bloodthirsty tyrant whose ruthlessness and stupidity condemned millions of Soviet troops to their deaths. But erasure was not lying when he said that even today many Russian veterans, patriots, and people knowledgeable about the Great Patriotic War give a lot of credit to Stalin. Some going as far as to say that the war was won because of his leadership, not in spite of it.
I disagree with this. Every operation should be discussed separately on its own merits but in general this is much too simplistic and mostly false. I will have to come back to this when I have more time.
Look, I know there is a temptation to view Stalin as this bloodthirsty tyrant whose ruthlessness and stupidity condemned millions of Soviet troops to their deaths. But erasure was not lying when he said that even today many Russian veterans, patriots, and people knowledgeable about the Great Patriotic War give a lot of credit to Stalin. Some going as far as to say that the war was won because of his leadership, not in spite of it.
I could not disagree with this more. Although the ultimate cause of the disaster that began to unfold on June 22 was Stalin, it must be said that once the sttack became evident, there was really not much he or anyone in the Kremlin could do about the situation. It was far too late to move troops back and although much is made about his refusal to authorize the Red Army to shoot back in the first hours of the offensive, it is highly doubtful that this would have done much good. In 1941, surprize tactical air to ground attacks were unstoppable since most of Stalins air force were destroyed on the ground in the first days of the attack. Stalin for a long time after the initial attack actually did not direct military operations and ceased to do anything whatsoever. He returned to active leadership only when a delegation visited him and told him thats steps must be taken immediately to improve the situation at the front. Antoine Rivarol once famously stated that "To do nothing is a terrible advantage, but it must not be abused." Stalin definitly abused it. As for the rifle situation I will quote a Soviet general. "At the outbreak of war we did not even have sufficient numbers of rifles to arm the mobilized manpower. I recall that I telephoned fron Kiev to comrade Malenkov and told him that you must send us arms. Malenkov answered me, "We cannot send you arms. We are sending all our rifles to Leningrad and you jave to arm yourselves." Such was the armament situation.
The Soviet failures early in the war were compounded by many factors, but I think most of all the reason for the collapse was that the Red Army was in a state of tactical change.
The Soviets rapidly militarized between 1939 and 1941. The changes included massive doctrinal changes in terms of allocation and organization of units as well as fighting style. The Soviets tried to rapidly adapt to the lessons they learned fighting the Japanese and the Winter War, but most of all the lessons taken from the Fall of France.
For instance, up to 1938 armor was assigned as an infantry support element with armor assigned directly to infantry divisions. After the Fall of France, they began to reorganize their armor into actual armored divisions along the German model. By the time of Barbarossa, this was only partially completed and none of their mechanized divisions were up to full strength.
On top of that the Soviets recognized that static defensive lines were of little use. The idea of static defense was key to the Soviet strategy prior to 1940. After that point they began to reorganize their forces to fight a more fluid battle. Indeed the disposition of their troops and supply centers were setup for this purpose. They were preparing to mobilize and meet the Germans head-to-head if war came, not resist an invasion.
Taken together, the lack of experienced officers, poor training among all branches of service, lack of modern equipment (the Mig3, LaGG3 and Yak1 were just coming into service and the T34 and KV1 represented around 7% of their armored force), poor supply chain management, lack of spare parts, poor communication (most of their forces lacked any radio communication including their planes and tanks) and complete lack of war preparedness made the Red Army amount to target practice for the Germans.
As you said, there wasn't much that the Soviets could do, they threw everything they had at the Germans to try and slow them down, buying time with blood. Regardless of what we say in hindsight, it worked. The German advance was slowed long enough (particularly at Smolensk which used up most of the German reserves) and the weather turned bad enough that the Soviets were able to bring up reserves, push out more of their modern weapons and stage a proper defense of the city, halt the German advance and let winter take its toll.
As for killing retreating troops? This was Stalins Order 270 which he wrote and signed which I quote in full. " I order that anyone who surrenders should ne regarded as a malicious deserter whose family is to be arrested as a family of the breaker of the oarh and betrayer of the Motherland. Such deserters are to be shot on the spot. Those falling into encirclement are to fight to the last otherwise are to be destroyed by all available means while their families are to be deprived of all assistance." What this order did was it created a body of men with nothing to gain ny continuing their allegiance to the USSR, either as their homeland or in the ideals of communism. This was manpower that Stalin doubly lost, as the Germans used Soviet prisoners on the Eastern Front to do work that othetwise would have had to be done by their own men. So what Stalins order meant was that soldiers who escaped the Germans and made their way back into Soviet territory were incarcerated and shipped off to prison camps. They were considered "stragglers" by Stalin which of course is exactly what they were not. Not only did the order feprived the Red Army of experienced many power but it also tied up the transportation system as well as keeping large numbers of able bodied men in the sercurity service so they could transport, guard, and investigate these unlucky soldiers.
