Decisions of Barbarossa

[Lord Baal]

Do you have PROOF that stalin was not planning to attack the axis in late '41? No. I dont mean documents or actions that 'imply' that he wasnt. I mean hard proof. Now as stalin did not leave a diary or anything of the sort, i doubt we will ever know. But in order to prove something you need hard evidence, not actions or facts that imply something.

Then how do you "prove" definitively that Hitler wasn't a time-travelling reptilian monkey from Mercury? You have literally no understanding of history if you think we can't prove something like this satisfactorily based on the study of documents. That's what history is.

 

[arya126]

Yes but this was one of the most secretive, if not THE MOST secretive eprson in the history of mankind. Stalin twisted things so that they seemed one way, but in reality it was something else. He basicly rewrote the entire history of the war on the eastern front. You know how the battle of msocow is often used to descibe a great victory for the soviets and the climax of '41? In fact it had one of the lowest casulty counts in that period of the whole year. The casulties in '41 decreased not decreased as the fighting went on.

I just cant begin to descibe this. I really recomend you to read Deathride by John Mosier, and perhaps you will understand where i am coming from better. Its a very good book that i am in the process of reading, and it offers a new perspective into the two dictators minsets and motives, as well as a hsitory fo the eastern front and more.

 

[Lord Baal]

Considering I studied the war on the Eastern Front for four years at university, I sincerely doubt this book has any new insights I haven't already gotten from the literally 100+ books I've read on the subject in the past. I will give it a read, but I am not holding out high hopes. Frankly, I think you'd be better off finding a biography of Stalin. Or Roosevelt, a man who was actually more secretive than Stalin, despite what you may think. After all, Stalin really wasn't that secretive, merely paranoid. The two are not the same. He was also an historical revisionist, but so was Winston Churchill - who was arguably worse, since he wrote the histories himself.

I am also well-aware of Stalin's revisionism. And the de-Stalinisation program's counter-revisionism after his death. And the revelations in the Soviet files released after 1989. This is hardly a unique case in history, my friend. Most leaders are revisionist and secretive. Stalin was simply better at it than most, but the facts are still there, open for viewing.

For all Stalin's paranoia and revisionism, he couldn't disguise basic, indisputable, recognisable facts. These include the USSR's economic strength, military numbers and dispositions, and the thoughts and feelings of his generals, many of which were written down after Stalin's death, their authors thus avoiding execution or imprisonment. Zhukov actually requested that Germany be invaded in 1941 but was turned down by Stalin, which is yet another death-knell to the argument that Stalin planned an invasion of Germany in 1941.

For all the fudging of official numbers on paper, the true figures are there if you're willing to wade through the mountains of data to get your hands on them. Fortunately, historians have done that for us so that we don't have to. Do a little study in the area; don't base all your beliefs off of one book. No matter how good a book it is, it's bound to screw up somewhere along the line. Authors are only human, after all.

 

[arya126]

Oh dont worry. I plan on studying WW2, specifically the eastern front, extensivley over the next few years. Im just a little busy at the moment, and a little undereducated (almost 15, although i consider myself to be relativly 'smarter' than most, not in knowledge although that is sometimes true, but in comprehending things), so i have trouble going through the more 'educated' texts, which i plan on going through sometime during/after high school.

Actually stalin was much more secretive than either hitler or roosevelt, whom i actually despise, partly because of the new deal. His actions were very contradictory in some cases. I could cite several cases from deathride alone, and probably find quite a few more on the internet.

Stalin could and did change military numbers, the specific case i nknow of is casualties, although i know there were more. Basicly if stalin wanted stats to support hsi view/speeches/reports to the outside world, then he would get someone to maipulate/create entirely new data, and if that person couldnt do it he was shot. Casulaties are a glaring showing in this case, where the soviets claimed to have found the dead of 55k germans, captured 15k, and destroyed 500 tanks, during von manstiens attack to relieve the cherkassy pocket. But this is wrong as it exceeded the numbers of german lost all along the eastern front and italy combined, let alone in that one area. Official soviet data said they lost 80k men themselves, and no armor (which is actually sort of ridiculous considering the tanks they claimed to have killed), let alone that the average casulty exchange rate was 4:1 in favor of the germans at the time.

