Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 41

Thread: Myths of the Red Army during World War II

  1. #1
    Joseon194's Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Mothaflippin Dragonstone
    Posts
    349

    Default Myths of the Red Army during World War II

    Can someone list me all or any of the myths that people have of the Red army? Lately I have seen much discussion of the Red Army's tactics, strategy, and overall behaviour during the events of 1941-1945. I want you, the students of the College of History, to shed some light on this.
    "This is Stannis Baratheon. The man will fight to the bitter end and then some.


  2. #2

    Default Re: Myths of the Red Army during World War II

    Well, Russians like to talk about "courage of the Red Army". Truth is, this courae was "inspired" by the line of communist party members behind them. When Red Army soldiers tried to retreat, this commisars were shooting at them, so there was no other way but to attack.

  3. #3
    kentuckybandit's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    745

    Default Re: Myths of the Red Army during World War II

    It would help if you could list some of these myths. Then we could address them. It is also important to remember that the Soviet army was constantly evolving during the war. The rapid German successes of the initial invasion, the aftershocks of the purges in the officer corps, the psyche of a retreating army vs an advancing army, new technology, political ideology, social issues, so on and so forth all left their mark on the Red Army as it recovered ground lost and eventually began pushing into Europe proper.

    *edit* OMG I just realized you were asking us to list said myths. Sorry, idiot moment.
    Last edited by kentuckybandit; August 17, 2014 at 04:25 PM.



  4. #4

    Default Re: Myths of the Red Army during World War II

    Quote Originally Posted by Ilkin1987 View Post
    Well, Russians like to talk about "courage of the Red Army". Truth is, this courae was "inspired" by the line of communist party members behind them. When Red Army soldiers tried to retreat, this commisars were shooting at them, so there was no other way but to attack.
    Thank you for identifying the first myth surrounding the Red Army war effort.
    "He that makes war without many mistakes has not made war very long."


    - Napoleon Bonaparte

  5. #5
    kentuckybandit's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    745

    Default Re: Myths of the Red Army during World War II

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongolian View Post
    Thank you for identifying the first myth surrounding the Red Army war effort.
    I have it somewhere in my books, I need to dig it out, but it gives an estimate of people actually shot for retreating. It was rather low (in relation to the large numbers of people involved). Also the shooting for retreating was only in a few instances, they really were just looking for true desertion (as any army would have done while defending their homeland).



  6. #6

    Default Re: Myths of the Red Army during World War II

    Offhand, there are two pretty much diametrically opposed myths that come to mind and I'll throw out.

    A: That the Red Army/Soviet Union Won The War By Itself

    To put it politely, this is utterly naive and tunnel visioned. However, to hear some people go on, you would think that the Eastern Front was absolutely all that mattered, that the Soviet Union could have likely won if the Western Allies surrendered, or what have you. To which we will usually see the same figures about 80%-60% (whatever it is) German/European Axis/whatever (again, it shifts) casualties being caused on the Eastern Front.

    All of this is shortsighted at best and probably worse. Firstoff, the figures are extremely sketchy, as I've mentioned before. While it is very true that the Eastern Front was the largest and bloodiest single conflict in human history and most of the German casualties- especially ground- in the war *did* happen on the "Ostfront", this tends to make people like to ignore how it was just part of an even bigger picture, and to fudge the numbers. For instance, the proportions of the air and naval wars in Europe the Western Allies handled were *at least* the inverse of how the Soviets dominated the land war and probably more, in effect taking up the lion's share of the burden for something like two thirds of the ETO battlesphere. And this is before I even get into the fact that the Soviets sat out nearly a third of the war in Europe and almost all of the Pacific.

    Secondly, it ignores the very real weaknesses the Soviet Union had (ironically overlapping with prejudices/myths that devalue the Red Army) and how they relied on their allies like those allies relied on them. In effect, even if we can agree that the Eastern Front was center stage for WWII, the Western Allies and China had to fight two massive "flanking actions" almost as large as it in order to keep the USSR from being isolated or worse. What a lot of people tend to forget are the sheer number of Axis forces the Western Allies defeated or tied up away form the Ostfront and prevented from concentrating, which would have probably done them in. I already mentioned the leading role they played in the ETO's air and sea (which effectively meant they were fighting most of the Reich's two junior services alone), but they also did things like keep hundreds of thousands of soldiers tied up away from the front in places like Norway through intelligence ruses and commando/guerrilla actions.