Notice how easy it was for people like Stalin, Hitler, Grant and Patton to demand that others risk death! Could it be because they didn't personally have to be there taking the lead?
Notice how easy it is for people like Stalin and Patton to demand that others risk death! Could it be because they don't personally have to be there taking the lead?
You can't compare Staslin to Patton because that's like comparing apples to oranges Ha!
Notice how easy it was for people like Stalin, Hitler, Grant and Patton to demand that others risk death! Could it be because they didn't personally have to be there taking the lead?
Briefly;
One of Stalin's sons has been captured by Germans. Later on Germans wanted to exchange him for one of their generals. Stalin's response to the offer? "I don't exchange generals for soldiers."
This is basically a combination of stereotypes, half-truths, and generalizations. Some of these I already wrote at length in the past. I'll just briefly comment on them:
Well if they are they didn't originate with me. Since I wasn't there, I depend on history books which are approved for History courses in college and other such resources which one would assume are reliable. In fact, graduation or passing the History course depended on accurately assimilating such data.
Quote:
Re soldiers being sent into combat without rifles: Partially true unfortunately. There were sometimes local and temporary shortages of rifles. Sometimes a reserve unit needed to be sent into combat earlier than anticipated due to an emergency at the front (a German breakthrough, for example) and it had to be armed with whatever was on hand. That said, in general the Soviet Union did not lack rifles. It had vast stockpiles of them before the war and the Soviet industry produced many millions as the war went on. The USSR could have easily ordered American rifles but never resorted to that. The vast majority of Soviet Troops did have rifles.
I never said that the rifle shortage was a permanent problem or that it was uniformly present in all Russian units. Obviously once the Russian industrial infrastructure shifted into gear after it was dismantled and relocated farther east via railway, such a situation was quicklyresolved. However, during the Stalingrad campaign there were rifle shortages in the units being ferried across the Volga and the non-retreat order was clearly in effect there as well as it was in all other areas of the conflict. After that campaign I don't recall reading about any other mention of rifle shortages.
One thing to keep in mind is that once Stalin wisely got out of the way and true professionals took over, then the Soviet armies were allowed to make strategic retreats if the situation demanded it. That avoided the earlier swift blitzkrieg encirclement that Stalin's no-retreat policies had caused.
Quote:
Re retreating soviet troops were shot by their own when retreating: more correct would be to use the word "deserting", not "retreating". Abandoning your unit and your comrades was certainly a crime, and not just in USSR. Barrier troops were used sporadically, most notably during the Battle of Stalingrad. However careful examination of the records shows that very few people were actually shot. Out of those detained, some were arrested. Some were sent into penal battalions. The vast majority of fleeing troops were simply returned to their unit.
Please note that I never said vast numbers ignored the non-retreat order and were mowed down.
Obviously the encirclement and capture of hundreds of thousands during the initial stages of the Barbarossa offensive proves that they generally held their ground as ordered. Two reasons were,
1. Disatisfaction with the Soviet system
2. They expected humane treatment from the Nazis
Once they realized their mistake-however, it was either getting shot for desertion if they retreated or else falling into the hands of the Nazies which was a death sentence.
Actually what I said was that the order not to retreat contributed to the higher casualty rate. Why? Because certain battle situations demand a strategic retreat in order to avoid getting mowed down like grass as was happenning in Stalingradwith the units shuttled accross the Volga. Also, because any soldier who advances unarmed is tantamount to a helpless civilian who can't fire back and gain time that way. Additionally, pausing to pick up a rifle or having to scramble for one and even struggle with a fellow soldier for it makes you even more vulnerable.
BTW: If indeed you disagree with the above then please provide the primary sources which say otherwise so I can evaluate whether a change of opinion is justified or not. Thanx!
Quote:
Surrendering meant getting starved to death in a Nazi concentration camp. True. About 3.3 million Soviet POWs, more than half of those captured, died (or were killed) in captivity.
I read an account where a dead cat was flung among Russian starving soldiers and they fought over it.
Some were executed as you say and others were worked to death. Still others-the minority I assume-were victims of Nazi experiments. For example experiments to determine human resistance to the cold. Chosen Russian prisoners were soaked in water and thrown outside naked into sub-zero temperatures. Or others were submerged in tanks and the water temperature adverse gradually lowered until they died. This was done in order to gain detailed knowledge that would supposedly enhance Nazi-soldier-survival under similar adverse conditions.
Does the above harmonize with your research?
Last edited by Radrook; 06-22-2011 at 12:05 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