 

[Masada]

Since it cant be PROVEN EITHER WAY (masada kept saying how i said it could only be proved my way, but not your way, even though i kept saying it couldnt be proven either way) i really dont feel like going at the comments again. Keeping this up and making no headway just makes people tired.

Er, no. That's not how it works. We can prove our position. There are documents from the Soviet archives that do that for us; not to mention the masses of derivative literature that have since been published. However if we assume that your right and that either these secret documents are lies propagated by Stalin or simply that they don't exist then your indeed finally right that neither of us can conclusively prove our cases. But we still win the debate anyway because your examples are silly (VVS = RAF!) etc.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Well played, good sir. Well played.

Seriously, the Soviet air force was pretty much destroyed, but at least they could blame it on bad intel and supplies. MacArthur actually had the opportunity to wipe out the Japanese air force in Formosa before it could attack him. He just didn't, since that would, you know, be something a competent military leader might do. As such, it was well beyond his capabilities.

On the other hand, you could spin that the other way, and that while the American air force was humiliated, they could at least blame that on an incompetent commander, and one with no experience in Aerial Warfare to boot, while the failures of the Soviet Air Force were systematic and permiated every level.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Casulaties are a glaring showing in this case, where the soviets claimed to have found the dead of 55k germans, captured 15k, and destroyed 500 tanks, during von manstiens attack to relieve the cherkassy pocket. But this is wrong as it exceeded the numbers of german lost all along the eastern front and italy combined,.

lolwut?

 

[Zardnaar]

Oh dont worry. I plan on studying WW2, specifically the eastern front, extensivley over the next few years. Im just a little busy at the moment, and a little undereducated (almost 15, although i consider myself to be relativly 'smarter' than most, not in knowledge although that is sometimes true, but in comprehending things), so i have trouble going through the more 'educated' texts, which i plan on going through sometime during/after high school.

Actually stalin was much more secretive than either hitler or roosevelt, whom i actually despise, partly because of the new deal. His actions were very contradictory in some cases. I could cite several cases from deathride alone, and probably find quite a few more on the internet.

Stalin could and did change military numbers, the specific case i nknow of is casualties, although i know there were more. Basicly if stalin wanted stats to support hsi view/speeches/reports to the outside world, then he would get someone to maipulate/create entirely new data, and if that person couldnt do it he was shot. Casulaties are a glaring showing in this case, where the soviets claimed to have found the dead of 55k germans, captured 15k, and destroyed 500 tanks, during von manstiens attack to relieve the cherkassy pocket. But this is wrong as it exceeded the numbers of german lost all along the eastern front and italy combined, let alone in that one area. Official soviet data said they lost 80k men themselves, and no armor (which is actually sort of ridiculous considering the tanks they claimed to have killed), let alone that the average casulty exchange rate was 4:1 in favor of the germans at the time.

I haven't studyed WW2 as such at tertiary level but I have spent 20+ years reading alot of WW2 literature to the point I know more than the university lecturers and tutors on the subject and I can contradict them and get away with it. All of the wartime leaders acted in contradictory ways at times. Once you read up a bit on the New Deal you come to the conclusion.

1. It probably wasn't perfect.
2. No one knew at the time how to deal with the Great Depression or even what caused it.
3. The Reopublicans didn't do any better than the Democrats ant argueably caused it or at least were on the spot when it started. The History forum regulers here know alot BTW. History can be subjective as well.

 

[Lord Baal]

Oh dont worry. I plan on studying WW2, specifically the eastern front, extensivley over the next few years. Im just a little busy at the moment, and a little undereducated (almost 15, although i consider myself to be relativly 'smarter' than most, not in knowledge although that is sometimes true, but in comprehending things), so i have trouble going through the more 'educated' texts, which i plan on going through sometime during/after high school.

My problem is that I've read so many books on the subject I can't actually remember which of them were good and which sucked. Four years of intensive study will do that to you. So I understand being busy, believe me. I have a kid due in six weeks time, which gives me six weeks to finish writing the first draft of my book, while starting a new job. Doesn't leave much time to conquer the world as Persia, but I'd go insane if I didn't.

