73 years ago today, WWII was brought to an end

[Rich2018]

Crush your enemies,
See them driven before you,
And hear the lamentations of their women.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Because had Stalin not purged the Red Army, it would have been so much better.

Yes, they absolutely would have suffered fewer casualties---certainly far fewer men would have been encircled.

It's undeniable that the purging of the Red Army's leadership seriously undermined it's capability and the Red Army would've performed better in 1941 with them alive.

It's also true that it wouldn't have made much a difference in the end.

The Red Army's biggest problem on the eve of Barbarossa was far bigger; the rapid expansion of the Red Army between 1939 and 1941. The Red Army had expanded from 2.5 million mean to 5.7 million, from 131 divisions to 316, a massive expansion as a result of the German threat. It can't be understated how negatively this impacted Soviet readiness. Already short on junior leadership, the rapid growth of the Red Army diluted what limited leadership it had. To make matters even worse, this expansion had occurred before Soviet educational reforms had time to kick in, and since conscription was utilized to fill the Soviet ranks a large number of new Red Army personnel were peasants with limited to virtually no formal education. That meant the Red Army was lacking in technicians, mechanics, radio operators, the like.

The Soviet logistical system simply coulnd't handle it, and collapsed. As a result the Red Army's forces on the eve of the invasion were lacking in virtually everything; experienced personnel, fuel, ammunition, spare parts. This more than anything contributed to the Red Army's poor performance.

 

[Tigerace117]

It's undeniable that the purging of the Red Army's leadership seriously undermined it's capability and the Red Army would've performed better in 1941 with them alive.

It's also true that it wouldn't have made much a difference in the end.

The Red Army's biggest problem on the eve of Barbarossa was far bigger; the rapid expansion of the Red Army between 1939 and 1941. The Red Army had expanded from 2.5 million mean to 5.7 million, from 131 divisions to 316, a massive expansion as a result of the German threat. It can't be understated how negatively this impacted Soviet readiness. Already short on junior leadership, the rapid growth of the Red Army diluted what limited leadership it had. To make matters even worse, this expansion had occurred before Soviet educational reforms had time to kick in, and since conscription was utilized to fill the Soviet ranks a large number of new Red Army personnel were peasants with limited to virtually no formal education. That meant the Red Army was lacking in technicians, mechanics, radio operators, the like.

The Soviet logistical system simply coulnd't handle it, and collapsed. As a result the Red Army's forces on the eve of the invasion were lacking in virtually everything; experienced personnel, fuel, ammunition, spare parts. This more than anything contributed to the Red Army's poor performance.

Rich has spent the last five pages denying that any Stalin’s purges hurt the Red Army at all.

I’ve hit my limit of dealing with tankies who whine about the American education system while handwaving away all inconvenient historical facts, but you can have a go if you want.

 

[Rich2018]

It's undeniable that the purging of the Red Army's leadership seriously undermined it's capability and the Red Army would've performed better in 1941 with them alive....

I deny it.

What is your proof or source that I am wrong?

...the Red Army's biggest problem on the eve of Barbarossa was far bigger; the rapid expansion of the Red Army between 1939 and 1941. The Red Army had expanded from 2.5 million mean to 5.7 million, from 131 divisions to 316, a massive expansion as a result of the German threat. It can't be understated how negatively this impacted Soviet readiness. Already short on junior leadership, the rapid growth of the Red Army diluted what limited leadership it had. To make matters even worse, this expansion had occurred before Soviet educational reforms had time to kick in, and since conscription was utilized to fill the Soviet ranks a large number of new Red Army personnel were peasants with limited to virtually no formal education. That meant the Red Army was lacking in technicians, mechanics, radio operators, the like....

Of course it didn't help that the best army in the world, with the best general staff...was coming right at it.

 

[Rich2018]

Rich has spent the last five pages denying that any Stalin’s purges hurt the Red Army at all.

I’ve hit my limit of dealing with tankies who whine about the American education system while handwaving away all inconvenient historical facts, but you can have a go if you want.

Tiger...you didn't give any sources confirming your view that the Red Army sufferd significantly from Stalin's purges.


And sadly the US education system fails most children who are put through it.

Ask a dozen teenagers when the second world war was...few would get the right decade.

 

[Tigerace117]

Tiger...you didn't give any sources confirming your view that the Red Army sufferd significantly from Stalin's purges.


And sadly the US education system fails most children who are put through it.

Ask a dozen teenagers when the second world war was...few would get the right decade.

Like I said before: I don’t really give a **** enough to continue to listen to you pontificate about the American education system while desperately trying to handwave away basic historical facts.

I gave multiple sources and you ignored them. I’m done here.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I deny it.

What is your proof or source that I am wrong?

