Is the reason the Soviets lost 30 million people in WW2 due to military ineptness and corruption?

[Borealis]

The Germans were occupying most of Europe and at one point fighting a two front war. But before this they managed to kill 10s of millions of Russians. I don’t know how that’s possible, unless the Russians at the time were the then equivalent of a massive 3rd world army. In other words inefficient and corrupt and only buoyed up by large numbers.

[The Lawspeaker]

Well, yes. Stalin had just offed much of his military cadre back in '36...

[justTosee]

Stalin was uninformed and even too naive to believe at the Ribbentrop pact.

That's why the russians lost so much.

[justTosee]

and of course, you have the two most illiterate anti-eastern subanimals together in this thread

The LOWspeaker and his dirty pet animal broly

[The Lawspeaker]

and of course, you have the two most illiterate anti-eastern subanimals together in this thread

The LOWspeaker and his dirty pet animal broly

Here you go. And not just once too but also during the war. Stalin is the reason why the Soviets lost in 1939-1940 and why the Soviets were hammered particularly hard between 1941 and 1943. Stalin's ineptitude not just opened the Soviets up to being invaded themselves in 1941 but also to the near- demise of his armed forces in the years leading up to the invasion: you need more than just tanks and aircraft to fight a war. He had pretty much offed his entire top brass (and with that the whole educated class of military theoreticians which left the Soviet Army of 1939-1942 dangerously unable to face any form of real organised opposition - as particularly seen in Finland and in the first months of 1941 and the spring and summer of 1942) and appointed some political yes-men in their place and the results are there for all to see. Deal with it, lad.

[justTosee]

Here you go. And not just once too but also during the war. Stalin is the reason why the Soviets lost in 1939-1940 and why the Soviets were hammered particularly hard between 1941 and 1943. Stalin's ineptitude not just opened the Soviets up to being invaded themselves in 1941 but also to their own military (as shown in Finland) and political incompetence (Molotov-Ribbentrop) which led up to the invasion. He had pretty much offed his entire top brass and appointed some political yes-men in their place and the results are there for all to see. Deal with it, lad.

That could have been prevented if only Stalin had listened to his advisers and informers. The issue of the war as already clear between the nazis and the soviets (far to unbalanced even). He could have mitigated the advance by upgrading/reorganizing the army more efficiently, and so reducing the casualties.

Instead, he firmly believed that they would never reach as far as Moscow, of even conquer a such a large country as Russia. We all know the rest then.

[The Lawspeaker]

That could have been prevented if only Stalin had listened to his advisers and informers. The issue of the war as already clear between the nazis and the soviets (far to unbalanced even). He could have mitigated the advance by upgrading/reorganizing the army more efficiently, and so reducing the casualties.

Instead, he firmly believed that they would never reach as far as Moscow, of even conquer a such a large country as Russia. We all know the rest then.

He didn't because he was an incompetent near-psychotic fool himself. He wouldn't even trust his advisers: he pretty much had them all shot. That's what nearly cost you the war. The problem begins and ends with Stalin. Dare I say it ? Literally. As we only need to look at the Kruschev era to see the difference.

[justTosee]

He didn't because he was an incompetent near-psychotic fool himself. He wouldn't even trust his advisers: he pretty much had them all shot. That's what nearly cost you the war. The problem begins and ends with Stalin. Dare I say it ? Literally. As we only need to look at the Kruschev era to see the difference.

and since then with Nato ? No changes at all regarding "their" side.

it is high time to see the bad things also on their side, and not that the Russians, but we all know the manipulation power of the West

[The Lawspeaker]

and since then with Nato ? No changes at all regarding "their" side.

it is high time to see the bad things also on their side, and not that the Russians, but we all know the manipulation power of the West

The difference for the Soviets was the sheer magnitude of Stalin's incompetence and the slightly less heavy hand of the Kruschev era. What you got, was just more institutional corruption. From Stalin's banditry to the current, more traditional, system of Russian banditry where the olicharchs play the role of the old boyars.

[Borealis]

Here you go. And not just once too but also during the war. Stalin is the reason why the Soviets lost in 1939-1940 and why the Soviets were hammered particularly hard between 1941 and 1943. Stalin's ineptitude not just opened the Soviets up to being invaded themselves in 1941 but also to the near- demise of his armed forces in the years leading up to the invasion: you need more than just tanks and aircraft to fight a war. He had pretty much offed his entire top brass (and with that the whole educated class of military theoreticians which left the Soviet Army of 1939-1942 dangerously unable to face any form of real organised opposition - as particularly seen in Finland and in the first months of 1941 and the spring and summer of 1942) and appointed some political yes-men in their place and the results are there for all to see. Deal with it, lad.

This was the worst thing that Stalin did by far. He is responsible for the single largest massacre in history, 27 million innocents killed in 4 years.