Actually stalin was much more secretive than either hitler or roosevelt, whom i actually despise, partly because of the new deal. His actions were very contradictory in some cases. I could cite several cases from deathride alone, and probably find quite a few more on the internet.

Stalin was secretive, but no more so than any other dictator. Stalin's biggest asset was the secretive nature of the USSR, not his own personal paranoia. Russia had a brilliant counterespionage and secret police system which kept any knowledge Stalin didn't want the outside world knowing secret from anyone outside the Party. The fact that Gorbachev kept the Chernobyl disaster secret for so long is a sign of how excellent this system was. Stalin helped set it up, but it owed more to the nature of the system than the man in charge of it.

Stalin could and did change military numbers, the specific case i nknow of is casualties, although i know there were more. Basicly if stalin wanted stats to support hsi view/speeches/reports to the outside world, then he would get someone to maipulate/create entirely new data, and if that person couldnt do it he was shot. Casulaties are a glaring showing in this case, where the soviets claimed to have found the dead of 55k germans, captured 15k, and destroyed 500 tanks, during von manstiens attack to relieve the cherkassy pocket. But this is wrong as it exceeded the numbers of german lost all along the eastern front and italy combined, let alone in that one area. Official soviet data said they lost 80k men themselves, and no armor (which is actually sort of ridiculous considering the tanks they claimed to have killed), let alone that the average casulty exchange rate was 4:1 in favor of the germans at the time.

All of the cases you cite are public relations issues. Stalin and his entourage knew the real figures; those self-same figures are mentioned in official Soviet correspondence. I've read some of them. But what Stalin and his advisors knew to be true was very different from the information they fed to the public. While occasionally Soviet generals would lie to Stalin - Kursk is the best example; to this day people believe it was a massive tank battle with huge casualties on both sides, when in reality it was more of a turkey shoot for the Germans as they destroyed drunken Russian tank-drivers who stupidly drove repeatedly through a kill-zone - most weren't that stupid. Better to give Stalin bad news and anger him than have him find out you lied and execute you.

And your numbers are way, waaaaay the hell off there buddy. I don't know Manstein's losses at that time, but Germany lost more than a million troops killed or captured on the Eastern Front. That's a bit more than 55,000. Not even mentioning their Italian losses.

On the other hand, you could spin that the other way, and that while the American air force was humiliated, they could at least blame that on an incompetent commander, and one with no experience in Aerial Warfare to boot, while the failures of the Soviet Air Force were systematic and permiated every level.

Damn. Well played yet again.

 

[arya126]

All of the cases you cite are public relations issues. Stalin and his entourage knew the real figures; those self-same figures are mentioned in official Soviet correspondence. I've read some of them. But what Stalin and his advisors knew to be true was very different from the information they fed to the public. While occasionally Soviet generals would lie to Stalin - Kursk is the best example; to this day people believe it was a massive tank battle with huge casualties on both sides, when in reality it was more of a turkey shoot for the Germans as they destroyed drunken Russian tank-drivers who stupidly drove repeatedly through a kill-zone - most weren't that stupid. Better to give Stalin bad news and anger him than have him find out you lied and execute you.

And your numbers are way, waaaaay the hell off there buddy. I don't know Manstein's losses at that time, but Germany lost more than a million troops killed or captured on the Eastern Front. That's a bit more than 55,000. Not even mentioning their Italian losses.

Hold on. Maybe you misunderstood what i meant with my numbers. I meant in the period of time that the cherkassy pocket was encircled and relieved by manstien. I know that the eastern front was a bloodbath, with alot on both sides dying. I meant it exceeded the casulaty numbers of the period of time where the cherkassy pocket was made and relieved. My bad for not explaining.

But did stalin and his generals keep the real numbers? As far as i know therre is know record of them besides the official soviet records, and maybe some tidbits here and there, and maybe some semi-accurate stuff after stalins death. My personal opinion is that stalin was told, but during the first half of the war he didnt actually believe his generals. This can be shown during the second half of 43. Stalin continued with his myriad of mini offensives that kept pushing the germans back, but none of the operations had the resources to exploit the successes it made. The generals kept pushing, mostly zhukov, for a bigger offensive, and it wasnt really until late 43 and the yalta conference that stalin chose to listen. Now yes, he did the two huge planetary offensives in 42, but that was a special case. For the most case he didnt seem to listen to his generals the same way hitler didnt, except in the case of stalin, the generals were actually making more sense that stalin. Only during mars and uranus of 42, and rumiantsev/kurutsev(?) did he plan and execute large operations. The rest were small offensives continually weakening the red army until 44 when zhukov conviced him. This shows that stalin did not trust his generals, and i dont think he trusted them with stats. There is a possibility he didnt believe the general's stats, even if they did tell him the correct figures.

