The performance of the Red Army

[Questionable]

For all you military-history buffs out there, how was the performance of the Red Army versus the German one?

I see a lot of fascists on the internet complain that the Red Army won by sheer numbers alone, and when it came to quality they were completely inferior to the Nazis. They claim the Germans had more kills per individual soldier, that the Russians lacked discipline and retreated constantly, that their treatment of their opponents was barbaric, and other criticisms.

How much truth is there in these claims?

[Teacher]

These arguments are all invalid. Fascists and racists always want to rewrite military history when they lose to make it seem like the forces of liberation only won because of "overwhelming numbers." Neo-Confederates make this same argument about the Union Army in the American Civil War. The same argument is made about the Chinese defeat of U.S. forces in Korea.

For a thorough debunking of this see the work by Col. David M. Glantz, a very objective and respected historian of the Eastern Front. Probably the best single volume treatment is When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler. Geoffrey Roberts also has a great new book called Stalin's Wars that debunks a lot of this type of stuff.

As far as the Soviets treating the Germans in a "barbaric" way, nobody can deny that the war on the Eastern Front was terrible on both sides. It was awful. However, few armies in history can hold a candle to the bloodthirsty brutality of the Nazis. For a good overview of this, see Omer Bartov's The Eastern Front, 1941-45: German Troops and the Barbarisation of Warfare.

[Geiseric]

The German army was really close to getting moscow and petrograd, had they not started the battle at Stalingrad which could of waited until the other fronts were done with, they may of had enough manpower to win Leningrad and moscow. Production wise, the fSU was a motorized army, had advanced fighter bombers, and thousands of heavy trucks imported from the U.S. the trucks alone are something Germany lacked, and the luftwaffa was also outclassed by the yak fighter wings.

[rednordman]

I cannot find the quote but I swear that even Hitler commented on the spirit and determination of the soviet soldiers, and that was when they where pushing the Russians back as well.

[Teacher]

These arguments are all invalid. Fascists and racists always want to rewrite military history when they lose to make it seem like the forces of liberation only won because of "overwhelming numbers." Neo-Confederates make this same argument about the Union Army in the American Civil War. The same argument is made about the Chinese defeat of
For a thorough debunking of this see the work by Col. David M. Glantz, a very objective and respected historian of the Eastern Front. Probably the best single volume treatment is When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army U.S. forces in Korea.
Stopped Hitler. Geoffrey Roberts also has a great new book called Stalin's Wars that debunks a lot of this type of stuff.

As far as the Soviets treating the Germans in a "barbaric" way, nobody can deny that the war on the Eastern Front was terrible on both sides. It was awful. However, few armies in history can hold a candle to the bloodthirsty brutality of the Nazis. For a good overview of this, see Omer Bartov's The Eastern Front, 1941-45: German Troops and the Barbarisation of Warfare.

Here is an article from Glantz in which he criticizes the way that much of the historiography is inaccurate because it relies on an uncritical reading of Nazi sources. Also a link to an interview with Roberts about his book I mentioned.

Stalin’s Wars: An Interview with Professor Geoffrey Roberts (http://www.hnn.us/articles/93055.html)

[ComradeOm]

I'm glad to see Glantz mentioned. His works are dry but essential to understanding the Red Army's performance in the war


For all you military-history buffs out there, how was the performance of the Red Army versus the German one?This post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2622027&postcount=378) (and this one (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2300987&postcount=126)) is probably useful on the immediate German victories and the collapse of the Red Army during Barbarossa. On the specific questions:


I see a lot of fascists on the internet complain that the Red Army won by sheer numbers alone...False. After the annihilation of the Red Army in 1941 it wasn't until 1945 (possibly late 1944) that they regained a numerical advantage. Both sides were relatively evenly matched in terms of numbers, although the Soviets did generally have an advantage in guns and armour. What gives rise to this image of endless hordes of Soviet infantry is a combination of both historical prejudices and Soviet skill in stealthily shuffling units along the front to create local superiorities


...and when it came to quality they were completely inferior to the NazisInferior, yes but then so was everyone. For all the mythologising of the Wehrmacht there is no question that it was the most effective fighting force of WWII

That said, the Red Army was operating off a modern doctrinal base and with advanced weaponry. By the late stages of the war they were pulling off Blitzkrieg-esque (to simplify) manoeuvres of a much greater scale and complexity than anything the Germans had ever tried

[Invader Zim]

Yes the numbers claim just doesn't add up. As Richard Overy notes, in the important campaigning of the Summer of 1942 the Soviet forces numbered 5.5 million to 6 million Germans. In the south, where the Germans launched an offensive of a quarter of a million men, 740 tanks and 1,200 aircraft, the Soviets had only 187,000 men, 360 tanks and 330 aircraft. This was one of the reasons the German's made such rapid gains in that region until they were halted at the edge of the Caucasus mountains. (Overy, Why the Allies Won, p. 79).

If you're interested in a good introductory work, I would steer clear of Glantz, whose work is as heavy going as it gets. Instead, pick up Richard Overy's Why the Allies Won. Its a really first class primer, then move onto the heavier works when you have a more advanced understanding.