The reality that you can't just lose three five star generals, 13 three or four star generals, eight admirals, 50 corps commanders, and 154 division commanders without negatively impacting your readiness. Those are hundreds of experienced officers you've lost and now need to be replaced. Sure, you can just promote some colonels, but then you need to replace the Colonels, then replace the Lt. Colonels. Otherwise you have massive gaps in leadership. There's also the simple fact that several years of uninterrupted doctrinal development and a training system not plagued by the purges would have produced a much superior battle plan and a much more skilled officer corps.

If you want a specific name, Tukhachevsky's proposed defense-in-depth would later be used by Zhukov during the war to great success during defensive operations. It was still in it's infancy when Tukhachevsky was shot by the Soviets i 1937.

 

[Rich2018]

Like I said before: I don’t really give a ****...

Clearly

...I gave multiple sources and you ignored them. I’m done here.

No you didn't (your inability to give a post# is proof of this) and good.

 

[Rich2018]

The reality that you can't just lose three five star generals, 13 three or four star generals, eight admirals, 50 corps commanders, and 154 division commanders without negatively impacting your readiness....

But the Red Army was pretty poor anyway.

It had to learn the hard way how to fight a modern (for the time) war. After all, the best army in the world at the time was coming right at it.


France didn't execute dozens of senior commanders either...but Germany conquered France in weeks where a generation earlier France held out for years and was on the winning side.

...Tukhachevsky's proposed defense-in-depth would later be used by Zhukov during the war to great success during defensive operations. It was still in it's infancy when Tukhachevsky was shot by the Soviets i 1937.

The Red army had some theorists who talked about the deep battle.

Basically you can't say that the Red Army would've done significantly better in 1941 or early 1942 if Stalin hadn't purged his army.

After all, the Red Army defeated Barbarossa which failed in all its main objectives.

So all you're really saying is that an un-purged Red Army could've defeated the Wehrmacht either sooner or with less casualties.
But then again, some of the worst defeats were caused by Stalin's early interference - unlike Hitler, Stalin learned to let his generals fight the war.

 

[Jredbaron96]

snip

Yes, the Red Army was in piss poor condition regardless of whether or not it's senior leadership was in tact. That was a problem regardless of the purge, which is why I don't believe having all those generals still around would've been enough to alter the outcome of Barbarossa, but having years of unhindered doctrinal development and training would certainly have helped a great deal when it came down to forming the Red Army into a coherent combined arms force.

 

[Rich2018]

Yes, the Red Army was in piss poor condition regardless of whether or not it's senior leadership was in tact. That was a problem regardless of the purge, which is why I don't believe having all those generals still around would've been enough to alter the outcome of Barbarossa, but having years of unhindered doctrinal development and training would certainly have helped a great deal when it came down to forming the Red Army into a coherent combined arms force.

So what are you saying


Without the purges, the Red Army would've won the war when ?

 

[Jredbaron96]

So what are you saying


Without the purges, the Red Army would've won the war when ?

Too many variables to fully take into account. It wouldn't have been by much, but Soviet victories on the Eastern Front would've come easier at least.

 

[Rich2018]

Too many variables to fully take into account. It wouldn't have been by much, but Soviet victories on the Eastern Front would've come easier at least.

So Stalin's purges meant the USSR still wins the Great Patriotic War but not by much difference ?

Perhaps the Red Army takes Berlin a few weeks earlier ?

 

[Jredbaron96]

So Stalin's purges meant the USSR still wins the Great Patriotic War but not by much difference ?

Perhaps the Red Army takes Berlin a few weeks earlier ?

There are a lot of variables to take into account, especially between 1942 and 1944.

 

[Rich2018]

There are a lot of variables to take into account, especially between 1942 and 1944.

So you're not actually sure that Stalin's purges made any significant difference at all ?

 

[Jredbaron96]

So you're not actually sure that Stalin's purges made any significant difference at all ?

I'm saying it can't be said with certainty. It's not hard to believe it, but in the end it's speculation.

 

[Rich2018]

I'm saying it can't be said with certainty. It's not hard to believe it, but in the end it's speculation.

So back to my original point that TigerAce took such exception to.

There is no evidence that Stalin's purges actually cost the USSR anything.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The Red Army's biggest problem on the eve of Barbarossa was far bigger; the rapid expansion of the Red Army between 1939 and 1941. The Red Army had expanded from 2.5 million mean to 5.7 million, from 131 divisions to 316, a massive expansion as a result of the German threat. It can't be understated how negatively this impacted Soviet readiness. Already short on junior leadership, the rapid growth of the Red Army diluted what limited leadership it had. To make matters even worse, this expansion had occurred before Soviet educational reforms had time to kick in, and since conscription was utilized to fill the Soviet ranks a large number of new Red Army personnel were peasants with limited to virtually no formal education. That meant the Red Army was lacking in technicians, mechanics, radio operators, the like.

And it goes even deeper than that.

The Political Commissar (Pompolit) was assigned to every single military command of Company level or higher. And this officer was of not only of equal rank to the actual commander, he could actually countermand any order the commander gave.