 

[Bataknese]

general winter saved russians

 

[GoodGame]

general winter saved russians

Strong resistance at Stalingrad, also. And Georgi Zhukov. And the russian people.

 

[Lord Baal]

Hold on. Maybe you misunderstood what i meant with my numbers. I meant in the period of time that the cherkassy pocket was encircled and relieved by manstien. I know that the eastern front was a bloodbath, with alot on both sides dying. I meant it exceeded the casulaty numbers of the period of time where the cherkassy pocket was made and relieved. My bad for not explaining.

Ah, understandable. Poorly worded though, I wasn't the only one who noticed it and wondered if you were high or something. Still, we've all done it.

But did stalin and his generals keep the real numbers? As far as i know therre is know record of them besides the official soviet records, and maybe some tidbits here and there, and maybe some semi-accurate stuff after stalins death.

Yes, they did. There are two types of files in the Soviet archives; the "official" documents and the real documents. The real documents went to Stalin, Molotov, and others. The "official" documents came from Stalin and co.. These documents have been released since and used by historians to discover many things, including the identities of some of Stalin's spies in the UK and US who were never discovered and died before the fall of the USSR. That's where the information about Kursk comes from.

My personal opinion is that stalin was told, but during the first half of the war he didnt actually believe his generals. This can be shown during the second half of 43. Stalin continued with his myriad of mini offensives that kept pushing the germans back, but none of the operations had the resources to exploit the successes it made.

This was more because he was a very bad general himself - as can be seen by his actions in the Russian Civil War - than because he didn't believe his generals. Hitler had the same problem, but Stalin was smart enough to realise he wasn't a good strategist and turned over running the actual campaign to his subordinates. Hitler was still issuing orders from the bunker in May 1945.

The generals kept pushing, mostly zhukov, for a bigger offensive, and it wasnt really until late 43 and the yalta conference that stalin chose to listen. Now yes, he did the two huge planetary offensives in 42, but that was a special case. For the most case he didnt seem to listen to his generals the same way hitler didnt, except in the case of stalin, the generals were actually making more sense that stalin.

I don't know where you've gotten the idea that Hitler knew a damn thing about warfare, but he didn't. In fact the man was considerably stupider when it came to warfare than even Stalin, who was none too bright. Hitler was lucky enough to back the Manstein Plan in 1940, which gave him a false sense of his own military skill, but in fact Manstein and Guderian would have succeeded even more if not for Hitler's micromanagement of their assaults. Hitler was a military buffoon.

Only during mars and uranus of 42, and rumiantsev/kurutsev(?) did he plan and execute large operations. The rest were small offensives continually weakening the red army until 44 when zhukov conviced him. This shows that stalin did not trust his generals, and i dont think he trusted them with stats. There is a possibility he didnt believe the general's stats, even if they did tell him the correct figures.

He didn't trust Molotov, let alone his generals. That's why he had special political commissars embedded with them. Trust me, Stalin knew he was getting accurate information for the simple reason that none of the people who gave it to him knew if he was spying on them or not, and therefore didn't have the courage to lie.

 

[arya126]

general winter saved russians

Wrong. The germans offensive ended because their troops were exhausted by the time of moscow. Gneral winter didnt do much against the germans. In fact, the germans fought very well during the winter, even if they lacked the winter clothing. But so did the russians. They were just more sued to it.

Strong resistance at Stalingrad, also. And Georgi Zhukov. And the russian people.

Wrong as well. Stalingrad actually didnt last that long. Yes, chuikov gave resisitance, but paulus still took it, and inflicted more casualties on the soviets than he took. Much more. The operation that surrounded stalingrad came later, during operation uranus. Even later, manstein had driven within 60 miles of relieving the 6th army, and paulus for some reason took that moment to surrendur.

