3 ms·

That's the good faith interpretation. Then you look at soviet loses vs everyone's else :)

by ajuc 2y ago

the_af 2y ago
Well, the Eastern Front was fought with a savagery unmatched by the other theaters. It was a war of extermination after all. There's no denying the Germans were tactically superior (and the Soviets pretty bad, especially initially, as evidenced by their disastrous performance during the Winter War), just as the Germans were logistically and operationally inferior, especially as the war progressed.
- ajuc 2y ago
  Have everybody else not did that calculation too? Were they all wrong about it and soviets were the only ones who were right it reduces loses overall? We know soviets just pushed people through minefields. We know soviets had huge loses - higher than everybody else. Your reading is that it's unrelated because the guy that did it said so :) For me this is just excuses/trolling exhibiting the typical soviet attitude towards human life. And it's very much related to their higher loses through the wars they fought.
  - the_af 2y ago
    Wait, no. Two different things here. One, this is not a "human wave", are we agreed on this at least? Human wave describes something else. Zhukov describes attacking through minefields as if they weren't there, not running recklessly and getting mowed down in waves. They actually took cover, advanced tactically, etc; they just ignored minefields. Two, their higher losses were mostly due to tactical incompetence in relation to the Germans, plus a much more desperate situation (not comparable with anything the Western Allies faced). As for the Allies, did they not consider this tradeoff? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but the tradeoff was different to them. A delay in a Western Allied operation was concerning but had different outcomes for them -- what was at stake was different. A delay in a Soviet operation had vastly more disastrous and costlier consequences (in lives). So what is the alternative? Take a very careful and time-wasting approach to minefields, such as wasting lots of time to disable them while avoiding hostile artillery and MG fire, or avoiding that avenue of approach entirely? Acceptable to the Allies, but disastrous on the Eastern Front. What do you mean, "trolling"? For decades the accepted thinking on the Eastern Front was what the Germans told the Allies. I call that the ultimate trolling... history as told by the losers! I recommend some reading of Glantz and House, both renowned military historians, both retired American vets, both expert on the Eastern Front.
    - ajuc 2y ago
      > Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but the tradeoff was different to them Yes. Because they don't value human life as much. That's the point. > What do you mean, "trolling"? Taking pride in shocking westerners with your recklessness. > A delay in a Soviet operation had vastly more disastrous and costlier consequences (in lives). Notice how when it was politically beneficial - soviets waited for over a month on Vistula river bank while on the other bank Polish resistance was securing passage and fighting Germans.
      - the_af 2y ago
        > Yes. Because they don't value human life as much. That's the point. No, that's begging the question. I'm providing a different interpretation than yours, based on reading experts on the Eastern Front. I explained the tradeoffs, and I know you read my explanations. You cannot simply ignore them. As an aside, in my opinion you're implicitly making an entirely unsupported assertion: that most of those lopsided Soviet infantry deaths were caused by minefields (since you provided it as an example). Unless you can support this with some references, I'll be skeptical... especially since it contradicts the stated opinion of someone who actually was there to win the war: Zhukov. > [re: "trolling"] Taking pride in shocking westerners with your recklessness. I'm sorry, who do you think is/was "taking pride in shocking westerners"? Zhukov was reckless in order to shock westerners? I don't follow what you're saying at all. > Notice how when it was politically beneficial - soviets waited for over a month on Vistula river bank while on the other bank Polish resistance was securing passage and fighting Germans. It was politically and strategically beneficial from the Soviet point of view, yes. That uprising was discouraged by the Soviets and it wasn't a Soviet-led operation, so it doesn't seem to have much to do with those alleged "human wave attacks" or "not valuing human life". Can it be criticized from other points of view? Sure, but it doesn't support your main point.

That's the good faith interpretation. Then you look at soviet loses vs everyone's else :)

by ajuc 2y ago

That's the good faith interpretation. Then you look at soviet loses vs everyone's else :)

Well, the Eastern Front was fought with a savagery unmatched by the other theaters. It was a war of extermination after all. There's no denying the Germans were tactically superior (and the Soviets pretty bad, especially initially, as evidenced by their disastrous performance during the Winter War), just as the Germans were logistically and operationally inferior, especially as the war progressed.

ajuc 2y ago
Have everybody else not did that calculation too? Were they all wrong about it and soviets were the only ones who were right it reduces loses overall? We know soviets just pushed people through minefields. We know soviets had huge loses - higher than everybody else. Your reading is that it's unrelated because the guy that did it said so :) For me this is just excuses/trolling exhibiting the typical soviet attitude towards human life. And it's very much related to their higher loses through the wars they fought.
- the_af 2y ago
  Wait, no. Two different things here. One, this is not a "human wave", are we agreed on this at least? Human wave describes something else. Zhukov describes attacking through minefields as if they weren't there, not running recklessly and getting mowed down in waves. They actually took cover, advanced tactically, etc; they just ignored minefields. Two, their higher losses were mostly due to tactical incompetence in relation to the Germans, plus a much more desperate situation (not comparable with anything the Western Allies faced). As for the Allies, did they not consider this tradeoff? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but the tradeoff was different to them. A delay in a Western Allied operation was concerning but had different outcomes for them -- what was at stake was different. A delay in a Soviet operation had vastly more disastrous and costlier consequences (in lives). So what is the alternative? Take a very careful and time-wasting approach to minefields, such as wasting lots of time to disable them while avoiding hostile artillery and MG fire, or avoiding that avenue of approach entirely? Acceptable to the Allies, but disastrous on the Eastern Front. What do you mean, "trolling"? For decades the accepted thinking on the Eastern Front was what the Germans told the Allies. I call that the ultimate trolling... history as told by the losers! I recommend some reading of Glantz and House, both renowned military historians, both retired American vets, both expert on the Eastern Front.
  - ajuc 2y ago
    > Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but the tradeoff was different to them Yes. Because they don't value human life as much. That's the point. > What do you mean, "trolling"? Taking pride in shocking westerners with your recklessness. > A delay in a Soviet operation had vastly more disastrous and costlier consequences (in lives). Notice how when it was politically beneficial - soviets waited for over a month on Vistula river bank while on the other bank Polish resistance was securing passage and fighting Germans.
    - the_af 2y ago
      > Yes. Because they don't value human life as much. That's the point. No, that's begging the question. I'm providing a different interpretation than yours, based on reading experts on the Eastern Front. I explained the tradeoffs, and I know you read my explanations. You cannot simply ignore them. As an aside, in my opinion you're implicitly making an entirely unsupported assertion: that most of those lopsided Soviet infantry deaths were caused by minefields (since you provided it as an example). Unless you can support this with some references, I'll be skeptical... especially since it contradicts the stated opinion of someone who actually was there to win the war: Zhukov. > [re: "trolling"] Taking pride in shocking westerners with your recklessness. I'm sorry, who do you think is/was "taking pride in shocking westerners"? Zhukov was reckless in order to shock westerners? I don't follow what you're saying at all. > Notice how when it was politically beneficial - soviets waited for over a month on Vistula river bank while on the other bank Polish resistance was securing passage and fighting Germans. It was politically and strategically beneficial from the Soviet point of view, yes. That uprising was discouraged by the Soviets and it wasn't a Soviet-led operation, so it doesn't seem to have much to do with those alleged "human wave attacks" or "not valuing human life". Can it be criticized from other points of view? Sure, but it doesn't support your main point.