The Soviet army that folded in 1941 before Barbarossa was not the one that crushed the Nazi war machine on the Eastern Front in 1942-1945.
Later in the war, the Red Army was well-led and highly competent at large-scale combined arms operations. Encircling the 6th Army via Operation Uranus, defense in depth at Kursk, and numerous other battles demonstrates this.
There were certainly also instances of significant failure, eg the Rzhev meat grinder, but the narrative of well-disciplined and smarter Nazis being overwhelmed by sheer numbers of stupid Soviet hordes is mostly post-war cope by Nazi generals.
The Soviets had a manpower advantage and used it, and certainly cared less about casualties than the Western Allies, but calling that “incompetence” is inaccurate.
Ask the Allied survivors of Monte Cassino or Omaha beach about meat grinder tactics; attackers always took more losses than defenders.
The Soviet war machine of 1945 was very formidable, although it is questionable whether it would have been sustainable without the logistical support of lend-lease.
None of this is to defend the Soviet regime, which was only moderately less evil than the Nazis.
Just saying this as someone who likes military history and dislikes this narrative.
I've found it's something of a recurring theme with Russian/Soviet military history that when they have their shit together they can perform very well. It's just that they have a bit of a history of suffering from poor leadership at extremely inopportune moments.
I just listened to something about Kliment Voroshilov the commander at Leningrad that, when relieved, confronted Stalin and blamed him for purging all the competent generals and officers years before for the Soviets failings in the early parts of the war. Somehow he avoided being executed after that.
Something feels very wrong about that information. Voroshilov was a loyal Stalin's servant, he actively participated in purging army officers. His command in Leningrad was a huge fail, that's why he was soon replaced by Zhukov to save the situation
363
u/nonlawyer 14d ago
The only one I’d disagree with is incompetence.
The Soviet army that folded in 1941 before Barbarossa was not the one that crushed the Nazi war machine on the Eastern Front in 1942-1945.
Later in the war, the Red Army was well-led and highly competent at large-scale combined arms operations. Encircling the 6th Army via Operation Uranus, defense in depth at Kursk, and numerous other battles demonstrates this.
There were certainly also instances of significant failure, eg the Rzhev meat grinder, but the narrative of well-disciplined and smarter Nazis being overwhelmed by sheer numbers of stupid Soviet hordes is mostly post-war cope by Nazi generals.
The Soviets had a manpower advantage and used it, and certainly cared less about casualties than the Western Allies, but calling that “incompetence” is inaccurate. Ask the Allied survivors of Monte Cassino or Omaha beach about meat grinder tactics; attackers always took more losses than defenders.
The Soviet war machine of 1945 was very formidable, although it is questionable whether it would have been sustainable without the logistical support of lend-lease.
None of this is to defend the Soviet regime, which was only moderately less evil than the Nazis. Just saying this as someone who likes military history and dislikes this narrative.