And those Commissars had little to no military training, they were chosen for political loyalty and zeal. Frequently they would countermand the commanders orders, many times ordering a unit to attack (when the actual commander had ordered them to hold) with disastrous results.

Finally in 1942 at the urge of General Konev, Stalin ordered the removal of the Political Commissars, and replaced them with the Deputy for Political Matters (Zampolit), essentially a motivational and morale officer. They still reported to GRU, but were subservient to the unit commander and could no longer countermand their orders. In fact, they had no command authority at all. A Zampolit could only take command if all other officers in a unit were wounded or killed.

In modern US military terminology, they were essentially "Warrant Officers". As such they have all the honors given to a regular officer of the same rank, but no command authority. In a unit only if every officer in the unit is killed or wounded would a Warrant Officer assume command. And only until a replacement could be assigned.

And since we are talking about roughly 30-40+ officers in a battalion (6-10+ in a company), you can guess how often that has happened. By that point, a Captain equivalent of a Company Commander who was a Zampolit would essentially be commanding 1 or 2 squads of survivors.

 

[Jredbaron96]

So back to my original point that TigerAce took such exception to.

There is no evidence that Stalin's purges actually cost the USSR anything.

It's pretty stupid to pretend that wiping out a large number of senior officers wouldn't negatively impact the performance of a military force.

 

[Fledermaus]

C'mon then, enlighten me.

Show me the contradictions.



Suffered great losses...In 1941




Operation Barbarossa was the invasion of the USSR from June-December 1941


Since you're incapable of reading a post, I'll repeat my last post (bold bits added to make it clearer for you):

"...what "serious" defeats did the Red Army suffer after the battle of Moscow ? (which was lost by the Germans in 1941)

The outcome of WWII in the East was decided with the defeat of Nazi Germany's military at the battle of Moscow. (In 1941)

...Germany's defeat before Moscow in the Winter of 1941/42 was ultimately decisive...."


You can now go ahead with your perceived "contradictions".
Start by listing the Red Army's immense losses after the battle of Moscow.

According to field reports. "Irrecoverable losses"
1Q1942 675,000
2Q1942 842,000. 3rd highest quarter
3Q1942 1,224,000. 2nd highest quarter
4Q1942. 515,000
1Q1943. 726,000
2Q1943. 191,000 lowest quarter
3Q1943 804,000 5th highest quarter
4Q1943. 589.000



Yeah... They were still dying in large quantities... And higher killed vs. surrendered.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Yeah... They were still dying in large quantities... And higher killed vs. surrendered.

The Soviets in WWII suffered the highest killed verses casualty ratio of any forces in the war. And that includes the Japanese, which in most conflicts saw almost their entire defending force wiped out.

In most battles, a 1 to 1 or lower casualty ratio was expected for the victor. In other words, ultimately you expect more of the enemy to die than your own side. But the Soviets frequently suffered 2 to 1 ratios, even when they won. And that is 2 of their own killed for every enemy killed.

Essentially, they made the Germans bleed to death through superior numbers. Not amazing equipment and tactics.

In Stalingrad for example, they lost more men than the size of the entire invading Axis Army. The Axis laid siege to Stalingrad with a total of just over 1 million men. The Soviets responded with almost 1.2 million men, and over 1.1 million were killed or wounded in the battle.

At the end, there were more Axis troops in fighting condition that surrendered than there were uninjured Soviet soldiers to accept the surrender. They simply starved them out, they did not out fight them. That was a classic battle that never had to be fought. Over 1 million lives were thrown away for Stalin's vanity.

 

[Rich2018]

It's pretty stupid to pretend that wiping out a large number of senior officers wouldn't negatively impact the performance of a military force.

Please expand.

What, in your mind, would be the differences had the Red Army not been purged ?

 

[Rich2018]

According to field reports. "Irrecoverable losses"
1Q1942 675,000
2Q1942 842,000. 3rd highest quarter
3Q1942 1,224,000. 2nd highest quarter
4Q1942. 515,000
1Q1943. 726,000
2Q1943. 191,000 lowest quarter
3Q1943 804,000 5th highest quarter
4Q1943. 589.000



Yeah... They were still dying in large quantities... And higher killed vs. surrendered.

The Red Army suffered "Irrecoverable losses" ?

This is the Red Army that won the war and finished up in Germany in May 1945 with 500 divisions ?

 

[Fledermaus]

The Red Army suffered "Irrecoverable losses" ?

Yes. The Red Army BY THEIR OWN WORDS suffered irrecoverable losses.

Do you not understand the concept?

This is the Red Army that won the war and finished up in Germany in May 1945 with 500 divisions ?

Yes. It is.

Is there a point to your incredulity?

Your challenge was : "Start by listing the Red Army's immense losses after the battle of Moscow."

Done.

Next goalpost?

 

[Fledermaus]

It's pretty stupid to pretend that wiping out a large number of senior officers wouldn't negatively impact the performance of a military force.

By their own admission it did.

I think Rich has no military background beyond Call of Duty.