    And this is before I even get into the threat from Japan, feeble as it was. While Japan's land forces had already showed they were not up to scratch against the Red Army, their navy and air services absolutely dwarfed what the Soviets could concentrate against them, and at the crucial turning points around '41-43, the Japanese entering into the war would have resulted in the Soviets being caught in a two front war and probably outnumbered on the grand strategic level, while outlying areas like the Russian Pacific Islands, Vladivostok, etc. al. would have been dead letters.

    Of course, they didn't do that because Japan chose Strike South without going into war with the Soviets, and the Western Allies and Chinese land war boondoggle made sure they couldn't until the Soviets jumped in on their heads while they were on the ropes.

    And finally, we have the fact that the Soviet war effort relied a lot on lend-lease- especially for trucks- and lines of communication available only because of Western Allied colonial possessions or shipping power. Because even though the relocation over the Urals worked, it didn't change the fact that an Axis army in control of most of European Russia held the cards in the long fight if it could simply hold position. That didn't work.

    TLDR: The Soviets were indeed dominant in the conventional ground war, but they needed to be supported by air, naval, logistical, and resource aid along with an entire separate war against Japan.

    B: The Red Army Could Not Have Lost; Hitler Was Doomed the Second He Crossed the Border in June.

    Again, for various reasons I find this hard to believe. The Axis invasion of the USSR was never the most spectacularly artistic or competent plan in human history, but it wasn't a complete dump and how far it actually did succeed in spite of glaring (and even stupid) pitfalls is testament to both the Axis's strengths and Soviet weaknesses. At the end of it, the European Axis had control of more of the European USSR than the USSR did, including a lot of the USSR's most productive and populated territory. All in spite of things like Hitler's interference, institutional racism, mind numbing optimism, and so on/so forth.

    On top of this, people tend to forget just how long the German-led Axis were competitive in Russia. Stalingrad is the perennial turning point and for good reason, but it was by no means the deathblow of the Reich or its' allies. They still maintained large armies capable of occupying territory and launching attacks that could batter or even defeat the Soviets, as shown by the fact that the main operation between the end of Stalingrad and the start of Kursk was a resounding German victory counterattacking against superior Soviet numbers. Again, in spite of Hitler getting even more hands-on and counterproductive, the loss of so many experienced forces and equipment at Stalingrad and the months prior, etc. And of course, the fact that Kursk largely played out the way it did because Hitler and the OKW decided to attack the most heavily defended point rather than go elsewhere.

    And all of this is ignoring things like if the Japanese intervened or what have you. None of this means that the Axis had an absolutely spectacular chance to win over the Soviets, especially when they got started. I do not think they did, but I do think there was some kind of chance and that refusing to recognize it underplays the role the Soviet Union had.

    In short, I find that while Myth A denigrates the contributions of those not in the Red Army, I find this one denigrates the contributions of those who were. Reducing things to number games can be very useful, but going too far isn't. Especially not when we ignore that the Germans *succeeded* in their WWI invasion of the Russian Empire after inflicting a fraction of the external damage- and conquering only part of the land- their Axis inheritors did in the sequel.


    C: They Won Only Through "Crushing Numbers"/ Overwhelming Manpower.


    Also known as "German Memoir Syndrome", since some of the worst suspects were from a lot (though not all) of the Wehrmacht etc. al.'s commanders. This I find is another thing that denigrates the Red Army, alleging that the Soviets had an overwhelming numerical superiority (which was true to some degree) that they could only throw away in messy, uncoordinated, and needlessly brutal attacks. Which of course got fended off by the heroic Axis fighters against great odds, who only inevitably were defeated by the Weight of Numbers/Industrial Capability/Hand of God/ Two Front War.

    Yeah. Right. Tell that to Brusilov and Army Group Center.

    The long and short of it is that I am not a big apologist claiming the Red Army did not make catastrophic, sloppy, and needlessly brutal blunders or that this situation never played out like this. They did. It's just that if you believed this, you would believe the entire war was like this. To say the least, it wasn't. The Soviets faced a steep learning curve- probably steeper and more costly than the majority of the combatants- but they climbed it and grew steadily in power and competence as they did. Even during the very outbreak of the war the Southern flank perplexed the Romanians and their German Auxiliaries to dickens, and a few Soviet armor held up entire pincers of Army Group North. By they end, they were able to conduct strikingly powerful and elegant operations like Bagration and the Manchurian Strategic Offensive with extraordinary grace, and were far beyond what they had started as.
    The problem is this myth acts like they never got beyond 1941-42 level, which can easily be disproved by a couple things. A: looking at the above operations. And B: realizing what would probably have happened if that were true, as we saw in WWI. On top of C: that the USSR's numerical superiority was a lot more flimsy than it looks.

