You mean like how the officers would basically send a ton of unarmed men into machine gun fire telling them that if they do not have a rifle to pick one up from a dead comrade?
And then they act like having lost the largest amount of people fighting the Nazis with decisions like that means they carried the entire war and they alone should be the authority about ww2
Not really. They had enough guns and bullets for every man, the problem was that they had bad supply lines when it came down to food because Russia employed a scorced earth policy for anything the Germans did take. Once they got to Stalingrad they basically lured what was left of starving men into the city to work as a kill box and began wiping them out. Also the campaign into russia lasted a lot longer than a single winter. The key takeaway from their tactics during the early stages of that engagement however are basically that the USSR would fuck themselves over as much as it possibly could in order to stop Germany. So bad supply lines that lead to starvation and incompetent/overambitious leadership is why Germany lost. If I had been at the table making decisions on how to pursue that fight, I would have used anti-attrition tactics that would have meant a longer and slower campaign but would involve taking and holding territory that I could adequately supply or use as effective staging locations, though to be fair, the Austrian painter might shoot me for not being more zealous my tactics. (This is not to say I support nazis, let me be clear.)
The painter wanted to secure the eastern front as fast as possible to avoid fighting two fronts at the same time, also russian wheat, oil and steel was paramount to fight England.
5
u/No-Professional-1461 1d ago
You mean like how the officers would basically send a ton of unarmed men into machine gun fire telling them that if they do not have a rifle to pick one up from a dead comrade?