Plus zhukov was barely an average military commander. He is credited with being an amazing general, but that is not true. He was just the only soviet general that ever won a modern battle by 41. And even that battle (khaklin ghol right? The one against the japs) was lopsided in his favor.

Ah, understandable. Poorly worded though, I wasn't the only one who noticed it and wondered if you were high or something. Still, we've all done it.


Yes, they did. There are two types of files in the Soviet archives; the "official" documents and the real documents. The real documents went to Stalin, Molotov, and others. The "official" documents came from Stalin and co.. These documents have been released since and used by historians to discover many things, including the identities of some of Stalin's spies in the UK and US who were never discovered and died before the fall of the USSR. That's where the information about Kursk comes from.


This was more because he was a very bad general himself - as can be seen by his actions in the Russian Civil War - than because he didn't believe his generals. Hitler had the same problem, but Stalin was smart enough to realise he wasn't a good strategist and turned over running the actual campaign to his subordinates. Hitler was still issuing orders from the bunker in May 1945.


I don't know where you've gotten the idea that Hitler knew a damn thing about warfare, but he didn't. In fact the man was considerably stupider when it came to warfare than even Stalin, who was none too bright. Hitler was lucky enough to back the Manstein Plan in 1940, which gave him a false sense of his own military skill, but in fact Manstein and Guderian would have succeeded even more if not for Hitler's micromanagement of their assaults. Hitler was a military buffoon.


He didn't trust Molotov, let alone his generals. That's why he had special political commissars embedded with them. Trust me, Stalin knew he was getting accurate information for the simple reason that none of the people who gave it to him knew if he was spying on them or not, and therefore didn't have the courage to lie.

1. Yes my apologies for not wording it better.

2. Actually i dont think stalin was exactly a 'bad' general, at least there were far worse ones. But during WW2, i think he was still living in the past, as can be shown by his orders to attack on a broad front, and his willingness to lose massive amounts of troops that was the usual losses (at least on the western front) in WW1.

3. Hitler may have not been a good 'general' all round sort of thing like hsi generals were. But there were things that the generals didnt understand, such as the objectives hitler gave, and their reflex to withdraw rather than stand their ground and bleed the soviets dry. But the reason not to withdraw that hitler gave, was because of two things. One, the fighting mostly took part in the huge area of european russia that has little defensive terrain and other opportunities. It wasnt like western europe where they could fall back to a nearby town or road. Two, the casulty rate was heavily in the germans favor. If the germans could keep that up and not retreat, they would run the soviets dry of manpower. Hitler correctly noticed that the soviets population was only twice as much as germany's was. So if the germans could keep up the 4:1 casualty rate in their favor, then they would make the soviets run out of manpower. The only problem, was that the east lacked the armored reserves they used to destroy any breakthroughs before they would do anything else, was gone after the abandonement of citadel. I can understand why you would think hitler was a 'military buffoon', but in reality alot of his decisions made much more sense than you realize.

 

[LightSpectra]

Couldn't tell you much about Stalin in the Soviet High Command, but I can tell you that as a field commander, he caused the Reds to lose at the Battle of Warsaw in 1920 due to the fact that he didn't want Tukhachevsky and Trotsky to get the glory.

 

[arya126]

Couldn't tell you much about Stalin in the Soviet High Command, but I can tell you that as a field commander, he caused the Reds to lose at the Battle of Warsaw in 1920 due to the fact that he didn't want Tukhachevsky and Trotsky to get the glory.

I dont know much at all about the civil war or anything, but i thought that Tukhachevsky lost the battle at warsaw because the commander of his southern flank would swing north to help him in his battle? Or was stalin that commander?

 

[LightSpectra]

I dont know much at all about the civil war or anything, but i thought that Tukhachevsky lost the battle at warsaw because the commander of his southern flank would swing north to help him in his battle? Or was stalin that commander?

The Mozyr Group and 16th Soviet Army were routed by a counter-attack from the southeast from Pilsudski, which should've been held in place by Stalin, who instead chose to siege Lwow out of spite for his compatriots.

 

[arya126]

Ah that explains it.