    There are plenty more, but those are the big three that come to my mind now.

  7. #7
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Myths of the Red Army during World War II

    The legacy of Marshal Zhukov: he's been classified as everything from the most blundering idiot to the greatest commander and the truth is really in between there somewhere.

    At the least the man is slightly overrated. Supposedly he was single handedly responsible for every major victory since all the way in Mongolia in 1939 to the fall of Berlin in 1945 (and then later on the defeat of the Hungarian insurgents in 1956 before being booted by Kruschev).

    He did make some huge and bloody blunders however. Some of the biggest propaganda has to be the fact that he won at Stalingrad. This is false! The truth is he was very insistent on an attack at Rzhev which failed miserably, he believed the German feint and expected the attack to come on Moscow. It was Alexander Vasilevsky who was the strategist responsible for the break through at Stalingrad against the German Sixth army and Manstein's Army Group B.

    It was almost him entirely who turned the battle of Berlin into a meat grinder for instance.
    He was entrusted by Stalin because he carried out orders and the strategies of STAVKA.

    I could go into more but I feel you will all get the point.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  8. #8
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Myths of the Red Army during World War II

    Quote Originally Posted by Ilkin1987 View Post
    ...courage of the Red Army....
    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    ...
    A: That the Red Army/Soviet Union Won The War By Itself....
    B: The Red Army Could Not Have Lost; Hitler Was Doomed the Second He Crossed the Border in June....
    C: They Won Only Through "Crushing Numbers"/ Overwhelming Manpower....
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    The legacy of Marshal Zhukov:....
    They're the big ones I've heard. I'd add a few specific ones.

    Valsili Zaitsev killed the head of the German sniper school Major Koenig at Stalingrad in an epic sniper duel ZOMG. I've read this was a Pravda furphy (originally I read the story in that fascinating colection of interviews "Enemy at the Gates"), although Zaitsev was a sniper ace the CCCP decided there needed to be a boss battle to prove it.

    Siberian snipers stopped the Wehmacht drive on Moscow in late 1941. I'm unsure of the status of this myth but I have seen it repeated in many "coffee table" WW2 books, but its so simple its surely innacurate.

    Tuchachevsky/some other comrade invented Blitzkrieg. Once again I'm unsure of this, there some theory of deep operations in Soviet military doctrine, but I can't see how the Nazis acquired it.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  9. #9
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Myths of the Red Army during World War II

    Soviet Deep Operation was not Blitzkrieg.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  10. #10
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Myths of the Red Army during World War II

    Tukhachevsky is a tad overrated in my opinion. I've heard that he didn't actually know how a tank worked himself (much like Patton and unlike say Guderian and Fuller). As far as doctrine goes Mikhail Frunze deserves much of the credit. As far as developing that into an army Tukhachevsky gets the credit.
    If anything blitzkrieg is a myth though. It was invented some would say by John Monash in WW1.

    Guderian also gets too much credit IMO, it's not like he did it all alone cause what about all of those other trained professionals also working on the German tank arm? Basil Liddel Hart probably gives him too much credit to pass one of his agendas. Hart can go all "I told you we should have gotten more tanks" and then everyone looks at Guderian and says "oh yes many tanks much clobbering we received".

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  11. #11
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Myths of the Red Army during World War II

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    I've heard that he didn't actually know how a tank worked himself (much like Patton and unlike say Guderian and Fuller).
    Neither was Rommel or Manstein. Either way the concept of Soviet Deep Operation was more an improvement of classic WWI strategy approach with mechanized force this time. Technically it has two phases - assault phase and exploit phase; assault phase is using MASS ASSAULT to break enemy's frontline (or tactical zone), while exploit phase is using mechanized force to speed roll enemy's unprotected back once its frontline is overran. That approach was technically not different than how all WWI army tried to do strategically. How Soviet reached this expensive and ineffecient conclusion was another matter.
    Last edited by hellheaven1987; August 21, 2014 at 12:32 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  12. #12
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Myths of the Red Army during World War II

    Manstein is some good learning right there. After you lose a war make sure to write a book about how you could have single handedly won if only you were allowed to do whatever you wanted. Also make sure it coincides exactly with the expansion of your country's military so that they can give you a job.

