SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Yaacov who wrote (10830)6/2/1999 12:06:00 AM
From: Andy Thomas  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 17770
 
>> the Russians some 25 millions>>

<<Stalin killed more!<<

I wanted to respond to that little part myself: Agreed first of all that Stalin killed more.

Also, the Soviets wouldn't have lost ~20 million if Tukhachevskiy had gotten his purge instead of the other way around. The Russian losses at the hands of the germans were due more to Soviet military incompetence than anything else. To lay the blame at Germany's feet is somewhat irresponsible, in light of the records which came out in 1993.

Soviet documents released in 1993 reveal that in June of 1941 they were preparing themselves to attack Germany, and this partly explains why so many of them were caught in large pockets during that first summer... they were in staging areas for an attack of their own and were caught "with their pants down" when Barbarossa was commenced.

665,000 captured at Kiev, 600,000 more at Bryansk, another 800,000 in the sum total of smaller pockets... 2 million prisoners/dead that first summer.

You can bet this would have never happened if Tukhachevskiy had gotten his purge of Stalin.

Heck, the Soviets might have even built themselves into an economic power along the way as I imagine "Tuk" would have been much more "elastic towards the people" than Stalin was.

As it turned out, the Red Army didn't figure out how to run a blitzkrieg until late '43 and early '44. Prior to that they "wasted" a lot of troops.

FWIW
Andy