 

[GoodGame]

Wrong as well. Stalingrad actually didnt last that long. Yes, chuikov gave resisitance, but paulus still took it, and inflicted more casualties on the soviets than he took. Much more. The operation that surrounded stalingrad came later, during operation uranus. Even later, manstein had driven within 60 miles of relieving the 6th army, and paulus for some reason took that moment to surrendur.

Plus zhukov was barely an average military commander. He is credited with being an amazing general, but that is not true. He was just the only soviet general that ever won a modern battle by 41. And even that battle (khaklin ghol right? The one against the japs) was lopsided in his favor.

The siege of Stalingrad lasted many months. What is "lasting long" to you for a WW2 battle? And it lasted long enough that the participating German army was annhilated. advance to Moscow was well behind schedule. And by resisting at Stalingrad helped spread the German southern invasion (for oil) thin.

The kill ratio of the Germans isn't so relevant since the Germans were much less resilent to attrition than the Russians.

Zhukov may not have been a genius, but he accomplished the job encircling the Germans at Stalingrad.

Edit: also on "general winter" reports were that German armor was bogged down due to snow falls creating muddy conditions, so I would count that as a reason why German advances failed to win before winter arrived.

 

[Lord Baal]

Wrong. The germans offensive ended because their troops were exhausted by the time of moscow. Gneral winter didnt do much against the germans. In fact, the germans fought very well during the winter, even if they lacked the winter clothing. But so did the russians. They were just more sued to it.

I hope by exhausted you mean their supplies and ammunition. Fuel especially. The troops themselves had extremely high morale at this time, which tends to dull fatigue quite a bit. Still, winter didn't do that mucvh to slow the German advance. Spring, with the rain, mud and landslides that brings, was far more detrimental to them.

Wrong as well. Stalingrad actually didnt last that long. Yes, chuikov gave resisitance, but paulus still took it, and inflicted more casualties on the soviets than he took. Much more. The operation that surrounded stalingrad came later, during operation uranus. Even later, manstein had driven within 60 miles of relieving the 6th army, and paulus for some reason took that moment to surrendur.

If you got that from your Deathride book, stop reading it. Now. You have it completely arse-backwards. That's worse than knowing nothing about something; having the knowledge completely mixed up.

The siege of Stalingrad lasted several months before the majority of the city was taken by German troops under General Paulus. The sensible thing to do would have been to completely bypass the city; it really served no purpose to take it. Paulus's troops would have been better served acting as part of the push on the Caucasian oilfields - though going for them was pointless anyway, as the Soviet scorched earth tactics meant they would destroy them before letting them fall into German hands - or securing that push's flank. Instead, Hitler ordered them to attack a major, but strategically unimportant city. (And please don't tell me about Stalingrad's importance as a transportation and supply hub on the Volga; that was all well and good, but it had absolutely no use in the German campaign. It would be like attacking the Suez Canal when your objective was Nauru.)

Also, the Soviets never intended on holding the city; their purpose was to buy time for the encirclement to be prepared. This was blindingly obvious to everyone involved; Paulus even requested that he be permitted to withdraw more than once. It was Hitler - I have no idea why you consider him to have any military talent whatsoever, he demonstrably had none - who refused these calls. He also refused to allow Paulus to make a breakout attempt to meet Manstein - who came closer than 60 miles, though I don't recall exactly how close - after refusing Manstein's pleas for an earlier breakout attempt.

Stalingrad is solely Hitler's fault. Paulus is to blame only for following orders. He also didn't surrender during Manstein's failed breakout attempt. He surrendered several months later, finally defying Hitler's orders. Hitler even promoted Paulus - formerly his favourite general - to Field Marshall in an attempt to induce him to commit suicide rather than surrender (no German Field Marshal had ever been taken alive by the enemy). It didn't work.

Plus zhukov was barely an average military commander. He is credited with being an amazing general, but that is not true. He was just the only soviet general that ever won a modern battle by 41. And even that battle (khaklin ghol right? The one against the japs) was lopsided in his favor.