    Rommel is also some good learning. Get an opponent that you constantly beat and make sure they write all about how it's not their fault cause you're actually just really really good.

    Wait isn't this about the Red army?
    To clarify when I say Tukhachevsky is a tad overrated that is indeed a somewhat broken statement. How is Tukhachevsky even rated? Most people don't even know who that is. Those who do go all "Tukhachevsky made blitzkrieg" or "Tukhachevsky would have won Operation Barbarossa" he would rofl stomp Germany. You get the point, but it's not true. If it is. Give proof?

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  13. #13
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Myths of the Red Army during World War II

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    Manstein is some good learning right there. After you lose a war make sure to write a book about how you could have single handedly won if only you were allowed to do whatever you wanted. Also make sure it coincides exactly with the expansion of your country's military so that they can give you a job.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    Rommel is also some good learning. Get an opponent that you constantly beat and make sure they write all about how it's not their fault cause you're actually just really really good.
    The thing is that neither of them really learn tanks beyond basic tactical concept, unlike Guderian who was a tank engineer. On the other hand unlike Manstein and Rommel, Guderian's understanding of infantry and artillery only remained in basic concept. However, it seems Manstein had more understanding of other branches, hence why he did better in an operation as he could coordinate all different types of units better (afterall he was the one who pushed the SPG development in Germany).
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  14. #14
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Myths of the Red Army during World War II

    To be perfectly fair though Manstein wasn't even a good tank commander. Although Rommel was so I see your point.

    I don't think Tukhachevsky was even a tank commander though. I don't know about him enough to say for certain how he did with tanks or what he knew about tanks. Considering he never once fought in a war or commanded an army with the conventional tank of or after the 1920s. At most he had some armoured trains and some of those tiny armoured cars.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  15. #15
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Myths of the Red Army during World War II

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    To be perfectly fair though Manstein wasn't even a good tank commander. Although Rommel was so I see your point.
    Rommel wasn't a tank "expert"; his style was using armor division as mobile shock troops in a way similar as cavalry, which was not how armor should be operated (hence why armor division often suffered heavy casualty under Rommel). Rommel also seems only had basic understanding about air power, hence could not effectively deployed his limited air force well. But overall I don't blame Rommel though, since "Jack of All Trades" commanders are very rare.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    I don't think Tukhachevsky was even a tank commander though. I don't know about him enough to say for certain how he did with tanks or what he knew about tanks. Considering he never once fought in a war or commanded an army with the conventional tank of or after the 1920s. At most he had some armoured trains and some of those tiny armoured cars.
    He did not need to be tank commander since the exploit phase of classical Deep Operation was focusing on speed; it was believed there should be little resistance at the back once assault phase was finished (at the silly assumption that enemy would always stand there to fight on).
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  16. #16
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Myths of the Red Army during World War II

    Yet Tukhachevsky never even had a chance to test this out. He never even moved that fast in any campaign. So I'm not sure if Tukhachevsky is that qualified.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  17. #17
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Myths of the Red Army during World War II

    Well, neither was Fuller nor Hart tested their theory anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  18. #18
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Myths of the Red Army during World War II

    What was their theory even? Tanks equals win?
    Although Fuller and Hart at least had tank experience. Tukahcevsky had relatively none as far as I know.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  19. #19
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Myths of the Red Army during World War II

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    What was their theory even? Tanks equals win?
    General speaking, both were not much different - they all wanted to use armor as part of shock weapon in combine arm doctrine. Fuller wanted to focus armor more, while Hart wanted to focus infantry more. Strategically they were also divided in small details - Fuller believed armor/mechanized force should use for deep strategical penetration like how Sherman did it, while Fuller wanted to use armor/mechanized force for more close strategical goal such as encirclement (like how Grant did it).
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  20. #20
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Myths of the Red Army during World War II

    In my experience with Soviet armies and comparing the Wehrmacht to the Red army I have to say more armour. Even the Germans agreed cause if you read about the German plans after they conquered Russia they were to use captured French and Russian equipment to supplement what they had already. Greatly reduce many of the older veterans, the useless troops and eastern natives into massive worker battalions to increase state production and to develop Russia. That includes adding French and Russian tanks to increase the tank force, massive fighter, bomber and artillery production and a huge reduction in infantry.
    To clear away the old Wehrmacht and make way for a real army along French and Soviet lines.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •