USSR Like it or not?

[red_elk]

Quite frankly, under Stalin, it was probably the worst place on the planet.

Man, Solzhenitsyn was tortured and sent to a labor camp because he wrote very mild jokes about Stalin in a private letter that got aprehended. All he did was to ironically call him "the master" and say that things were not going good in the front (he was a soldier). So the court considered him guilty of anti-soviet propaganda and founding an hostile organization! Not even Nazi Germany was that screwed up.

For example, during Stalin's rule, average life expectancy in the "worst place on the planet" somehow increased more than 2 times compared to Imperial Russia.

As for Solzhenitsyn - it was not a good idea to send letters with political jokes during war time. And the word "pahan" has not exactly the same meaning as "the master".

 

[red_elk]

Ah, mea culpa. That's admirals that got executed to the last man. It was much rosier in other command positions. Only 4 of 5 marshals, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 13 of 15 army commanders , 16 of 16 army commissars, 50 of 57 army corps commanders and 25 of 28 army corps commissars were purged!

How many of them were executed? And how many returned to service after war started?

95% of army commanders lacked any reasonable combat experience. 80% of corps commanders similarly. Almost half regimental commanders. So on and so forth.

You got yourself the makings of a great army there!

Where are these numbers from?
Can you expect enough number of officers with reasonable combat experience, in a situation when army increased from roughly 1 million to 5 millions, after total mobilization?

Yeah, totally. Like by the start of Operation Barbarossa the USSR had 1,500 T-34s! That's like, three times what Lithuania had!

By the start of Operation Barbarossa, there were no such country as Lithuania.

Compare how technically equipped Red Army and Wehrmaht were in 1941. After that, compare industrial potential of Europe, invaded by Nazis and USSR, before war. Finally, check how industrial potential of USSR, and technical equipment of Red Army changed from 1935 to 1941. Then you may answer to question, was USSR preparing for fight for survival during all those years. Unfortunately for many people here, it managed to prepare.

 

[lovett]

How many of them were executed? And how many returned to service after war started?

Most were executed. Stalin wasn't the kind of guy who liked to leave high-profile enemies around.

But honestly, who cares? The Red Army suffered its really horrific damage, in operational terms, before winter. The surprisingly harsh winter gave the army time to re-organise structurally and promote officers based on merit.

Where are these numbers from?
Can you expect enough number of officers with reasonable combat experience, in a situation when army increased from roughly 1 million to 5 millions, after total mobilization?

Senior officers? Damn right you can. You can bloody well require it. It's not like their was a dearth of opportunity either. Just two decades previously there had been a massive civil war, and, ya know, WWI. It's not like the Red Army was particularly inactive during the 30's for chrissakes. You mentioned the occupation of Lithuania, do the invasions of Poland, Finland, Latvia or Estonia ring a bell?

And this book.

Compare how technically equipped Red Army and Wehrmaht were in 1941. After that, compare industrial potential of Europe, invaded by Nazis and USSR, before war. Finally, check how industrial potential of USSR, and technical equipment of Red Army changed from 1935 to 1941. Then you may answer to question, was USSR preparing for fight for survival during all those years. Unfortunately for many people here, it managed to prepare.

The Wehrmacht had 3600 Panzers on the Eastern Front alone. I do not find the creation of under-strength mechanized corps consisting of obsolete poorly maintained technology particularly impressive. Am I supposed to?
Sure, Industiralisation was vital, but it says nothing about the efficacy of the Red Army circa 1941. I mean, what kind of nations prepares to 'fight for its survival' by killing off its officers? Either Stalin was mighty stupid, or quite possibly he had a few ulterior motives.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

He exaggerated Stalin's death toll by a factor of about 5, but correcting that and replacing WW1 for the Civil War, it is generally truthful.

Sure, and if I include the casualties of the First and Third Indochina Wars, I can say the United States killed tens of millions rather than the two it really did.

Quite frankly, under Stalin, it was probably the worst place on the planet.

The Purges aside, I doubt any Russian leader would have created a significantly better "experience" for the time period that Stalin presided over.

 

[red_elk]

Most were executed. Stalin wasn't the kind of guy who liked to leave high-profile enemies around.

Zhukov, Konev, Voroshilov, Timoshenko, Budyonny, Vasilevsky, Rokossovsky, Tolbukhin, Malinovsky, Bagramyan... I can continue.
All of them were executed? Or appeared from nowhere before war? From your messages, it looks like you think that almost all high commanders were executed before start of war.

Senior officers? Damn right you can. You can bloody well require it. It's not like their was a dearth of opportunity either.

Yes, they were required, no doubt. Hundreds of thousands officers with good combat experience, for 5 million army, would be good to have. The question is where to find them?

Just two decades previously there had been a massive civil war, and, ya know, WWI. It's not like the Red Army was particularly inactive during the 30's for chrissakes. You mentioned the occupation of Lithuania, do the invasions of Poland, Finland, Latvia or Estonia ring a bell?

- WW1 and civil war were 20 years before - quite a long time.
- Incorporation of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania didn't create any combat experience.
- "Invasion of Poland" - If you mean liberation of Western Ukraine and Belorussia in 1939, after Poland's occupation in 1920, it also didn't create a lot of experience, as army of Poland already didn't exist at the moment.
- Finland - agree, but anyway scale of conflicts are incomparable.

The Wehrmacht had 3600 Panzers on the Eastern Front alone. I do not find the creation of under-strength mechanized corps consisting of obsolete poorly maintained technology particularly impressive. Am I supposed to?
Sure, Industiralisation was vital, but it says nothing about the efficacy of the Red Army circa 1941. I mean, what kind of nations prepares to 'fight for its survival' by killing off its officers? Either Stalin was mighty stupid, or quite possibly he had a few ulterior motives.

Technically, Red Army and Wehrmacht in 1941 had pretty much the same power. Germans had more experience and superior strategic and tactical skills, as we can see from WW2 events before 1941. All war preparations, including absolutely necessary enforced industrialization, allowed us to keep up with much more technically advanced, already industrialized enemy.

 

[Justin Somnios]

I like what the Soviet Union stood for, but they didn't really practice what they preached. Of course, the Hymn of the Soviet Union will never fall!

 

[luiz]

For example, during Stalin's rule, average life expectancy in the "worst place on the planet" somehow increased more than 2 times compared to Imperial Russia.

Yeah, too bad Stalin's reign ended in the freakin's 50's, with modern medicine and all, and Imperial Russia barely saw the 20th Century.

As for Solzhenitsyn - it was not a good idea to send letters with political jokes during war time. And the word "pahan" has not exactly the same meaning as "the master".

It was a very mild and private letter, not meant for the public. That someone got tortured and sent to labor camp because of that is simply barbaric and insane, and you seem to think it was mostly his fault!

 

[Sharwood]

Zhukov, Konev, Voroshilov, Timoshenko, Budyonny, Vasilevsky, Rokossovsky, Tolbukhin, Malinovsky, Bagramyan... I can continue.
All of them were executed? Or appeared from nowhere before war? From your messages, it looks like you think that almost all high commanders were executed before start of war.

Many were executed, many others were imprisoned. Zhukov was removed from a position of power twice, despite being a very talented commander, though inconsistent.

Yes, they were required, no doubt. Hundreds of thousands officers with good combat experience, for 5 million army, would be good to have. The question is where to find them?

Hello? The USSR had fought about nine wars in its short history. Plenty of experience to be gained.

- "Invasion of Poland" - If you mean liberation of Western Ukraine and Belorussia in 1939, after Poland's occupation in 1920, it also didn't create a lot of experience, as army of Poland already didn't exist at the moment.

Oh my god.

- Finland - agree, but anyway scale of conflicts are incomparable.

Finland was a massive arse-raping for the Soviet Union largely because they had idiots in command. The common soldiers were fine, barely trained but not useless. Their politically appointed commanders however, they were morons.

 

[red_elk]

Yeah, too bad Stalin's reign ended in the freakin's 50's, with modern medicine and all, and Imperial Russia barely saw the 20th Century.

Modern medicine itself is not enough. See modern African countries for example.

It was a very mild and private letter, not meant for the public. That someone got tortured and sent to labor camp because of that is simply barbaric and insane, and you seem to think it was mostly his fault!

It was his stupidity. He knew what policies had his country at war time, and if he didn't understand why they were required - it was nothing more than stupidity.

Many were executed, many others were imprisoned. Zhukov was removed from a position of power twice, despite being a very talented commander, though inconsistent.

Right. It's not the same as "all generals were executed" though.

Hello? The USSR had fought about nine wars in its short history. Plenty of experience to be gained.

Yes. I'm saying that there were nothing exceptional in lack of properly trained officers in the beginning of such war as Great Patriotic War. Army increased to huge size, many officers were killed in the first months.

Oh my god.

For Poles, they were liberators in 1920, we were occupants in 1939. For us - vice versa. What's wrong?

Finland was a massive arse-raping for the Soviet Union largely because they had idiots in command. The common soldiers were fine, barely trained but not useless. Their politically appointed commanders however, they were morons.

I'll remind you that Finland lost those war. And USSR got territories vital for Leningrad security. Though yes, if they accepted Soviet pre-war offer of exchange territories, it would be better for both.

 

[Sharwood]

Modern medicine itself is not enough. See modern African countries for example.

Distribution.

It was his stupidity. He knew what policies had his country at war time, and if he didn't understand why they were required - it was nothing more than stupidity.

He sent a private letter from the front. Soldiers do that all the time, always have, always will.

Right. It's not the same as "all generals were executed" though.

All admirals were. Which, I believe, is the only blanket statement regarding executions made since the bump.

Yes. I'm saying that there were nothing exceptional in lack of properly trained officers in the beginning of such war as Great Patriotic War. Army increased to huge size, many officers were killed in the first months.

There is something quite exceptional in lacking experienced officers in a country where many experienced officers were alive and well just a few short years earlier. 20 years is not a long time at all in upper military echelons. Many Colonels and above are career soldiers, they stay until they retire or die.

For Poles, they were liberators in 1920, we were occupants in 1939. For us - vice versa. What's wrong?

The idea of calling the Soviet invasions of Poland and Western Ukraine liberations is borderline sickening. I suppose the invasions of Finland and occupations of the Baltic countries were liberations too?

I'll remind you that Finland lost those war. And USSR got territories vital for Leningrad security. Though yes, if they accepted Soviet pre-war offer of exchange territories, it would be better for both.

Finland lost a war she had no business winning, after thoroughly humiliating the Red Army. Finland should have been overrun in a few weeks, she held out for months and got a better deal. And you're just perpetuating bogus Russian propaganda on this point, so there is absolutely no need or value in discussing it with you.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

They were liberated from an ideology that saw them as subhuman, and useful only for slavery and using up bullets, so yes, the Soviet Union was indeed a liberating force when it kicked the Nazis out.

It should also come as little surprise that the Communist governments came to power in Eastern Europe, not only because of the Soviet Union's occupation, but also because leftist groups formed the largest armed resistance movements in those occupied nations. Tito is the most apparent example of this, but the SDP in Germany had always been a powerful anti-government force before 1918, and it was by their actions that the Weimar Republic was created; they retained that ability through the Nazi Era, and it is why they were ready to take power when the Soviet Union gave the Nazis the boot.

I know that had almost nothing to do with the immediate argument, I was simply pre-empting an argument I saw coming.

 

[Dachs]

They were liberated from an ideology that saw them as subhuman, and useful only for slavery and using up bullets, so yes, the Soviet Union was indeed a liberating force when it kicked the Nazis out.

Good thing the Nazis weren't in charge of Poland when the Soviet Union invaded it.

 

[Sharwood]

You pre-empted a coming argument by saying what I would have said had that argument started? Who exactly were you pre-empting?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Good thing the Nazis weren't in charge of Poland when the Soviet Union invaded it.

We are talking about the Second World War, right? Not the 1919-1921 War?

You pre-empted a coming argument by saying what I would have said had that argument started? Who exactly were you pre-empting?

I figured you might say something to the effect of "them making puppet states out of the conquered territories was just as bad if not worse than Nazi occupation" in counter.

 

[Dachs]

We are talking about the Second World War, right? Not the 1919-1921 War?

Yeah. Starting on the 17th of September, 1939, the Soviet Union deployed some 35 divisions under the command of Mikhail Kovalev and Semyon Timoshenko into two Fronts, the Belorussian and Ukrainian, which conducted an advance westward into Polish territory. You may have heard of this troop movement. How was that a liberation?

 

[red_elk]

Distribution.

Distribution. Necessary infrastructure, hospitals, schools, etc. were built mostly during Soviet time.

He sent a private letter from the front. Soldiers do that all the time, always have, always will.

If an officer send a letter criticizing his commanders of any level, it is unwise. If it's war time and commander is Stalin - he is either idiot, or want to be arrested.

All admirals were. Which, I believe, is the only blanket statement regarding executions made since the bump.

He said "all generals were executed" - while a lot of them remain in service, and "Stalin refused to modernize army" - while army and entire country was modernizing as quickly as possible (with many lives sacrificed for that). What he said is not true. I don't know what you want to prove by talking about admirals.

There is something quite exceptional in lacking experienced officers in a country where many experienced officers were alive and well just a few short years earlier. 20 years is not a long time at all in upper military echelons. Many Colonels and above are career soldiers, they stay until they retire or die.

4% of officers were repressed before war.

The idea of calling the Soviet invasions of Poland and Western Ukraine liberations is borderline sickening. I suppose the invasions of Finland and occupations of the Baltic countries were liberations too?

Many local people saw Soviet troops as liberators - I don't see anything wrong with calling it liberation. Why not, if those lands were invaded by Poland just 20 years before?
Finland was invaded. Baltic states joined peacefully.

Finland lost a war she had no business winning, after thoroughly humiliating the Red Army. Finland should have been overrun in a few weeks, she held out for months and got a better deal. And you're just perpetuating bogus Russian propaganda on this point, so there is absolutely no need or value in discussing it with you.

A few weeks for taking heavy fortified border in winter time? In Finland? You are talking like real military specialist.

 

[Sharwood]

Distribution. Necessary infrastructure, hospitals, schools, etc. were built mostly during Soviet time.

Not arguing that. But the necessary infrastructure was constructed after the rise of modern medicine. Infrastructure is after all unnecessary until something comes along requiring it.

If an officer send a letter criticizing his commanders of any level, it is unwise. If it's war time and commander is Stalin - he is either idiot, or want to be arrested.

An officer criticising his commanders in private is perfectly acceptable. In public, that's anouther story. Although I agree that even muttering under one's breath when alone was asking for trouble under Stalin.

He said "all generals were executed" - while a lot of them remain in service, and "Stalin refused to modernize army" - while army and entire country was modernizing as quickly as possible (with many lives sacrificed for that). What he said is not true. I don't know what you want to prove by talking about admirals.

I didn't see him say "all generals were executed." I saw "all admirals were executed," which as far as I know is true. And Stalin modernised the army, but at a far slower rate than people think, and it seemed like he would have preferred something similar to Mao's peasant brigades if he could have had them.

4% of officers were repressed before war.

And how many of those officers were upper echelon, highly experienced ones? More than 4%, I assure you.

Many local people saw Soviet troops as liberators - I don't see anything wrong with calling it liberation. Why not, if those lands were invaded by Poland just 20 years before?
Finland was invaded.

Which is why Nazi Germany gained thousands of volunteers just two years later?

Baltic states joined peacefully.

That's the foreign relations equivalent of pointing a gun at a woman's head, asking her to have sex with you, then stating it's not rape.

A few weeks for taking heavy fortified border in winter time? In Finland? You are talking like real military specialist.

Considering the massive manpower and equipment advantage the USSR possessed, they damn well should have walked over Finland. I'm far more of a military expert than you my friend. Hell, an intelligent leader wouldn't have attacked Finland in winter anyway.

 

[Sharwood]

Didn't see this before my last post.

We are talking about the Second World War, right? Not the 1919-1921 War?

We we're discussing 1939-41.

I figured you might say something to the effect of "them making puppet states out of the conquered territories was just as bad if not worse than Nazi occupation" in counter.

You'd be wrong. You should know me better than that by now.

While the Soviet treatment of Eastern Europe was deplorable, it was a million times better than what Nazi domination would have entailed, at least in most nations. Possibly not Germany itselt, though even that is debateable. There certainly would have been far less rapes in a Nazi-controlled Germany.

 

[Yeekim]

As for Solzhenitsyn - it was not a good idea to send letters with political jokes during war time

Obviously not. And if you go to court against a Russian polkovnik, you are literally asking for it, right?

 

[red_elk]

Not arguing that. But the necessary infrastructure was constructed after the rise of modern medicine. Infrastructure is after all unnecessary until something comes along requiring it.

It was one of the Soviet achievements - bringing quality of life from medieval standards, close to civilized world. Significant part of job was done in 1930-1940.

An officer criticising his commanders in private is perfectly acceptable. In public, that's anouther story. Although I agree that even muttering under one's breath when alone was asking for trouble under Stalin.

Criticizing in private and sending letters with offence directed to leader of a country is not the same. He knew that.

I didn't see him say "all generals were executed." I saw "all admirals were executed," which as far as I know is true. And Stalin modernised the army, but at a far slower rate than people think, and it seemed like he would have preferred something similar to Mao's peasant brigades if he could have had them.

Care to check the information before writing? Or you like to blindly repeat everything what fits to your image? "All admirals were executed" - is this true?

And how many of those officers were upper echelon, highly experienced ones? More than 4%, I assure you.

More. You know, all admirals were executed

Which is why Nazi Germany gained thousands of volunteers just two years later?

Oh, I see. It was Nazi Germany who liberated them. That's why they gained thousands of volunteers.

That's the foreign relations equivalent of pointing a gun at a woman's head, asking her to have sex with you, then stating it's not rape.

Thousands of killed children, raped women, enslaved men. Burned villages. Evil Soviets did it to Baltic states in 1940 - everybody knows that.

I'm far more of a military expert than you my friend.

I see. "All admirals were executed" - words of great military expert