Zhukov was not the only general to have won a battle by 1941. Many had, against Japan - Khalkin Gol was not the only border skirmish with the Japanese, merely the largest and most decisive - Finland and the Russian Civil War. Several Russian generals had even fought under the Tsars quite successfully. Zhukov simply had a knack for finishing his battles and campaigns very quickly, gaining him attention, even if he expended many troops winning them. Khalkin Gol also wasn't that lopsided; the Japanese simply allocated a piss-poor amount of resources to the battle, while Zhukov concentrated his forces to good effect.

1. Yes my apologies for not wording it better.

No problem.

2. Actually i dont think stalin was exactly a 'bad' general, at least there were far worse ones. But during WW2, i think he was still living in the past, as can be shown by his orders to attack on a broad front, and his willingness to lose massive amounts of troops that was the usual losses (at least on the western front) in WW1.

Stalin proved his incompetence in the Russian Civil War, let alone WWII. And Stalin's willingness to use such vast amount of troops had more to do with his own callousness than any WWI pretensions.

3. Hitler may have not been a good 'general' all round sort of thing like hsi generals were.

He was one of the worst generals of all-time. He was only the second-worst of the war though; his buddy Heinrich Himmler was even more piss-poor than he was. Still, Hitler was the guy who was stupid enough to make Himmler a general, so he should get much of the blame for that also.

But there were things that the generals didnt understand, such as the objectives hitler gave, and their reflex to withdraw rather than stand their ground and bleed the soviets dry.

They didn't understand his objectives because they were the wrong objectives. Stalingrad should never have been attacked, the Kievan Army Group should have been left alone and Leningrad was entirely unimportant. As for the Caucasian oilfields, I've already explained to you that it wasn't even Hitler's idea to strike for them; I checked yesterday, and it appears that it was proposed by more than one general, including Paulus, one of the few generals Hitler listened to at the time.

But the reason not to withdraw that hitler gave, was because of two things.

Actually, Hitler never gave any reason to refuse to withdraw. He though in WWI terms of holding ground and didn't even understand the concept of a strategic withdrawal.

One, the fighting mostly took part in the huge area of european russia that has little defensive terrain and other opportunities. It wasnt like western europe where they could fall back to a nearby town or road.

Grade A bullcrap. European Russia is full of highly defensible areas. Marshes, hills passes and valleys dot the area. Even the steppe has defensible locales. Not to mention the usefulness of certain strategically located cities and towns (the aforementioned hubs).

Two, the casulty rate was heavily in the germans favor. If the germans could keep that up and not retreat, they would run the soviets dry of manpower. Hitler correctly noticed that the soviets population was only twice as much as germany's was.

The Soviet population was considerably more than twice that of Germany.

So if the germans could keep up the 4:1 casualty rate in their favor, then they would make the soviets run out of manpower.

Your casualty rates are very skewed. It was only 4:1 in Germany's favour in the early months of Operation: Barbarossa. After that it averaged out at less than 2:1. I believe it was around 2:1 over the course of the entire war. Maybe 2.5:1. So, as you can see, Germany's pool of manpower was going to run out much earlier than the Soviet's. Not to mention the fact that Germany was already suffering from a labour shortage which they attempted to address through slave labour. The Soviets never suffered any but localised labour shortages for the duration of the war. It's hard to recruit troops when the only men in your country are working in necessary wartime industries.

The only problem, was that the east lacked the armored reserves they used to destroy any breakthroughs before they would do anything else, was gone after the abandonement of citadel.

Actually the East had enough armour. They lacked fuel. Not to mention the fact that Soviet tanks, on average, were superior to German ones anyway.

I can understand why you would think hitler was a 'military buffoon', but in reality alot of his decisions made much more sense than you realize.

Only in the light of ideological nonsense. Hitler's military ideas made absolutely no sense. The only people who would say otherwise are the ignorant (which you sadly are my friend) the stupid and those with an agenda. I don't know which of the latter your Deathride author is.

The Mozyr Group and 16th Soviet Army were routed by a counter-attack from the southeast from Pilsudski, which should've been held in place by Stalin, who instead chose to siege Lwow out of spite for his compatriots.

He also royally cocked up that seige.

Edit: also on "general winter" reports were that German armor was bogged down due to snow falls creating muddy conditions, so I would count that as a reason why German advances failed to win before winter arrived.

That happened more in spring than winter; rainfall created more mud than snowfall. It was still a problem, of course.