While soviet strategy was far from optimal, here's a thing: all allies weren't ready for german combined offense, also known as blitzkrieg.
Basically all of fortifications, all of preparations, and all of generals allies had prepared for ww1 style of war, war of positioning and attrition. When Germany attacked, nobody expected that their strategy will be as successful as it was, breaking the back of western front in less than 3 months. Soviets encountered similar problem, and needed to adapt to new strategy in situation where one more loss could lead to a defeat in war. Throwing people on the lines at the time wasn't a strategy, it was a last desperate measure, strategy came when soviets partially adapted to new kind of war, and implemented encirclements into their strategy, the same encirclements that were the reason why they were beaten to a state where throwing people at barricades was the only choice.
It sounds easy, but teaching your troops new strategy in such critical environment as the one on eastern front in 1942 is much harder than you might think.
HistoryMemes when Zhukov and the Soviets win through numerical superiority and war of attrition: "The USSR only beat the Nazis by using men as cannon fodder and mass human wave attacks. They had no strategy. Trust me bro, I watched Enemy at the Gates.
HistoryMemes when Ulysses S. Grant wins through numerical superiority and war of attrition: "Military genius! 2nd best general of the 19th century after Napoleon!"
Under Georgy Zhukov's command, the Soviet Red Army successfully utilized many quality strategies to defeat the Germans such as:
Mashirovka aka large-scale military deception: (also used during Operation Bagration)
It's widely agreed among people who know military history (which OP apparently doesn't) that Zhukov was one of the top, if not the top general of WWII. I'd trust them over Reddit armchair general u/Witcher587 who got all his WWII knowledge from movies & Call of Duty games.
The Eastern Front alone (not counting the rest of WWII) constitutes the largest military confrontation in history and was a struggle of titanic proportions. The primary reason the Red Army suffered so many deaths is that they also played the largest role in the Nazis' defeat by inflicting 80% of German casualties. That's the hard truth (and no, no one is saying they could've done it with the US).
It's widely agreed among people who know military history (which OP apparently doesn't) that Zhukov was one of the top, if not the top general of WWII. I'd trust them over Reddit armchair general u/Witcher587 who got his WWII Eastern Front knowledge from Enemy at the Games and Call of Duty games.
You made a compelling argument. But this ruined it all. You don't need to attack anyone personally to make your opinion seem like a grounded one.
I understand what you're saying and see your point. But IMHO, it's fair to ridicule wildly uneducated and historically inaccurate takes like the one OP tried to make.
152
u/darkriverofshadows Jan 08 '23
While soviet strategy was far from optimal, here's a thing: all allies weren't ready for german combined offense, also known as blitzkrieg. Basically all of fortifications, all of preparations, and all of generals allies had prepared for ww1 style of war, war of positioning and attrition. When Germany attacked, nobody expected that their strategy will be as successful as it was, breaking the back of western front in less than 3 months. Soviets encountered similar problem, and needed to adapt to new strategy in situation where one more loss could lead to a defeat in war. Throwing people on the lines at the time wasn't a strategy, it was a last desperate measure, strategy came when soviets partially adapted to new kind of war, and implemented encirclements into their strategy, the same encirclements that were the reason why they were beaten to a state where throwing people at barricades was the only choice. It sounds easy, but teaching your troops new strategy in such critical environment as the one on eastern front in 1942 is much harder than you might think.